Jump to content

Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion of List to Table

[edit]

In order to bring this into accordance with WP's standards for List of Alumni I am commencing a conversion of the list into a table. This includes the removal of all honorifics (as per WP:MOS), they can be found on their individual articles and identifying the primary reason for the subjects notability (as per WP:ALUMNI). Dan arndt (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this list in accordance with WP standards and removing honorifics is ok. But you have removed referenced entries from the list without any prior discussion. What is the policy you are following to make this secondary school alumni list into a table ? It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. --LahiruG talk 08:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Converting it into a table makes it more readable and able to be easily sorted. It also makes it clearer as to the rationale for why an individual is notable. I have taken my lead for a number of alumni lists which have been identified as 'featured list', which is what all list should be aiming for (such as List of United States Naval Academy alumni and List of Benet Academy alumni. If there are any notable individuals that you feel that I have unfairaly deleted please identify them rather then reverting the article back to a long unreadable list. Dan arndt (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Converting into a table may be more readable in complex situations, but for a secondary school alumni list with simple information it is totally unnecessary, see List of Old Etonians born in the 20th century for an example. In addition to that the Sri Lankan secondary schools do not offer degrees, hence providing the name of alumnus and his notability as in the list of Etonians, is adequate in this case too. --LahiruG talk 09:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Old Etonians born in the 20th century is a poor example as it too has been tagged as the article doesn't follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. As does the list that you continue to revert back to. There are other examples of featured lists for secondary schools apart from Benet Academy such as List of Boston Latin School alumni, so I don't see how your argument that Sri Lankan schools are in any way different from other schools. Dan arndt (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you give a try to change the list of Etonians into a table first ???? Anyway there's no such policy to convert lists into a table in WP as per my knowledge, hence as an user who has been involved in editing this list for a long time I don't see any need for this meaningless conversion, unless you provide the WP policy for it. --LahiruG talk 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated below - the issue with a table or list is irrelevant. What I can't understand is your rationale for continually trying to include non-notable individuals and nominal in the article, contrary to WP policies. Dan arndt (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are going out of the point, why is that? I have not tried to include non notable alumni here (See the revision history of the page for more details). If there are non notable entries then anyone can remove them as per WP policies. But you have removed names of notable alumnus too, in guise of removing non notables. In addition to that you have also failed to provide a valid reason for your conversion of this list into a table? --LahiruG talk 10:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've commented earlier the conversion of the table to a list is to ensure that it is more readable and that an individual is able to understand why an individual is notable. This is the standard and best practice for lists of alumni (as per the examples above). I don't believe that I have removed notable alumni and am happy for you to point out which of those alumni that I haven't included are notable, in accordance with WP:NPEOPLE. I also indicated that there are a number of individuals that are potentially notable but do not have an article that I haven't deleted rather I have made them hidden until such time as their notability can be verified. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LahiruG would you prefer that I leave the table and just delete all the non notable alumni that are listed within it? 10:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NLIST, which is a part of our notability guidelines for people, says that people may not be included on a list must "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." As such I have been removing every name on this list that is does not have a Wikipedia article. Technically, I should check all of the Wikipedia articles, too, to make sure they have a source verifying the people are on this list, but for now I want to just get rid of the most obvious problems.Dan arndt (talk)

