Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

AFD for Luce–Celler Act of 1946

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luce–Celler Act of 1946. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Protect request: List of Presidents of the Philippines

I know this won't fly at WP:RFPP but there's long-term abuse by IPs here which vandalize, then revert after a few minutes, then does it again the next day. –HTD 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PP says that temporary semi-protection is indicated in cases of vandalism by IP-hopping anons. I've semi-protected it with an expiry date of 21 February 2012. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons and the (former?) {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}

It seems that Commons has reversed course on Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code and has agreed that works of the Philippine government have no copyright, per this discussion. Looks like we may be able to upload government works to Commons again! :D --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it. We could test this by transferring several LGU seals to Commons and removing the fair use rationales on enwiki. --seav (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created an expounded template on that in English and Tagalog.-- Namayan (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between the two templates. PD-Philippines is for works whose copyright term expired, while PD-PhilippinesGov is for works exempted from copyright. Government works should not be covered under the first template. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should those provisions be removed, when one template could have simplified and represent our copyright laws in the first place? That's what Vicente Amador, an IP and copyrights law expert had explained. -- Namayan (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because works of the Philippine government don't have their copyrights expire, which is the intent of the former template. That's why there's a separate template for works which are exempt from copyright, which in this case falls under PD-PhilippinesGov. There's also a separate template for public documents which are also exempt from copyright: PD-PhilippinesPubDoc. The page history of the PD-Philippines template might better explain things: see Zach's (Zscout370) explanation. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the header to encompass government works. It will be better to have a "one template fits all" copy right licensing.-- Namayan (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't when there are two separate categories for PD works in the Philippines on Commons (as they themselves have categorized): PD Philippines (for expired works) and PD-Philippines-exempt, which necessitate the use of two (or in this case three) templates. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be any restrictions on why we can't unify it. It's really convenient to use 1 template. Talk about being "user-friendly".-- Namayan (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... yay? :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also does this mean works by Philippine Government employees done on government time and pay now have PD status like US federal works? Because that would be awesome. Or is it restricted only to the "official" government stuff like seals and money, etc.?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The law seems to imply all works made in an official capacity, similar to the U.S. case. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Great then! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's our test case: President Aquino's second SONA. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a high-res logo of the General Trias, Cavite seal that I got from a friend of mine who happened to work at the town hall. The logo looks 'swell enough for inclusion, but imo someone should shoop a vector version of it along with several other seals and government images. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Our laws on copyright and intellectual property closely follows US jurisprudence. In an annotation by Vicente Amador on our Copyright law, he cited the Jack Pfeiffer vs CIA. Let it be clear it does not diminish the right of the state to withhold to reserve rights when it will be used for profit. -- Namayan (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please Watch This Page

Hi Folks. I'm asking for your help again re: Rajah Lakan Dula. Of late it has been the victim of a fringe theory that would see him renamed Lakan Banaw Dula, instead of Banaw Lacandula as recorded by the Legazpi expedition. If you look at Talk:Rajah Lakan Dula, you'll see that this seems to have been done by persons claiming to be his descendants, seemingly motivated by a desire to dissociate themselves from certain modern personalities who are also claiming descent. I do not doubt their claims of descent, nor even doubt that they mean well, wishing only to portray what they think is correct. But they prefer to cite family history as a basis for edits and apparently display antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with them. As I've mentioned before, I've been the subject of a personal attack on the talk page, and I've noted, elsewhere on the internet. Oh well. Anyway, I've done a lot of work on the page tonight, and I'm not quite done yet, but I really need your help:

• Please watch the Rajah Lakan Dula article for edits without citations, or with non-reliable citations.
• If an admin could please finally move the article to Lakandula or Lakan Dula (whichever results in more Google Hits is fine by me)
• Could someone please remove the extraneous discussion on the talk page? A warning has already been issued on the talk page, about turning the page into a forum.. to no avail. I'd rather not have to be the one to do the deleting/archiving there, since I'm mentioned there by username as supposedly having vandalized/"diluted" the article.

Hm. Yup, that seems to be it. Thank you very much for your time. -- Alternativity (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, count me in :) I'll read everything first, then see what I can do. --- Tito Pao (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! Sigh, I'm being accused on the talk page AGAIN of being a Macapagal-paid "hacker". (This is as of mid-day today.) Since my political leanings turn the opposite way, I find myself multiple levels of incensed. :S What CAN be done about personal attacks on talk pages, anyway? - Alternativity (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when did reference.com become a reliable source?--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, right? And that's one of the minor problems this page had before the major overhaul that was done yesterday. Right now, I'm more pissed about the wildness of the discussion on the talk page - discussion "The Lakandula Curse on Gloria Arroyo", for crying out loud - than the main page, but the main page could still use some work. Hm. :S Hopefully soon after this I can get back to doing research on Precolonial Bay and Lumban. - Alternativity (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I took a look at the talk page of that article and my head exploded. Shrumster (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that SHOULDN'T be there, but since I'm specifically named, I don't want to be the one to do something about it. I was hoping an admin might do something about it. :S Hm. I just realized, the accusation against me is Libelous! :S - Alternativity (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

