Talk:2015 in the Philippines

Inclusion criteria

Seeing that other years in the Philippines articles have been plagued by the addition of nonevents such as the deaths of "Despicable Me" characters (WTF?) and various road accidents, it's a good idea to have some standards on what to add here. Here are some suggestions:

1. No traffic or air accidents unless there's an article about it.
2. No blurbs about criminal acts unless there's an article about it.
3. No blurbs about events that recur annually that's always the same every year. For example, the Sinulog and Black Nazarene processions are always the same every year; unlike, say sporting championships which may have different participants every year.
4. No blurbs about what a single person or group did unless there's a whole sole subsection about it on that person's/group's article.
5. No blurbs about anniversaries unless it's a big round number (10, 25, 50, 100, 200) and there are actual festivities about it.

–HTD 12:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"No blurbs about events that recur annually that's always the same every year. For example, the Sinulog and Black Nazarene processions are always the same every year; unlike, say sporting championships which may have different participants every year."

→ I would like to add an exception with the Black Nazarene procession. We can remove the Black Nazarene procession but spare it if deaths occur in the event. Injuries are of usual occurrence; but expecting deaths every year... i think we should not. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Imperial Manila centrism (LOL). I guess we could make an exception if there are multiple deaths. A quota of one death per feast is no longer news at this point. –HTD 09:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not from Manila. I'm from Bukidnon. Haha Yes, I think we can set a limit or an exception. An average of less than three people usually dies in the procession. If at least five people died in the event... I think that would be exceptional. Or perhaps ten? --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Manila-centrism is actually a lot more sadder, TBH. As much as I possible, I'd like to avoid recurring events in the "Events" section on the same day every year except for truly exceptional cases. If we'd have "January 8 -- Feast of the Black Nazarene happened", "June 12 -- Independence Day celebrations", "August 1 -- xth anniversary of Cory's death", "December 30 -- President leads Rizal Day rites" every year, that's a waste of space. –HTD 16:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not Manila-centric. Hmmm. Anyway, I think you're right. We can add this events only if the interest of the country is undermined/disturbed, e.g. security issues, etc.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're not, you just suggested I make an exception to the Black Nazarene feast, while allowing the exclusion of the Sinulog (and tens of other festivals in the country). That's not an act of Manila centrism.

Another exclusion is the annual casualty count on people who were stupid enough to be injured during the New Year's. Both of these had just been restored in 2014 in the Philippines by @Supergabbyshoe:. As much as possible, if it happens on the same date (or roughly the same date) each year, it shouldn't be on the "Events" section unless there are exceptional circumstances to what happened. –HTD 16:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely no new year deaths. Its expected. Also all events only notable to a certain region or province should be excluded even if its Metro Manila. Examples include LRT rate hikes. On the anniversaries, Maybe these should only be included if other notable events happened like the INC Centennial which was accompanied by the opening of the world's biggest indoor arena, the Philippine Arena. Corporate anniversaries shall not be included except again if its accompanied by a nationally significant event. (Example only:SM opens the new biggest mall in the country as part of their anniversary, Yes. SM introduce a 50% one week sale as part of their anniversary nationwide. No)--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All annual events except notable international events hosted by the Philippines should not be included. Like the Olympics, FIBA World Cup, FIFA World Cup, SEA Games, AFC Asian Cup if the Philippines ever hosted those (the country has hosted some editions of the FIBA World Cup and SEA Games). And by international events I mean events that has been hosted by different countries so events such the Philippine Peace Cup should not be on this article or any other Years in the Philippines articles. The Philippines participating in other sporting events for example should only include in X in Philippine Sports.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For disasters especially typhoons, only disasters which caused significant damage and deaths should be included. A disaster causing a declaration of a state of emergency in affected areas are likely warranted to be included.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus one should be wary of media hype or silly season reporting when the media tends to grow an incident into proportions. The media picks up a small story and hype it up as a highlight to a bigger social issue. Example of this is Nicole Ella's mystery death which was used to highlight the problem of indiscriminate firing of guns during... yes New Year's Eve. I'm sure it wasn't just Ella who died due to such kind of incident. Her death, isn't really that more or less important than other victims of indiscriminate gunfire during that night or previous New Year's Eve.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A separate sports section (like what is currently being done) seems to be sufficient for annual recurring sporting events. –HTD 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A wikipedian Vince Daryl Falcuntin and his sockpuppets keep continue to add content that does not qualified in our criteria. – User:Supergabbyshoe (talk) - 14:16, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

I guess everyone agrees with the "standards". The years in history articles (see 2015) also have their own standards and it's a good idea to emulate them. For example, in those pages, if there are no articles in 5(?) Wikipedia languages, it shouldn't go. For us, if there's no article about it, then it shouldn't be here. This could be tricky though for events involving famous people (like the Vhong Navarro incident). This should weed out the traffic accidents and criminal news spam. –HTD 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are some issue left to discuss. How does one deal with events which is part of a bigger event. Such as developments of the 2015 Mamasapano ckash and scandals from years before. How about minor political feuds and events such as the disqualifications of mayors and governors which generally just affect the immediate constituents. Terrorist incidents could be lumped up with crime since this is just part of an ongoing insurgency unless it causes something significant such as the Mamasapano clash causing significant renewed debate on the Bangsamoro Basic Law. The visits of head of states is not that much notable and is part of the normal course of international relations. The visit of Pope Francis was different cause it was not only a state visit but an apostolic visit. So state visits should not be included in my opinion unless it is notable for other reasons such as the signing of a binding agreement (Memorandum on Understanding or other similar agreements is excluded) or treaty, or resulted into diplomatic tensions. --Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this:

• For events part of a bigger event, just add it on the first information (see the MERS-CoV case in the Health section). It should be noted though that it should be important enough for that event.
• For the events like Mamasapano, returns of weapons are not really that relevant so we shouldn't add those; some events that has similar weight to this should not also be added.
• In cases of judicial trials like in profile cases, events such as presentation of evidences, pleading of not guilty or guilty, cross examination of evidences and witnesses, and the likes should not be added in the article since they are really part of trial. However, in cases that are really exceptional, when events like this flips or turns around a case... I think we should add it. Appeals can be added in the information too. For continuity of information, succeedding events should be added in the first event (serves as an update to it).
  • If it involves several people (like PDAF scam), if those cases are filed individually we should add the events individually.
• For state visits, I agree with your suggestion.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with your proposal.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What if may add protests done by the militant groups including one last Sunday in Edsa Shrine? It is part of this criteria?. – User:Supergabbyshoe (talk) - 09:28, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I think no. Unless, it has drawn huge crowd and had caused public disruption or there is something significant that had occurred in the said event.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Now how about fires, you may know the commemoration of the "Fire Prevention Month" is near. May i really add a fire incident that spurs longer or big casualties and affected families? – User:Supergabbyshoe (talk) - 12:28, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Nope. We shouldn't add those. Let's just stick with something nationally relevant. However, if its really something significant: like the fire was put out after more than a day or something really tragic that you can't really expect that it had caused a big number of casualties (more than 50 perhaps). In an urban setting like Metro Manila, it is "normal" that it will affect a large number of families since most cases of fire related events happen in the slums where the houses are so close with each other.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's an article about a fire, let's light put it up. If there's an article about it, whether it be a fire, protest, terrorist attack, state visit, anything, let's include it.

A far better question would be if it involves a person (or a group), and usually an article isn't needed. –HTD 17:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Fires shouldn't be included unless it is notable for some other reason such as the Ozone Disco Club fire which is one of the worst recorded fire in the world. Regarding terrorist attacks there should be standards. Normal ambush/attacks against government forces or civilian properties such as electric lines or tractors shouldn't be included. Bombings should only be included if its an attack on a town center, major transport system. Hostages and kidnappings shouldn't be included unless if has other national implication such as the Manila bus hostage crisis which affected ties of the country with Hong Kong.

To clarify more on diplomatic visits, these should only be included if it resulted to a major notable treaty/agreements (especially defense/alliance treaty, establishment of a sociopolitical organization like the ASEAN) and not mere memorandum of understanding, to build cultural houses, sign routine business/trade treaties or "promises to boost relationships". A first visit of a head of state of a country should not automatically be included unless notable in other ways. This prevents entries stating first visits by head of states with minor powers such as Nauru, Mongolia and more recently Malta while avoiding debate on which country is a major or regional power.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess those would be the threshold if there isn't any article. If there's an article about a fire, terrorist attack or state visit, there's no reason for it to be excluded here. As a Wikipedia article about a certain year, it makes sense to link to an article if it exists.

Another question is for people in the deaths and births section. If s/he has an article, list it. If s/he doesn't have an article, but feels s/he could pass GNG, list it. If s/he's only related to some famous person and isn't notable by him/herself (example: Kim Chiu's mom, accident victim), don't. –HTD 13:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is how to deal events which are part of a bigger series or developments.

For example if a Typhoon is listed here, some user would add separate entries for 1. the moment the typhoon enters the Philippine Area of Responsibility 2. Landfall 3. Reports of damage and casualties 4. Declaration of state of calamity.

This is also true for political scandals and investigation. Every time politician A makes a comment for example a tirade towards politician B regarding an issue it is listed here. Every time an evidence is brought up to the court it is listed here. This is supposed to be a general timeline of what happened in the Philippines. All developments regarding to the PDAF Scam can go to PDAF scam and so on, and so on. Inviting interested users for comments especially Renzoy16, HTD and Supergabbyshoe

--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that IP addresses remain to keep on adding unqualified entries to the X in the Philippines article. This is getting problematic. Also I suggest excluding annual reports such as the Index of Economic Freedom and statistics such as the PNP reports a certain decrease or increase the crime rate and forecasts such as surveys and projections such as projected growth in GDP.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vince daryl falcunitin, the user which was banned indefinitely recently, is using that IP.

I think what we can apply with the events like typhoons with disasters is that, post the PAR entry date of the typhoon. Under that date, include only the number of total casualties, cite the regions affected, and the economic loss. Last will be the date of exit. That's it. No more expounding the event.