Explain to me how the following individuals are notable (and why you keep on trying to re-include them):
Dan arndt (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:LISTBIO and Wikipedia:ALMAMATER|Wikipedia:Namechecking, which states "inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by WP's notability criteria. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group. For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have asked me to explain above why I am trying to include a group of people given above in to this list as notable alumni. Can you show me the revision that this specific group was entered by me in to this list in revision history ? When a user called David Monroe removed a chunk of this list stating they are non notable, did I object him? Your accusation really dumbfounded me. But when you make significant changes to a page that stood out for sometime in WP, the widely accepted practice is to notify the proposed changes in its talk page. You have not done so and you have to accept it? For an example you have made vast changes to the List of Royal College Colombo alumni, but did you notify user:Cossde or any other user who was involved in editing that page for many years, in the talk page? The answer is NO. You may have done thousands of contributions to WP but you have to be polite and respectful towards the editors who have done lesser number of contributions. IMO you don't respect or care any local Sri Lankan Wikipedians.
I have given you a perfect example from List of Old Etonians born in the 20th century, why it is not necessary to tabulate an alumni of a secondary school. In addition I also don't think that each and every entry in a notable alumni list should have a separate page in WP to include it in a list ( See this example from your home town school Applecross Senior High School#Notable alumni). To include the name of a vice chancellor of a university or a major general in a Army to an alumni list, a separate WP page is not required. If you have any doubt about such a entry in a list you can use the talk page to remove or include it after a discussion. I have explained my stance here, and i firmly believe that keeping it as a simple list will encourage more users/readers, particularly the ones who are not well versed with wiki-markup to contribute and expand it to make it better. If you still don't agree with me then we may have to go to a dispute resolution to solve this issue, which is not required imo. --LahiruG talk 05:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LahiruG, I'm not going to get involved in what is obviously a personal dispute that you have with Obi2canibe. I would however like to try and resolve to issues that I see are pertinent to this debate/discussion. The first relates to the use of a table as opposed to a list and the second relates to the inclusion of notable individuals.
  1. The reason that I am proposing to convert this list to a table is simply because I believe that a table is more accessible means of understand the information. This is why Featured Lists are all tabulated/sortable tables not lists, particularly when the list has over 80 entries. I agree that there is no need for including a column for year/degree as Sri Lankan colleges do not confer degrees and based on my research it is hard (if not impossible) to find reliable information on what dates an individual attended the school.
  2. The inclusion of only notable individuals within the table/list. WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly indicates that the list should be limited to individuals who are either notable, or would only fail notability because of WP:BLP1E. Which is why (if you look carefully at my edits) I haven't deleted any politicians, vice-chancellors or major generals, even if there is no existing article for them. I have hidden the entries but they were still there (maybe that was a mistake) as you've obviously assumed that they had been deleted. I don't have any issue with them being included (if that satisfies you) as a 'redlink' on the basis that it may generate an editor to in fact create an article in the future for them. There are however a large number of alumni which in your reverts are still listed which are highly unlikely to ever be notable. If we can proceed on that basis I am happy to discuss their inclusion or exclusion.
Hopefully you'll consider the above as a way of moving forward on this issue. Dan arndt (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are pros and cons when using a table. In this case use of tables restricts the use of this page to WP users who use Laptops or desktop computers. People who use mobile phones and other instruments such as tabs will find it difficult to view due to technical restrictions in WP format. You are suggesting to move this from a simple more user friendly format to a lesser user friendly format which will complex things to a certain group of users. The other disadvantage is that the users who have added most entries in to this list are IP users who will be discouraged to contribute after its conversion in to a table. IMO most of the IP users who have contributed to this page are elders who are not very thorough with using computer languages / wiki markup. So my view is keeping this as a simple list will support its development more.
  • As mentioned in my previous comment I have not objected the removal of non-notable alumni and given the edit of David Monroe as the example. Personally I don't like to create WP pages for individuals (even if they satisfy Notability criteria) only for the sake of including them in an alumni list. Ihave also given the example of Applecross Senior High School#Notable alumni) for the inclusion of names who don't have individual pages in WP. Inclusion or removal of those names should be decided after some discussion at the talk page. In my opinion it's a better way to resolve this issue rather than going for a dispute resolution. --LahiruG talk 10:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In respect to your comments regarding Applecross Senior High School#Notable alumni, I've never said that whether an individual has a separate WP article is the sole rationale as whether they should be included on an alumni list or not. As per WP:LISTPEOPLE the criteria should be limited to individuals who are either notable, or would only fail notability because of WP:BLP1E. In regard to the Applecross SHS there is probably only two alumni listed that are questionable - Tonya McCusker and Jennifer Harrison. Unfortunately there is only one of me.... and I try and avoid articles where there maybe a perceived COI, not that I attended Applecross SHS. Dan arndt (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LahiruG: Dan arndt does not need a policy to convert the contents into tables or give his reasoning, he was being WP:BOLD. There are currently two school alumni articles which are categorised as WP:FL - List of Boston Latin School alumni and List of Benet Academy alumni. Both use tables. I have found that most WP:FL use tables. So there is no issue with this list being converted into tables. I do agree with you that the "Year/degree" column is unnecessary. Although schools don't award degrees this column could contain the year the subject left the school (graduated in American terms) but it very unlikely that this information could be sourced for most entries so it would better if the column were completely removed.

There are many Sri Lankan alumni lists on Wikipedia but almost all them, including this article, fail key content policy WP:V and in particular WP:LISTBIO and WP:ALUMNI. Dan arndt has been steadily going through the alumni lists and brining them up to standard. Prior to Dan arndt's recent edits this article (this version) contained numerous entries which weren't referenced and several entries which did not meet notability guidelines. You have stated that notable entries were removed but you failed to provide details.

