Talk:Sri Lanka

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Sri Lanka/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Sri Lanka, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight.

Please show prices in this format: Rs 100 and not Rupees 100, 100 LKR, or 100 රු..

Please use British spelling (colour, travelled, centre, realise, analogue, programme, defence).


Cities[edit]

Please note that according to wikivoyage policy, there should be a maximum of 9 of the cities of most interest to travelers listed on a page. Other, less important places, should be listed under their regional sections. Thanks. (WT-en) WindHorse 20 Feb 06

Department Stores[edit]

I have deleted the details of ODEL department store, as it sounded more like an advertisement of the same. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.99.197.2 (talk • contribs)

summary in South Asia[edit]

What is the most descriptive summary we can give for Sri Lanka in South Asia article? Right now it's

> Sri Lanka - pearl of the Orient

and it says nothing about the place, not to mention it's boring.

How does the country stands out among its neighbors? What is the main thing making it different and unique? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I just saw this, when you google 'pearl of the orient', Manila, Hong Kong, and Singapore show up, but never Sri Lanka! I'm going to remove that epithet. Sgroey (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it's quite advertised that locally on paper, probably because of how Sri Lanka is shaped. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what applies to Sri Lanka from India article[edit]

As Sri Lanka have some history of connection with India, I thought it is important to know what from India article can be applied to Sri Lanka as well.

I am not very knowledgeable on both, so this is an amateur hypothesis of what in India looks to be applicable to Sri Lanka:

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

The reason for this is to have a reliable source of info we can easily copyedit from. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Towns[edit]

Wikivoyage does not have a "towns" section: we list only major cities and major points of interest. Please move these to the appropriate region articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)

but it should never be a surprise without permission.[edit]

?

Northern (Sri Lanka) vs Northern Sri Lanka[edit]

In order to avoid the annoying parenthesis, can we change the directions to either Northern Sri Lanka, Southern Sri Lanka, etc.? If not, I would then prefer to use Northern Province or even Northern Province (Sri Lanka) to use the official names and make our divisions seem less arbitrary. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:57, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Regions[edit]

Roughly defined

Currently the region list based on official administrative areas but to a travellers point of view, 9 sub-regions are too much. I would suggest to reduce to maximum 5. Probably South, North, West, East and Central. I've travelled to Sri Lanka many times and this region-list would make sense. Any objection? --Saqib (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current region list seems fine to me as it easily covers World Heritage Sites such as Kandy, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Sigiriya, Dambulla, Nuwara Eliya and Galle, and tourist attractive places such as Trincomalee, Batticaloa, Jaffna & Ampara. Otherwise, highlighting important/top 10 or 12 places would be ideal.--AntanO (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that what about decreasing currently 9 sub-regions to maximum 5. --Saqib (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would ideal if there is similar map, which could indicate the region while mentioning the administrative areas. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia and we usually breakdown the regions which are best to a travellers point of view. Our defined regions are based on the convenience and expectations of travellers. Looking from a traveller point of view, the 9 official provinces of Sri Lanka not make good sense. --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in saying that we approach the division into regions according to what works best for the traveller, Saqib. Do these provinces have a long history? Do most people in Sri Lanka know the existing provincial boundaries? Are the boundaries well marked on the ground? Do the visitor information facilities use the existing provincial boundaries? Do the existing provincial boundaries follow geographical features or cultural divisions? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far I know. No! --Saqib (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the provincial boundaries go back 180 years or so. I think I'll leave it to some Sri Lankans to explain the rest of it to you... --118.93nzp (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood. Yes, even though most of the provinces were created long before but for a traveller, these 9 provinces are not very useful. Obviously a Sri Lankan traveller will know the boundaries of their provinces but a non-Sri Lankan traveller will not. I've travelled many times to Sri Lanka and and recently last year in August, frankly speaking these provinces were not useful for me. Other than that, 9 sub-regions are too much for a country such a small in size as Sri Lanka. --Saqib (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think we can agree Saqib's idea. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 08:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anton. I think I should plunge forward and merge the the articles as proposed above soon. Btw, your suggestions and comments for improvement of Travel photography article will still be very appreciated. --Saqib (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard choice, they both seem fairly good. I slightly prefer the first as it's a little more epic and awe-inspiring. James A ▪ talk 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one. I'd flip it horizontally though if it is not a major landmark. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both are beautiful. I'd favor keeping the current banner, but I would like for the source image of the new banner to also be used in this or another appropriate article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new one better. The smudge on the right side of the current banner is not pretty. Danapit (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photographic quality of the proposed one is certainly better, but I prefer the original as a destination banner --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a smudge, just an overexposure, and in this case, I think it arguably is an artistic effect. I don't find it ugly, in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Syced (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombings[edit]