With political cases in courts, I have said this before... add only the things that are "important" in the trial. Do not include anymore those events that are part of a trial like the preliminary investigation, arraignment, pre trial and trial proper. These are the usual parts of a trial. What we will do is only add those events like that granting of bail... if the motion to bail wasn't granted, don't add it. If motions (motion to quash, motion to bail and all other motions) are filed in court, only add those granted by court. If the grant was dismissed, don't add it. Regarding witnesses, don't add them anymore... for it is usual for each of the parties to present witnesses. Same with evidences. Add them all in one date, so that the information will be continuous. Other dates will serve as updates. the shorter the information, the better.

In regards with political scandals and investigations, add them only when a political scandal is made known to the public. Add an update only if cases are filed in courts. Continue then with the things i mentioned above (trial events). In regards with legislative inquiries, I think we should not add them anymore. They are only making inquiries in order to make new laws. In making laws, it is normal that they do this to aid in betterment of legislating laws. So, however scandalous these events are... they are part of making laws; they are usual events. So we don't need to add them. We could add an exception, like if its really important. So how will we determine if that is important? Let's put it up to a vote. I think, with the number of users editing in this article, 5 votes of yes in adding that information is sufficient enough. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I still think having an article about it should merit automatic inclusion here. It's not rocket science, if it has a Wikipedia article, let's add it to the Wikipedia article about the year in that country.

Storms are tricky. I'd rather put them once they had left so we have a "final" count on casualties and damages. I'd generally agree with cases, but with political scandals, I would agree with an outright banishment as what was suggested. There are dozens upon dozens of "investigations" (or "hearings") that aren't televised; technically every bill that's made into law had to have at least one hearing. If it's televised, and then's an article about it, add it. –HTD 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, add those televised investigations, but weigh if it is good enough to be placed here.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 09:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not automatically add if they're televised, just add if it's televised and there's an updated article. –HTD 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain about whether the Roxas-Duterte word wars would be notable enough for inclusion. But, why should that be removed even there is heavily covered by the press?
However, I still do not know whether the derailment incident caused by railway track theft on the PNR Metro South Commuter Line that injured 70 commuters. Is that derailment incident notable for inclusion on that article, or it is only a minor event?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For the Roxas-Duterte word exchange it shouldn't be included here since it is part of the 2016 elections place all info there and the Mar Roxas presidential campaign, 2016 and Rodrigo Duterte presidential campaign, 2016 articles. For comparison, albeit not a perfect one, Donald Trump's controversial comments on immigrants, Muslim ban etc. isn't included in the 2015 in the United States article although it is in his own 2016 US election campaign article since his comments would definitely affect his campaign. Again as I replied to your message, heavy media coverage doesn't mean automatic inclusion here.

Traffic accidents are almost always shouldn't include here unless it breaks a record. (Deadliest recorded traffic accident in the Philippines). Shipwrecks and plane crashes are mostly eligible though (but not minor aircraft incidents especially those with no fatalities). So the PNR derailment is only minor incident. Hope this answers your questions Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Year of The Poor

Please Do Not Add The Year of The Poor Because It's Not a Year Theme But It's Also an Violation - National Names 2000 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Stratford Residences

I dispute the removal of Stratford Residences info. Upon its completion it will surpass the current tallest building, the PBCom Tower and will potentially become the first supertall building in the Philippines. It is an architectural achievement. If the opening of the world's tallest building Burj Khalifa is listed in 2010 article and the Philippine Arena's opening is also listed here, why not include the info on the Stratford Residences.

I do admit that these kind of news doesn't receive much media coverage compared to let's say celebrity incidents sometimes rivaling real national issues, but doesn't mean the completion of Stratford is not notable. If other news comes out that these building's height will be downsized below that of PBCom's, then let's remove the info on Stratford from the article.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 in the Philippines. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150624024814/http://results.seagames2015.com/eng/zz/engzz_medal_count.htm to http://results.seagames2015.com/eng/zz/engzz_medal_count.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222175837/http://news.pia.gov.ph/article/view/561450596765/brgy-dolores-keeps-giant-lantern-festival-crown to http://news.pia.gov.ph/article/view/561450596765/brgy-dolores-keeps-giant-lantern-festival-crown

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 in the Philippines. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608033652/http://www.gov.ph/2015/05/29/executive-order-no-183-s-2015/ to http://www.gov.ph/2015/05/29/executive-order-no-183-s-2015/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151217082245/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/121382/asian-scholar-benedict-anderson-dies-in-his-sleep-in-indonesia to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/121382/asian-scholar-benedict-anderson-dies-in-his-sleep-in-indonesia

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 in the Philippines. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207064237/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103759/pnp-saf-casualties-in-encounter-now-50---armm-police-chief to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103759/pnp-saf-casualties-in-encounter-now-50---armm-police-chief
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504211535/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/109866/govt-forces-kill-basit-usman-in-maguindanao---military-source to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/109866/govt-forces-kill-basit-usman-in-maguindanao---military-source

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Statue of Dr. Jose Rizal at the Luneta Park, Philippines.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)