You are exhibiting signs of WP:OWNERSHIP - beligerent attitude, eight WP:REVERT without any attempt to address the issue. Anyone can edit this article, they don't need to start a discussion, provide rationale or get your permission.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It 's really funny to see your comment above. The WP editor who think that he owns all the pages pages related to Sri Lankan civil war and extremist Tamil Tigers, is preaching me about WP:OWNERSHIP. I have edited wikipedia for sometime now, your above comment is one of the funniest I have came across during that period. User:Obi2canibe is preaching some one about WP:OWNERSHIP. oh dear, it is similar to ISIS preaching Loving Kindness to others. Your involvement in this discussion is solely based on your rivalry with me on editing Sri Lankan war related articles, nothing else.
No one needs my permission to edit this article (see diff), as it is the case with the articles you are interested in editing. There's no point in wasting time with a user like you who doesn't care any WP policy or rationale to push your POV, which is evident by the last para of your comment. Your recent edits in Sri Lanka Matha and your effort to make an Indian musician who doesn't know a single Sinhalese word, the author of Sri Lankan national anthem written in Sinhalese reveals it all (diff). It is a pefect example for your beahavior in WP. You shouldn't throw stones at others, because you live in a glass house ! --LahiruG talk 06:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LahiruG: Putting aside your personal/off-topic comments, you are not grasping the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Expecting editors to notify major contributors is nothing more than assigning WP:OWNERSHIP. I have reviewed every entry on this article and found the following.
Entries, which have no articles of their own, having no in line references to verify their notability or that they attended Mahinda: 1. Jayadeva Tilakasiri; 2. Kithsiri Nimal Shantha; 3. I. W. Senanayake; 4. Asoka Chandrasoma Wijesurendra; 5. D. P. Wijenarayana; and 6. H. L. K. Caldera.
Entries, which do have articles of their own, having no in line references, either in this article or in their own article, to verify that they attended Mahinda: 7. H. W. Amarasuriya; 8. S. A. Wickramasinghe; 9. W. D. S. Abeygoonawardena; 10. Rupa Karunathilake (x2); 11. Vajira Abeywardena; 12. Lionel Premasiri; 13. Wijaya Dahanayake; 14. Nishantha Muthuhettigamage; 15. Mitirigala Dhammanisanthi Thera/Asoka Weeraratna (x2); 16. Lucky Wijayaratne; 17. Basil Gunasekara; 18. Dandeniya Hemachandra de Silva; 19. Stanley de Silva; 20. Athula Samarasekera; 21. Jayananda Warnaweera; 22. Upul Chandana; 23. Rumesh Buddika; 24. Dhamma Jagoda; 25. Vimukthi Jayasundara; 26. D. B. Dhanapala; 27. Saman Weerasinghe; and 28. A. T. Ariyaratne.
Entries, which have no articles of their own, not meeting automatic notability criteria (such as WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MILPEOPLE) and having insufficient in line references have been provided to show that they meet WP:ANYBIO: 29. M. T. M. Jiffry; 30. Lal Kumara Gamage; 31. W. B. Bennett; 32. Somasiri Ambawatte; 33. Kosala Sahabandu; 34. Vinee Vitharana; 35. Jinidasa Vijayatunga; 36. A. G. S. Kariyawasam; 37. Justin Wijayawardhena; 38. Kithsiri Nimal Shantha; 39. G. W. Surendra; 40. Buddhi Wickrama; 41. Sundara Nihathamani De Mel; 42. Sena Yaddehige; 43. Jayantha Prem Karunaratne; 44. I. W. Senanayake; 45. Albert Edirisinghe; 46. Kumar Samarasinghe; 47. K. L. S. Sahabandu; 48. Asoka Chandrasoma Wijesurendra; 49. Anil Jasinghe; 50. Palitha Kumarasinghe; 51. Ananda Wijesekera; 52. D. P. Wijenarayana; and 53. L. W. N. Labutale.
Therefore all of the above entries violate WP:LISTBIO and WP:ALUMNI and any editor may remove them from this article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussions with other editors I have updated the list of alumni. I have left the following redlinks on the list on the basis that the individuals are notable & in the hope that articles will be created for them. However they maybe deleted in the future if no verifiable sources can be found confirming their notability and attendance at Mahinda College. They are:

There maybe other alumni that meet the criteria and these can be added as evidence of their notability and attendance is established. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Thanks for your efforts. All of the above are notable but we must have WP:RS, either here or in their own articles, to show that they attended Mahinda. Otherwise they must be removed from this list.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: - fully agree with your comments above. Am really struggling to find sufficient sources to substantiate some of the above. Dan arndt (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actions

[edit]

