Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sri Lanka Armed Forces at the Reference desk.

Sri Lanka High‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation articles

Military history: National / Asian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

extra information

http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo

Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag

File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This

link to peace keeper scandal full article

@Cossde:, please see MOS:UNDERLINK

"In general, links should be created for:

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."

This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Wikipedia policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. Oz346 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a controversial addition, the above RFC as concluded it as it is. You are going beyond it. Cossde (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. Oz346 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change, because it makes no sense. Does every edit need to be approved by rfc to be added? I'm going to third opinion now, because you still have not provided an adequate reason for removal of the link, and it is clear we have now reached an impasse, as you refuse to budge from your position. I could not assume that you would still disagree. Before going to third opinion, there needs to be a talk page discussion. Oz346 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with your view on the matter, I will respect it and let this stand. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References