NARA images

Thanks to the University of Wisconsin there are multiple public domain images. You can find theme here. Enjoy! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FOP problems in Commons

Looks like that as we have won victory over government images, freedom of panorama now becomes our biggest stumbling block: all images of Guillermo Tolentino statues on Commons are to be deleted. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Like what I said before, it should be easier to convince the Foundation than to lobby at Congress. There has to be some loophole in the law. –HTD 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Care to search the IPCP, Howard? They claim there is no loophole. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I congratulate our Filipino contributors and editors. Keep up the Nationalistic spirit and we have a long way to go. Have a nice Sunday morning. 120.28.124.241 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Mount Kitanglad

If anyone has information the high peaks of the Kitanglad Mountain Range, your help is needed at Talk:Mount Kitanglad. Thank you.--Racerx11 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding change to Philippines Campaign (1944–1945)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippines Campaign (1944–1945)#Emphasis on British. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment of Renato Corona

Can someone work on the daily updates? I've been swamped lately so I can't add anything of substance lately. –HTD 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We could use this page as source. Alexius08 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you've read the article, there are far better sources at the external links section... –HTD 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Parentage

Back in 2006 & 2007, WikiProjects China and India were declared parents of WikiProject Asian Americans; although long overdue, would this WikiProject like to also adopt WPAA due to Filipino Americans being the second largest Asian American Population and falling under this WikiProject's scope? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support it given the numbers, though it's not exactly my area of interest and I won't be editing anything related to it anytime soon.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support :D --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral (sorry, I know that doesn't help, but that's how I feel. I might change that in time, but for now, I'm neutral.)-- Alternativity (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• I always thought that Filipino Americans are part of the project's scope, but what tangible benefits does "adopting" WP:WPAA have that should convince others to adopt the project? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot involved. What parentage of a WikiProject appears to be, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that parts or whole parts of the scope of another WikiProject fall within the realm of the sub-wikiproject.

When WPAA was started in 2006 it appears to have been started with Chinese Americans, Indian Americans, and Asian Americans (who did not specify a specific ethnicity), and was seen as an outgrowth of WikiProject China, WikiProject India, and WikiProject United States (the former two being themselves descendants of WikiProject Asia). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Should music, TV and film be excluded in 2011 in the Philippines (and similar articles)

See Talk:2011 in the Philippines. –HTD 06:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment needed: Board of Regents of the University of the City of Manila

Please comment on an old proposed merge at Talk:Board of Regents of the University of the City of Manila D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Images from a museum in Iloilo City an RS?

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN#Images taken by a CWO4 Vinas. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A question has come up about the reputation of the museum in the discussion above whether they have a reputation of maintaining historical accuracy. As I, like the poster of the images, live in the San Diego County, I cannot vouch for the museum and wonder if someone who is familiar with the museum can add their opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to ask Philippine-related questions?

So on Wikipedia, is there a Reference desk equivalent for Philippine-related articles? If so, is this the one. Just wondering, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Here? Only for article-related questions though. General knowledge questions pertaining to countries or peoples should go in the Humanities ref desk. There are no country-specific ref desks AFAIK, though some other-language Wikipedias have their own help desks. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Phil. questions can be asked in the main Ref Desks. I usually hang out at the Sciences and Miscellaneous Ref desks though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

CoA of Second Philippine Republic

I have found an image that claims to be the Coat of Arms of the 2nd Republic. Is this correct, and if so, although it is hosted on a non-RS, should it be uploaded to WP and used in the appropriate article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For watawat.net, I'd usually ask for a supporting source. I've had some disagreements with the site the reliability of one of their earrlier-era images, the supposed "flag of Lakandula." Special interest sites like this are particularly prone to speculation. (In the case of the flag of Lakandula, they based the image on a textual description of banners flying on the walls of Lakandula's palace in Tondo. Which could easily have been flags in the European sense, but which might just as easily NOT have been. For all we know, those could have been Tapis left to dry in the sun. LOL. That could have been a case of a modern age misinterpretation of a 1570/1571 Spanish misinterpretation.) Similar care should be taken when looking at references for Philippine swords and weaponry, and for Philippine herbal treatments. (The same can be said for Philippine mythology, but that's somewhat arguable, since our mythology is still alive and evolving.) HOWEVER, in this case, I am sufficiently convinced of the veracity of that coat of arms, given the post stamp shown on the site, which shows what does indeed seem to be the Coat of Arms of the Republic at the left side. Your call on whether to trust this as is, but whatever you do, you should definitely look for a second source to support it. - Alternativity (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the website is not an RS, then it is not usable; thanks. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction. Like what was said above, perhaps there is a second source (an RS) somewhere out there that can be used. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. Well, as far as history is concerned, "reliable" is sort of relative. There have been moments where I've found Nick Joaquin a bit too quick to draw conclusions, for example. And many otherwise reliable sources from the 70s will still consider the story of the "Ten Bornean Datus" or of the "Code of Kalantiaw" factual. Every now and then, historians like Ambeth Ocampo will correct their own mistaken conclusions. So I hesitate to call a Philippine history source "non-reliable" on the basis of a little overenthusiasm in an area few have expertise in. Not that I claim expertise, mind you. hehe. When it comes to Precolonial Philippines, there's still a whole lot to be learned, whether you're a professional historian or an amateur. - Alternativity (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"For all we know, those could have been Tapis left to dry in the sun. " < LMAO!!! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Curious entry under "Religion" in "Caraga" article