@LahiruG:, @Obi2canibe: as indicated earlier I am going to proceed with the conversion of the list to a table. As previously stated I believe that a table is more accessible means of understand the information, which is why Featured Lists are all tabulated/sortable tables not lists, particularly in this case as the list has over 80 entries. I am not including a column for year/degree as Sri Lankan colleges do not confer degrees and based on my research it is hard (if not impossible) to find reliable information on what dates an individual attended the school. In response to previous objections I have checked how it appears on both an iPhone and an Android phone and it is actually easier to navigate a table than a list. In respect to editing look at the history of the page most of the IP editors in the past appear to have tried to add alumni that fail to satisfy WP:LISTBIO and/or WP: ALUMNI. I don't see converting the list to a table discourages IP editors and the are plenty of experienced editors to would be prepared to assist in adding valid entries. Dan arndt (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Agreed. Although this isn't mandatory, I note that many of the blue links, particularly in the "Sports" section, don't have refs. It would helpful to readers if refs were copied from respective articles to this article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: As I have said earlier, conversion of this list in to a table will make it difficult for the inexperienced editors who are also interested to contribute while it also makes difficult to view when one uses an ordinary smart phone to read this page. Though most of the names added by IPs fail required notability criteria here, we should not forget that considerable amount of the important names in this list were also added by them, if you go through the revision history. As far as I see, conversion of this list will have a negative impact on the users who are not well versed in using wiki-marup, hence this conversion will effect the progress of the page. --LahiruG talk 05:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LahiruG: - I have checked whether there is an accessibility issue when using a smart phone (can show you the screenshots) and there simply isn't an issue - in fact it is easier to view. As to your comments regarding ability for IP editors to edit, that is not a sufficient argument as to why the conversion should not happen. As previously indicated there is more than adequate support available on WP for novice editors. Dan arndt (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: As far as I know there is no policy that directly backs this conversion in WP. Hence I think it is better to go for WP:RFC or WP:DR. --LahiruG talk 06:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LahiruG: As previously stated in my previous comments - any list should always be striving to be a 'Featured List'. The criteria for a 'Featured List', states
  • "Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities."
    • This clearly supports the view that a list should be a table where possible. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt: There's nothing to sort here ? Some sections have only one or two entries, I can't understand its necessity ? And according to my knowledge it is not a compulsory requirement to to be a 'Featured List'. --LahiruG talk 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @LahiruG: What I am working towards is to try and make lists such as these into potential 'Featured Lists', so surely you can understand the need to make something the best it can possibly be rather than being satisfied with something less. Dan arndt (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC) @Obi2canibe: Have referenced all the Sports alumni. Will try and complete the rest but may do so after I have converted this list into a table. Dan arndt (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Dan arndt:. If you are going for WP:FL then you certainly will need references for all entries. And there shouldn't be any red links.
    @Obi2canibe: Am working my way through referencing all entries. BTW FLs can contain redlinks however it is preferable to have articles for all entries.
    Most WP:FL do contain tables but given that this list has relatively few entries it would be better to get rid of the different sections and have one single table (e.g. List of Boston Latin School alumni). Separate tables in different sections are only necessary for lists with very large number of entries (e.g List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford).--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Will have a look at the formatting but you're probably right - one single table might be the way to go. Dan arndt (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Final update

    [edit]

    @LahiruG: - I've probably done as much as I can. I have created articles for those notable alumni where there was adequate reliable sources. I've tried to ensure that all entries are suitably referenced (in may cases I've had to refer to your hard copy source as I can't find any other on the web). There are however only three alumni that I am struggling to make a case for they are:

    There doesn't appear to be sufficient reliable sources that supports their notability and their attendance at Mahinda College. At this stage I am wavering towards leaving them out until sufficient references can be found to support their inclusion. I would appreciate your feedback before I finalise my work on this list. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted your edit to convert this list in to a table as there is no consensus to support you at the talk page or any WP policy. Regarding the above alumni, all of them are notable as two former mayors of main cities, and as the president of UOC. Both D. P. Wijenarayana and M. B. Ariyapala appear in the book "Me Mahinda Shasthra Shala" under the notable alumni. So there can't be any question regarding their inclusion in the list. --LahiruG talk 04:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @LahiruG: If that is the case then they should be referenced as such. I have included verifiable references, in accordance with WP:ALUMNI they I have been able to locate, however there are a number of notable individuals that I haven't been able to demonstrate attended Mahinda College. Can you please include those details against each of the respective alumni. Dan arndt (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt: The names of Wijenarayana and Ariyapala appears to be referenced with RS already. However I will add references to the others who are not referenced with any RS in this page or their respective pages to demonstrate that they have attended Mahinda College. --LahiruG talk 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC about the use of tables as opposed to lists