Multiple co-ordinated attacks, several at Catholic churches: Over 100 dead, 500 injured. CNN NY Times. Do we need a warining? Pashley (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've usually mentioned major terrorist attacks in a warning box in the Stay safe section. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time formatting[edit]

@Arepticous: Which is most common in the Philippines: the 12-hour clock (e.g., noon-2PM and 6PM-midnight), or the 24-hour clock (e.g., 12:00-14:00 and 18:00-00:00)? Thanks, Ground Zero (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC) @Ground Zero:[reply]

Sinhala language version of this page[edit]

I wonder what steps we need to follow to get the Sinhala language page https://si.wikivoyage.org/wiki/ශ්‍රී_ලංකාව that corresponds Sinhala version of this page. Any pointers are highly appreciated --NandanaM (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo of a currency, so I don't think we're allowed to have this one. Thankfully, this deletion nomination was opened in March 31 so it's likely that this won't be closed anytime soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "not allowed"? It's not fair use to have images of currency on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest. Would defer to you and LPfi. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Over here, and probably elsewhere, the central banks try to have control over images of banknotes, being afraid of forgeries. Mostly this is totally irrational: anybody can take a photo of a banknote, having it at Commons helps little (scaling the Commons copy is more difficult than getting a good photocopy), and often the legal restrictions are non-copyright restrictions, which might not apply at Commons. To close "loopholes" they often are very vague about what legislation they have as basis for their claims on reproduction being subject to their conditions. This means anybody will need to do their own research, unless the legal situation is described at Commons. –LPfi (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there seems to be simple copyright as reason for deletion, and I think there is nothing unclear about that. Commons isn't very interested about non-copyright restrictions, which might stop us from using the image. Check the rules on the central bank website, and if they seem to allow us using it, as fair use or otherwise, then no problem, otherwise research is needed. LPfi (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that there's a copyright problem with the photo itself? The nomination for deletion was on the basis laid out here:
'The government works that are excepted from copyright are only "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof" (Intellectual Property Act, No. 36 of 2003, at Section 8B), so it is assumed that banknotes and coins are protected and not appropriate for Commons.'
"It is assumed" is probably good reasoning for Commons, where the photos are by themselves, but why do we want to engage in negative assumptions about what we can use in context? I would suggest to you that if the government of Sri Lanka has a problem with a picture of currency on a Wikivoyage article, they could post a request to remove it. I doubt they would. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with currency is that there often are non-copyright restrictions on such images. Commons has no interest in them as the banknotes are non-free because of copyright (I assume). We can use the file under fair use provisions of US law, but that is no defence in front of a Sri Lankan court. We can ignore the risk, either assuming that the use is legal also there or that nobody will get sued anyway (although I don't think counterfeit charges are of the cease and desist nature), or do some research to make sure there is no legal risk. –LPfi (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. OK, so we'll have to just let the photo be deleted, unless someone else does that research, because I don't have the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been deleted now, and I've just removed the photo. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival card[edit]

Should we mention that the arrival card can be filled online, after the ETA section? https://eservices.immigration.gov.lk/emb/eEmbarkation/'#/home-page --SRChiP

Go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lanka&oldid=4821746"