Caraga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I was reading the Wiki article on Caraga when I came upon this entry under the heading "Religion":

Religion

The 1995 census revealed that the dominant religion in the region was Roman Catholic, with the population of 1,397,343 or 79% of the total household population in Caraga.and the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% is the population of germs & bacterias

I could have gone straight to editing the section, but decided to post this curiuosly interesting deviation from the topic. If it is not an editing slip (notice the "period", seems like something was inadvertently deleted and the last clause came in out of nowhere), maybe is there an amusing explanation.

Anyone to educate me?

It was vandalism, obviously, added March 13. It has since been reverted.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

[Me Tangere category deletion]

Voting is taking place for the deletion of the Noli Me Tangere. There used to be other articles under this category like an independent Padre Damaso.Please vote either to delete or not, but do participate. Thank you.Jondel (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Noynoying

This article about "Noynoying" is totally unnecessary and undeserving of a Wikipedia entry. Please DELETE. --Ver (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am bringing your attention regarding this article. Is the article worth further development? Is it even notable by Wikipedia standards? - Windows72106 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:SOAPBOX. Specifically: "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The term itself was coined only three days ago, right? Too soon to even judge if the term is notable (I've never even heard of it until now). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noynoying. - Windows72106 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This term, concocted by a few people, who are obviously partisan, SHOULD NOT BE in Wikipedia. It should be deleted immediately. Please keep Wikipedia clean and don't pollute it! My children are using this a lot and I wouldn't want them to be reading this kind of article. Put it in your personal blogs but NOT in Wikipedia, PLEASE!!! 112.198.77.62 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga

I never thought I'd be using WP:NOTCENSORED in this context. I can understand bare bewbies but Noynoying? Are you a parent who lets his kids surf the internet without supervision to the point that you're Noynoying? Ha ha. –HTD 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It is everybody's right to write neologism. And the neologism "Noynoying" is true and fits the description because it did happen. All the anti-corruption under Aquino's administration is not his campaign. He was only forced to do because the masses called for it and he will be thrown to the dustbin of history if he won't go to the side of the left calling for the prosecution of Pres. Gloria Arroyo and both her foreign and local cohorts.

So I suggest that this term "Noynoying" should be posted here to remind the Filipino people about what presidents do to make themselves relevant. That is given the problematic that most leaders in Third World States are those from the elite, landed and comprador class in their society. A reflection of their kind of advocacy must also be recorded here if Wikipedia is to be relevant to the international public. @bulljack 2012

See? That's exactly what I was talking about. I'm sorry, but again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Leave the agenda at the door please, no matter how noble you think it may be. A few years ago it was Erap, with Gloria leading the charge. Then it was Gloria, with Noynoy leading the charge. And now Noynoy? I'm willing to bet his loudest critic will be the next presidentiable. Seriously. Moppets leading moppets for a chance at the cookie jar. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete noynoying. those who coined it are the one's doing nothing. the president as a person is working very hard in fighting corruption, he's direct to the point in our claim of the recto bank, i have not seen a very hard working president for a long time. the president have the very high trust of the people. the term "noynoying" can be defined as "hardworking, straight in your face, direct to the point good governance",,,, but using noynoying in a negative way do not help our country. delete "noynoying". the wikipedia should uphold its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htacogdoy (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's another one. Sigh. Wikipedia is not the place for causes, political maneuvering, or propaganda, whether pro or against. Please.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the AfD is now in the news: Wikipedia users divided on ‘Noynoying’ article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Even included feedback from WPilipinas. Jeez, of course they would keep the damn thing, they don't give a shit about notability the way they run the place anyway.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion, there has to be some notability, even heard about the subject on the BBC World Service this morning (Pacific Daylight Time). Perhaps it shouldn't be a standalone article and redirected to President Benigno Aquino but it should be somewhere. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At the AfD discussion an editor brought up concerns regarding the actions of other editors of the article Benigno Aquino III that concerns me greatly, specifically that there is "guarding" occurring at the article. If this is the case perhaps we should look into it as a community. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I found that disconcerting as well, RightCowLeftCoast. I think that topic deserves a heading of its own. I think you should bring that up under a new topic heading here. :D Just a thought. - Alternativity (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent} RightCowLeftCoast, would you know how to add that BBC reference to the list of media referring to the article on the talk:Noynoyingpage? Or is there anybody here who knows how to do that? Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say use Template:Cite news as it is from BBC World Service.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a formatted reference of the BBC Story on the article's talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 PBA Season

Hello, Does anynbody know where I can find the results of the final of the 2001 PBA Governors Cup ? I know the final result was that Sta. Lucia won by 4-2 against San Miguel, but I would like to know the results of all six games. Magalhães (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you know the dates of the games you can use the Philippine Star's news archive. –HTD 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that, Magalhães (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Found it. If I understand correctly from the mostly Tagalog articles the scores were:

Team	1	2	3	4	5	6	Final Score
San Miguel Beermen	80	86	74	106	71	72	2
Sta. Lucia Realtors	86	78	83	73	85	75	4

Leftist Movements in the Philippines

The various entries covering leftist movements in the Philippines are in a state of such disarray that one can learn very little by reading through them. I'm aware that this is also true of the more traditional political parties in the Philippines, but that, at least, springs from an actual lack of ideology. That does not seem to be the case for the left. Hm. Perhaps we should do something to improve the situation? Because the confusion is leaking into other politically oriented articles, such as Noynoying, and it makes it difficult to differentiate between the political positions of, say, Riza Hontiveros and Satur Ocampo. (All this without ever taking sides, of course.)- Alternativity (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

History of the Left in France may be a good model, but that lacks sources but the organization is good enough. There are many ways to name the article but "The Left" encompasses everybody from the Nat Dems (CPP-NDF-NPA) to the Soc Dems (Akbayan), all of their splinter groups, and even labor movements, and is less clunky than "Socialism and social movements in the Philippines" –HTD 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I figurd an article like "Leftist movements in the Philippines" would be a suitable top-level/summary article. And maybe separate articles on the RA and RJ factions for good measure. But my point, really, is that we need to beef up articles like National Democratic Front (Philippines), Bayan Muna, or Satur Ocampo, which all say very little about specific ideological leanings. At the very least, I think I think it's important that those unfamiliar with Philippine politics be able to distinguish who's who and what's what in terms of the Philippine left. Right now, the various Wiki entries don't help anyone understand anything like that. - Alternativity (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fernando de Silva biography

I noticed in this article the phrase "This was part of the Japanese persecution of Christians..."

I think the word "persecution" is not objective. It implies a judgment of who was right and who was wrong. A better word might be "suppression" but even that may not be neutral enough.

I do not have any facility with using or editing Wikipedia, so hopefully someone else can make the change. 67.180.119.40 (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lent food

RightCowLeftCoast has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

We're going to need more Filet-O-Fish sandwiches to feed the entire Tambayan. =)) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha true.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I have an annual Big Mac meal every easter weekend to celebrate my shedding of my catholic upbringing. :D Having said that, doesn't Jollibee have an equivalent burger? We don't want to be seen as being biased towards McDonalds. :P (Although I'm partial to a grilled tuna belly or tiger prawn thermidor for that matter.)Shrumster (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming Template?

Hey guys, do we have a welcoming template? - Alternativity (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

hmmm... I know there's a generic welcome for new editors but no Filipino versions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a version for this project, if I'm not mistaken, but it's best to dig through the archives. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On personal attacks and finally moving Lakandula

So, here's the thing. I feel I've been personally attacked at Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula, and as a result, I feel unable to call there for moving the article to Lakandula (Or some other variation that doesn't have the word Rajah. That's just WRONG, as all the CREDIBLE sources will agree.) So one question is, where can I put the personal attacks under protest? (Although if somebody else wants to help get the article moved to its proper name, that'd be great. :D) - Alternativity (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Full protect Manila

Can somebody do the deed? If you'd look at the history until the beginning of the month, 4 pages worth of them, you'd know why. –HTD 04:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of † sign

The † sign has been used in Philippine articles to denote deceased personalities and even deceased characters in a soap opera. But if I can remember correctly, this sign should only be used for soldiers killed in action. Can the community set a precedent? - Windows72106 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see dagger (typography). In addition to being a general marker for footnotes, it is very commonly used to indicate deceased individuals, obsolete words, and extinct organisms. Long before it was used by the (US?) military for indicating KIA officers. It's a reflection of its original purpose when it was invented by the Greeks - it's a critical mark used to indicate text that should be removed, used in conjunction with the asterisk, which was used to mark text that should be added. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuke them all. By 2112 all of those will have daggers, it's ridiculous. The proper use of the dagger, as what you've pointed out, is to denote on infoboxes if a soldier was killed inaction; and as OS said, as an alternative to the asterisk. Any other use, especially now in Philippine-related articles is an improper one. –HTD 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's overkill given that we already give death dates. And using it on fictional characters is just crufty. I'd approach it on a case by case basis though. In lists where pointing out which persons are deceased is important, I think it's acceptable, cf. in lists of taxa where pointing out which taxa are extinct is important. An explanation should always be included as well, e.g. a footnote "People marked with † are deceased" or something like that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, but in examples cited above (deceased personalities and fictional characters) they should never be used. –HTD 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't seem to have any specific guidance on this, but it seems like an idiosyncratic usage to me. See Dagger (typography)#Modern usage -- particularly the assertion there saying, "The dagger (†) should not be confused with the Christian cross." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That the death dagger is a representation of the Christian cross is a common misconception. The dagger (formally obelisk/obelus) was invented by Homeric scholars long before Jesus and Christianity. It is not a Christian symbol, but an editorial one. Even medieval Christian scribes did not confuse it with the cross, and it was never used in early printed works as such except when the printer lacks the symbol for the cross.

