Talk:Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy

message: There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with  MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included".
Secondly, Tamilan101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.
Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.47.97 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article - Edit Conflict 

message: Is there a reason for writing Sri Vikrama Rajasinha's name in Tamil too? It is the same as written in English. Do the Tamil readers of this English Wikipedia find it hard to read his name in English? Writing the name of the Kandyan kingdom in Tamil is alright, because it is different in Tamil than in both Sinhala and English. Sri Vikrama was ofcourse king for all Sri Lankans, so he was important for the Tamil people too, especially since the most of the north and whole of the eastern province of the island was also under the Kandyan kingdom. Also the Kandyan kingdom, which was the continuation of the Sinhalese monarchy from Vijaya's line was important for all Sri Lankans. But he was not a Sri Lankan Tamil or Tamil of any sort, but a Sinhalese Buddhist king with Telugu (i.e Andhra) ancestry. (He adopted Buddhism long before his coronation). Are we write his name in Sinhala and Telugu as well?  SriSuren (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tamil and the English names for the king is the same, therefore there is no need to write it using the Tamil alphabet. I suppose everybody reading the English Wikipedia, can read English. Avoid unnecessary lengthening of the article, and laying unnecessary weight on the language the king supposedly spoke. The Kandyan kingdom was a Sinhalese kingdom, and the king most definitely spoke Sinhalese. Also if you are going to write the name in Tamil, according to Wikipedia rules you have to give the transliation, which ofcourse is the same as English. Sri Wikrama Rajasinhe was born in Kandy and his father was Pillimatalavuva according to some scholars, so that makes him a Sinhalese. I'll be adding this information and other information soon. The references you have given for your last edit are TOTALY unreliable, and therefore your edits are undone. See section below for reasons. --SriSuren (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Vikrama Rajasinghe's name in Tamil 

message: Let me start by saying that I've been known to have removed honorifics in the past, including 'siri', hopefully always according to our guidelines. I'll also point out that MOS:HONORIFIC is not a policy but a guideline, while WP:NCIN isn't even a guideline, it is a proposed guideline. On the other hand, WP:ARTICLE titles is a policy although WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is a guideline and as it says on that page, guidelines are " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
Having said that, it's clear that there is no consensus here and there are seven people involved, which is a reasonable number for an article such as this one (although one IP hasn't edited anything else and the other also only has a handful of edits, but they cancel each other out in any case).
Based on that, my finding would be that it should be restored to its original title.
But my role is also to examine applicable policies and guidelines to make sure that they aren't being egregiously violated by such a decision.
It's clear that we can in some exceptions use honorifics. Search results should always be taken with a very large bucketful of sand, but they haven't been challenged and my own search turns up the same findings.
For these reasons my finding is that the article should be returned to its original name Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy. 
I also must note that I find some of the language used by SriSuren unconstructive and unfortunate. So far as I can see everyone here has acted in good faith and comments on other editors could have just inflamed the discussion. I'm very pleased that didn't happen,
I now have to go take our dogs to the vets for their injections, and when I return (after walking them, etc) I'll hat this and do the move. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this. Thanks, FINALLY. About my language: Sorry if I had used "strong" formulations at times to stress my point.  But the frustration of being bombarded with irrelevant arguments and editors presenting fake policies (I am refering to "We do not use honourifics for non-western rulers", by Pharaoh of the Wizards ), make people react the way I have done. Also the use of "WE" is quite unnecessary when we are all just editors and not owners of Wikipedia or some kind of special policy makers at Wikipedia. I think you should also clearly give a word of caution to editors who present their own views as Wikipedia policies, eg. Pharaoh of the Wizards's invention of a Wikipedia policy, that is not acting in good faith at all.  I hardly ever use sophicated language when discussing, so all the editors who have participated here, please excuse me, if my language is "strong". By the way, hope your pups/dogs are doing fine, and thanks again for ending this discussion. I do not expect any more comments on my post, I am just happy to be heard, finally.  --SriSuren (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you  Dougweller for closing for it with a clear explanation . Just to clarify We I meant here was the entire English Wikipedia community if the expression was wrong I apologize.I have no edits in this article  and I only put my view for a requested move like I did for this . My statement was based only after quoting this section Names and titles outside the West  which is part of WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) in addition what User:Labattblueboy said  regarding non use of honorifics for non Western rulers .I am surprised by your comment that I invented it .I leave it there as this not WP:NOTAFORUM .I further WP:AGF to you and sincerely apologize to you if I lacked clarity in my comments . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing statement by uninvolved administrator

message: Recent edits by SriSuren are not explained on this talk page. The article was already agreed upon and stable before these edits.  and his behaviour of disrupting the article by asking for protection logs when proof is asked for some claims is very inappropriate. You have not contributed to this article in any way whatsoever, but you have the nerve to ask for protections logs as if you have done editing? My reasons for reverting to the stable version is because it was perfectly fine where the introduction has given the reader considerable insight to the king's background, language and as well what kind of kingdom he conquered.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamilan101, you are edit-warring against at least three other editors, and if you continue you will be blocked. If you believe they are wrong and you are right, then discuss *the content* here, rather than discussing the behaviour of other people, and try to get a consensus to support you. And if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that, follow the steps described at WP:DR. Endlessly reverting to your preferred version against a number of other editors is guaranteed not to get you what you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits and edit war created by SriSuren and disruption on article by Blackknight12