    [edit]
    OPPOSED
    *Summary: Consensus exists for the use of lists.
    • Reason No support for the proposal except from the proposer. Despite the lack of structure to the discussion, it is clear from a thorough examination of the comments that no consensus for the change exists, and in fact a strong consensus exists to oppose the change. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The list of alumni is currently proposed to be converted into a sortable table. An editor has disagreed with the conversion on the basis that converting it into a table may be more readable in complex situations, but for a secondary school alumni list with simple information it is totally unnecessary. Also stating that in their opinion the use of table restricts access to WP users who use laptops or desktop computers and that people who use mobile phones and other instruments will find it difficult to view due to technical restrictions in WP format. They have also argued that IP users will be discouraged to contribute after its conversion in to a table, as they are not familiar with using computer languages / wiki markup. The counter argument put forward by two other editors is that a table is more accessible means of understanding the information, which is why Featured Lists are all tabulated/sortable tables not lists, particularly in this case as the list has over 80 entries. Despite the comments there isn't an accessibility issue when using a smart phone or tablet and in fact it is easier to view on these devices. In respect to IP editors there is more than adequate support available on WP for novice editors to assist them in editing pages such as this.

    These views are clearly expressed on the article's talkpage however an impasse has been reached where any changes to the article converting it to a sortable table are reverted by the opposing editor, without further justification. Dan arndt (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Convert to list---Per Featured Lists.Whilst that is not a criterion to be definitely met,that's what one should strive for.Further,I see neither any accessibility problem nor any concern of losing editors.And, fairly enough, in the long discussions above, I fail to find much substance in the opinions of the lone opposer.Winged Blades Godric 12:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Per which criteria of WP:FL?, that this list should be convert to a table? If you are referring to criterion number 4, structure, then there should be something to sort in this list. I am afraid there is no such information that is needed to be sorted here. This is very much different to a list which has multiple stats or information such as List of Test cricket triple centuries or List of highest mountains on Earth where some information needs to be sorted to analyse. But here in this list different sub sections are given to make it easy for navigation and most of the sections have very few entries. --LahiruG talk 10:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - have prepared the list of alumni as a sortable table, in order to provide a clear comparison between this list and this table. Dan arndt (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -@Dan arndt: Anyone can understand that the table you have prepared here (without any sub sections) is less user friendlier to the readers as well as editors, when compared with the existing list. What is the value/point of converting this list in to table that has no sub sections, to make it difficult for the users? Since this list is currently arranged in alphabetical order there is no information that is required to sort in this list under different sections. Hence your intention of converting this list in to a sort-able table (sacrificing user friendliness and increasing editing difficulty), seems utterly useless. --LahiruG talk 10:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan arndt:--This doesn't look good.Winged Blades Godric 10:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Winged Blades of Godric: LahiruG's issue is easily solved by introducing subsections. Dan arndt (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dan arndt:- Sub sections have been already there in this list from the beginning. You are well aware about the issue we are discussing here. --LahiruG talk 09:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What's so difficult about editing a table? Hundreds of WP:FL use them.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not new and tables vex me. Wikipedia is supposed to be usable for all with enough skills to access the Internet. Tables are useful when you have numerous identical data points to display on multiple subjects. That is not the case here. You have divergent unrelated data to display on multiple subjects. Varying sorts is not an issue here. So as I said above, the increased difficulty of working around the table markup is not worth it. It only discourages editors with less experience from editing this page. And since articles on schools are frequently a new editor's first foray into editing, it's especially a bad idea here. I doubt an alumni list has the potential to go to FL anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree with the above comment of User:John from Idegon. Alumni lists are a good way of attracting new editors to WP, specially from countries where the first language is not English. Having tables which complicates editing, will surely discourage new contributors. --LahiruG talk 10:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Visually a table is much more easier to read than a list, in that it clearly differentiates between the subject, the reason for notability and whether this is referenced something that the list as currently formatted doesn't do. A list is harder to read on mobile devices than a table. Also it is not that hard to enter new subjects into a table - which is a bit of a fallacy used by some editors to justify their argument. Dan arndt (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a pity these discussions seem to typically between two editors, and the occasional 'outsider' jumps in, may be ignored and the two main protagonists keep conversing down the page. Surely someone should drag out a list and a table from something similar in the united states or the united kingdom and have something outside of this current focus. The conversation becomes stale without looking at examples of both sorts from somewhere else? somewhere else is a very big place... JarrahTree 12:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Dan arndt and myself have given several examples of similar lists which use tables:
    There are many more at WP:FL#College/university alumni, faculty and related people.--Obi2canibe (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on List of Mahinda College alumni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Mahinda_College_alumni&oldid=1202978648"