The modern association of the cross sign and death is the result of crosses in graveyards. However, the dagger's association with death isn't the result of its resemblance to the cross. In early genealogical records, the asterisk was placed on the year of birth, and the dagger on the year of death. The dagger was also used to indicate the extinction of a family line. Hence the eventual adaptation to simply indicate death, extinction, or obsolescence (including scientific and military usage), partly also due to the original usage of the dagger as a censuring mark. This practice dates back to the 18th century at least. For example, see The Printers̓ Grammar (1787) and The Compositor's Handbook (1854).

It is actually still a very common and accepted practice in publishing, particularly in author by-lines. For example, see the manuals of style of the Journals of the American Physical Society and the American Medical Association. However we already have death dates and numeral superscripts for footnotes, which makes daggers unnecessary in most instances when dealing with people (and I agree, the above instances seem inappropriate). But there might still be instances where they might be applicable in Wikipedia, so never say never I guess. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Help needed in Mount Pinatubo article

Hi, this is User:briarfallen and one of pages I regularly contribute to is Mount Pinatubo. The problem is in the lead section regarding Cabusilan Mountains where Mount Pinatubo belongs to, which is part of the Zambales Mountains. I have already added verifiable references, including a book about Philippine geography and a topographic map of the area from the 1950s, but the problem is another user (User:FromTarlac) keeps changing it to Tri-Cabusilan Mountains with no verifiable references. I also presented the link to the search on Google Books in the talk page of Mount Pinatubo for Cabusilan, which returned 424 books, new and old. While if you do a Google Books search Tri-Cabusilan, it will return five books, which all are sourced from Wikipedia! (When I first started editing Mount Pinatubo, it had Tri-Cabusilan first, which I found odd having "Tri-" as a place name. This prompted me to a research and discovered that it should be just Cabusilan Mountains. I changed it back to Cabusilan on January 20, 2012 adding a reference. Searching the revision history of Mount Pinatubo, it was first changed to Tri-Cabusilan on January 7, 2010 by an IP user. The user, User:FromTarlac, also tried changing Cabusilan on the article Zambales Mountains to Tri-Cabusilan, again, with no verifiable references.)

With all those those evidences, he is still insistent on Tri-Cabusilan with unverifiable references, adding several irrelevant reasons like he's from there, etc. But I already presented him with WP:Verifiability, not truth and WP:Verifiability, and he just ignored them or did not follow or just don't care. He will not stop, he will give whatever reasons to protect Tri-Cabusilan. He has reverted it back to that term about five or six times. Even on one of his edits, he even removed one of my references (the topographic map) because it is a good reference. Isn't that illegal? Even if he is true, that is still against Wikipedia rules regarding neologisms per WP:NEO and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. Please, I need help on what to do with this user. He is using Wikipedia to increase the usage of term which is based on personal research or just for some selfish reasons. If you do an internet search on "Tri-Cabusilan" on Yahoo or Google right now, it will return several results because a lot of people or sites use Wikipedia as their source. Please protect the integrity of Wikipedia, let us stop people from using Wikipedia as a source of misinformation. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely odd. Has he given an explanation for the "Tri" in the name? Is it English-derived or from one of the local languages? From what I can see, all results for "Tri-Cabusilan" are derived from Pinatubo's previous Wikipedia article. All others use Cabusilan Mountains/Cabusilan Range/Cabusilan area, including scholarly geological works.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. He mentioned Tri- for the number three and Cabusilan meant 'provinces' in his language which could either be Pampangan or Zambal language. But with no proof, I doubt it, he could be lying just to win the argument. Yes, the danger is everybody cites Wikipedia now, which could lead to misinformation spread by just one editor. For now, looks like he finally stopped. But if he strikes again, what could we do to stop such editors who don't believe in Wikipedia rules? Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Article needs references and maybe a picture

Hi, If any of you guys are actually in the Philippines, or go there, could you get a few photographs for National Shrine of The Divine Mercy, Philippines and Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental) and upload them. These articles also need more references. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Submitted for deletion

I just submitted Camaya Coast for deletion. I just want to get your opinion on this. Please, go to the deletion page for your comments. The article is full of lies, fictional stories, events with deceiving references made to look real but links to nowhere. My reasons for submitting it for deletion is in the talk page. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 NSO census data

The results of the last 2010 census is now released last Wednesday, 4 April 2012. Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Source: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2012/pr1227tx.html

Janna Cachola

I PROD'd an article on the above lady on the basis that she does not seem to meet WP:NOT - at least from a New Zealand perspective. It was de-PROD'd on the basis that she is famous in the Phillipines, however all the article seems to say is that she had some notable relatives. Can someone from your project take a look and comment.NealeFamily (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Send it to WP:AFD. –HTD 15:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that because she's not notable in the Phillipines as well? NealeFamily (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

When this was put in here, it was the first I've heard of her - she doesn't even register a blip in our news reports. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We'd find out if this is at AFD, plus discussions will be binding... unlike here. –HTD 12:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Have made it AfD NealeFamily (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Rajah_Lakan_Dula

Hi everyone. There's a move request pending at Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula, if you care to participate. Personally, I think it's a pretty straightforward request, so your input would be helpful in getting us to a long overdue move. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been moved, at last, to Lakandula. But the article still has a few issues and the talk page will continue to be prone to violations of WP:NOTOPINION and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. It would be great if folks could continue to watch the page and its talk page for Wikipedia policy violations. :D I will keep trying to find ways to address the issues of the article, which are mostly due to conflicting references. I think the article in its present form is now mostly sound, with just two or three things I find bothersome. - Alternativity (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dulay and Magat Salamat

Since the Lakandula article has finally been moved and I can breathe a bit better, I think I should call everyone's attention to Dulay and Magat Salamat. Which are total nightmares. I'm not certain if Dulay is notable, but Magat Salamat certainly is, considering we named a navy ship, the BRP Magat Salamat, after the man. I'd really like to move on to other things, though. I've been spending too much time on articles on the Pasig Delta when my heart is really set on Laguna de Bay related history and geology articles. So, I'll call everyone's attention to these articles. And then I'll contribute to the process as I become available. - Alternativity (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Oh, one reason I don't want to touch these articles: every time I see the heading "The Philippine Native Nobility are of Two Kinds: Patriots or Traitors", my blood pressure shoots up. Seriously. I can't even imagine how many Wikipedia guidelines that violates. I know this is probably not the most relevant thing I've ever said on this talk page, but that's why I don't want to see the Magat Salamat article too often. And speaking of guidelines, disclosure: I've been accused of having a personal stake on this matter. Other than being Filipino, an academic, and having an interest in that period of history, I do not have any personal stake on this matter. Just making certain that's clear. - Alternativity (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh I hate ad hominem attacks --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Anyway, I reported the most recent incident at WP:ANI already. The report is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_personal_attacks_and_fringe_theory_pushing_at_talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula_and_Lakandula_related_pages. - Alternativity (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Writ of Kalikasan

Hi out there. I started a Writ of Kalikasan wiki even if I feel unqualified to address the topic properly. I feel it's too important not to have an article. As is is, though, the article is a stub. I'll try to improve it if I can, but I was wondering if there might be legal minds out there who end up reading this who can do it better. :D - Alternativity (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

vandal alert

125.60.241.246 (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale edits to several PH actors' articles and putting various Holy Week schedules. Just a headsup. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Already reported anon in WP:AIV. -WayKurat (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Provinces of the Philippines

I have nominated Provinces of the Philippines for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Territorial map of the Philippines image is outdated and needs updating

File:Ph Territorial Map.png is outdated and needs updating. I don't have the time or the software tools to do that or, realistically, the skills to do a good job of it. If someone else has the time, the tools, and the skills, here's something which needs attention. See more info at the image talk page on Commons. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent problem: Category misuse on Filipino people's articles

There seems to be a lot of editors who do not understand how to categorize people here. They simply assume that when a person has a Spanish/Chinese/Japanese,etc. sounding surname they immediately categorize them under "Filipinos of _____ ancestry". These articles either have no reliable sources or makes no mention of their ancestors having those ancestries at all. I realized that they've created these new articles such as, "Category:Filipino people of Spanish descent" and "Category:Filipino people of Chinese descent". If you look closely you will also see that some have used it on their personal talk pages!? Is there an easier way to fix this instead of going to each article and removing the category tag? Please help out. Thanks. Bleubeatle (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Try using HotCat. It lessens the clicks needed. –HTD 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure of PMI Colleges

Good day. I would like to request sources about the closure of PMI. I am searching myself and will update the article soon. Please be involved. --Jondel (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

NU Rock Awards

Can somebody help me with fixing the NU Rock Awards page? I started putting the things in a table, but I still have a long way to go. Also, can you find this info anywhere else? I'd like to double check it. Thanks guys. :D NyanThousand (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagalog translation help

Hello, can anyone help with a Tagalog translation question at the Reference Desk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#poster / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#poster.2Ftl Thanks 184.147.123.69 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mananaliksik and Sky Harbor for thehelp. 184.147.123.69 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Carabao English

As you guys can see, the article above has not yet been created. I do want to make an article on it though, as I have been inspired by the article on Bushism to document, for posterity, the "Eraptions" of Joseph Estrada's English, plus plus (maybe throw in Lito Lapid and Manny Pacquiao too, for good measure). I was wondering who would like to help me out on this, as I obviously can't get print sources while I'm abroad. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the classic - Jimmy Santos. :P Shrumster (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Philippine WikiCon

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Over categorizing Filipino people by national descent

I think that treating Filipino people like Jose Rizal and Emilio Aguinaldo as an example of Chinese Filipino or Spanish Filipino is unappropriate.

In Mexico, they have many people of different ethnic backgrounds like Spanish, Africa, American, European,etc. but they only refer to themselves as "mestizo". Why is that? Because they're great great great great....grand-parent was? I think that these examples should only be restricted to those who's parents were Chinese or if their family continues to practice Chinese tradition (has a Chinese name/surname). Because this is just getting out of context now. How can Jose Rizal be a Spanish-Filipino and Chinese-Filipino at the same time? He was not even born in Spain/China nor did he have parents that were born there. He is not a first, second or third-generation Chinese. He simply has a mixed Filipino background.

Besides, isn't it suppose to be meant to be like this?

• Chinese - Filipino = Chinese ethnicity, Filipino nationality(living in the Philippines).
• Spanish - Filipino = Spanish people, Filipino nationality (living in the Philippines).

I think that it should only be restricted to parents. It gets very complicated as we go deep into our own family trees.

If anything, Jose Rizal should be called a mestizo or a mestizo de sangley' but not a Chinese-Filipino simply because he had distant great-great-great fathers who are full Chinese. But of course, there is nothing wrong with putting them under the likes of Category:Filipino people of Chinese descent because they really do. I just find it out-of-place to make them a great representation of Chinese-Filipinos in the Philippines.

What do you guys think? Will it be fine if I removed as examples? Bleubeatle (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And sorry if I put this here instead of the talk page. Its just that I barely get any accurate responses there. I wanted to come here since most of you would know more about Filipino culture.Bleubeatle (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There has to be guidelines where "Chinese Filipino" ends and where Filipinos of Chinese descent begins. –HTD 07:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How do we make one? Bleubeatle (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there even one? Is there an WP:RS that shows us the differences? –HTD 14:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I've discussed this with the user involved in editing the article and he/she agrees.Bleubeatle (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I've removed them as examples but they are still under "Notable people" section.Bleubeatle (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Eraserheads!

Yes, with the exclamation point. Someone will want to look at what's been up with this page? (Sorry, kinda busy. Can't do it myself right now.) - Alternativity (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Anastasia: The Philippine Connection

I just read this rather "interesting" article early today. I'm not sure how both parts can be integrated into Anastasia's article. Although this can be taken with some grains of salt, let's tread carefully, but God forbid if we have our very own Anna Anderson. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article. Nice story but I doubt that the writer was really implying that she's related to Russian royalty. It seems like she was just trying to make her encounter with her grandma interesting by hinting that she could be Anastasia. So I don't really think that its another "Anna Anderson" scenario. In real life, they have already found the remains of the real Anastacia and that no one survived the shooting of the Romanov family. Great article though. Never knew that some pinoys really have European ancestry yet it isn't always noticeable in most of our facial features. This one is a great example. Thank you for sharing.Bleubeatle (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Philippine WikiConference

Wikipedians in the Philippines are invited to attend the 2012 Philippine WikiConference to be held on May 26, 2012 8:30am at Co.lab Xchange in #3 Brixton Street, Brgy. Kapitolyo, Pasig City. This will be held in conjunction with the 3rd Annual General Meeting of Wikimedia Philippines which follows the conference at 3:00PM. Registration is free, Please sign-up here.

We may provide participation (fare) coverage to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions to Wikipedia especially the Philippine language Wikipedias (Tagalog, Cebuano, Waray-Waray, Ilocano, Central Bicolano, Kapampangan, Pangasinan and Chavacano including Hiligaynon which is in the Incubator)-- Namayan (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WMPH Toolbar

It seems that this template was deleted by an admin. Can someone remove it from the Tambayan pages?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. IP :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

PBBU Fanwikified

It baffles me why someone has opted to go bold with separating various sections of the article into their own articles. I mean, those subarticles stand an added risk of being prodded. This is just addressing the article's length too far. I suppose this is the norm for other PBB articles as well? It seems just as worse as the culling done last year on Double-Up.--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, the article needs reversion to acceptable standards, like the nomination history shouldn't be separated from its main article. This issue was raised over the weekend. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone near Mindanao?

Hi, Is anyone here near Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental) to take a picture? It is a really impressive statue and a picture would be nice for that page. Or maybe you guys can ask at the conference on May 26. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Brewing edit war at BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15)

User:Dave1185 has been busy with the article, notably the section on the Panatag Shoal incident. He's been somewhat belligerent on the talk page as well. Might bear some watching. - Alternativity (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Great Seal of the Republic of the Philippines

Hello, as I read RA 8491, the National Coat-of-Arms (Section 41) is different from The Great Seal of the Republic of the Philippines (Section 42). Can someone draw it? Is it the same as this link? --Exec8 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandara Park : Korean person of Filipino nationality?

Hi guys I'm just curious about this girl who's article happens to be under your scope as well. I just thought that this was the best place to ask my doubts about Philippines' term of 'nationality' and use her as possible example.

According to Sandara Park's article, she lived in the Philippines for 9+ years correct which would mean that she would've have received a citizenship by then. My question is how you would use the term of 'nationality' towards people like Sandara? Can you use the term 'Filipino' even if she's not ethnically 'Filipino descent' by birth? 119.224.27.62 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One can be Filipino, if they are a Filipino Citizen, but not of Filipino ethnicity. There are notable groups of individuals who carry this destinction, one of the largest being Chinese Filipinos, however many members of those groups have intermarried and some groups have had multiracial children.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. So I guess its possible for Sandara to be referred to as a 'South Korean-Filipino' right? But that's if there are sources that state that she has a Filipino citizenship and not just a permanent resident. 119.224.27.62 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandara can only have Filipino citizenship iff she's naturalized. I dunno if she underwent that. –HTD 00:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By 'naturalized' do you mean that she followed the Philippine nationality law and attained a citizenship right? So if she did then do we have the right to call her South Korean-Filipino correct? That's all I want to ask because there might be other articles in the future and not just Sandara's. Immigrants who come from other countries not just Korea or China who later become notable. 119.224.27.62 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At best she's a South Korean expatriate. –HTD 15:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the immigrant issue. As for Sandara Park, I'm working to revise part of the article, because there's just a lot of fantardy info, indicating POV. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your post here. Xeltran (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamic insurgency in the Philippines article retitled

The article is now titled as Bangsamoro Independence War. Send comments on the article's talk page. --Bluemask (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a unilateral action without a discussion taking place. I guess we'll just have to take it to the article's Talk page then. Xeltran (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

bold actions can be reverted, and a discussion begun on the article's talk page. If one disagrees with the change, and start a discussion, and seek comment to form a consensus for future moves of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of articles with outdated info.

Check this out. The articles I've looked at had info from 2007. I've started changing "latest" to the relevant year and adding tags (e.g., {{update after|2008}}) to the articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the results of the 2010 census have been released in full yet. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there away that we could identify the unupdated articles automatically? Perhaps a bot could help. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

2010 census data is at http://census.gov.ph/data/census2010/index.html. I tried updating the articles from info in there, but rummaging through the census data on a per-municipality basis just took too much time. Taking a second look at that, though, I see that the census data is grouped by Region/Province; that would make the edits workable if working from a list of articles in the "Municipalities of XXX" categories. WP:AWB could probably be used to semi-automate this, but doing that requires coming (back) up to speed on AWB. It seems to me that there's enough variability between articles that a human editor is needed in the loop. In any case, the updated articles should probably be left tagged something like {{update after|next-census-year|1|1|category-name}} to make the articles needing updating easily identifiable next time around. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We could set three update teams: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao and ask for volunteers each to lessen the load. I'm only good with Twitter magic so I can't help you with the AWB.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When WikiData comes out June next year (SkyHarbor this is your homework at Wikipedia Academy), we will focus on fast-tracking the census information.--Exec8 (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Anderson

Can someone back me up on the article? It appears that some fanboy's been editing the article with squee-ish information and other such cruft. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

City articles are full of adverts and biased info

I've recently quit my Wiki-break in order to get back on track to my Wikipedia editing but lo and behold...I've immediately seen too many adverts plaguing PH city articles. I won't delve into specifics but seriously the phrases world-class shopping malls, best in the region, the largest, the biggest, etc. are not quite rare. In fact, I've taken to the task of removing lists of shopping malls, tourist destinations, and general adverts. Do we really need to actually list all shopping centers in a city? Don't get me started with pictures. It's as if someone was hell bent on showing everything in his city that he places 5-10 images in just one section. Common violations fall under WP:WEASEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc. If anyone wants to help, please do so. We badly need it. Xeltran (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we really need to overhaul most of our articles. I usually focus on External Links violations. BTW Welcome back.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The General Trias, Cavite and Cavite articles appear to be plastered by non-notable lists of establishments (i.e. schools and stuff) without any sufficient backing as to why they should be included. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the seemingly endless superlative nicknames that I highly suspect to be peacock words. I'm trying to trim them one article at a time. Xeltran (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Filipinos and people of Filipino descent in entertainment

Just dropping by as I'm more or less retired. New article by User:Aajim: List of Filipinos and people of Filipino descent in entertainment needs looking into. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Heroes' Cemetery and University of the City of Manila

There should be concerted effort and convincing arguments for those articles to be moved back to their proper English names, which are Libingan ng mga Bayani and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. I literally LOLed when all you needed to move Libingan to Heroes was a week of discussion, three non-Philippine sources, and like three people commenting. Something has to be done so that these are moved back to their proper names. –HTD 15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have generally opposed the "Anglicization" of Philippines-related articles where their common names are in Filipino rather than English. This goes beyond the LNMB and PLM: there's also the Panatang Makabayan, for example. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why Panatang Makabayan was Anglicized, though. That's sorta the reason why I prefer "Day of Valor" over "Araw ng Kagitingan", which is located at Bataan Day. –HTD 05:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

True; why should such articles with Tagalog titles have their names changed? And please don't anybody argue "so foreign people could understand it better." Who redirected the above articles? --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is known better by their original names, go by it rather than Anglicize them. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we bring it back to their original Tagalog names after all that was talked about? I bet some of the editors who commented are not even from the Philippines. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This was the point of the discussion. There has to be convincing arguments so that other people can be swayed. –HTD 05:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar debate as to whether the Shirley Temple article should be renamed as Shirley Temple-Black or not. The one who suggested the move cited the subject's political career as Shirley went by her married name, but others, myself included, argued against it as while Temple's stint as an ambassador was notable, she was more remembered for her career as a child actress. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

CJ Floro part II

Walang kadala-dala!!! (The man just doesn't take a hint). Inserting into article.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Howard posted about this on his Twitter. xD --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I beat ABS-CBN. I got first dibs on this. hah –HTD 04:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank

It appears that news items that were cited User:Xeltran has served as basis for the inclusion of Macclesfield Bank in areas or territories claimed by the Philippines. I am disputing its inclusion as there is no official Philippine government paper that supports such claims. -- Namayan (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

These are my current secondary sources about the PH claim to the Macclesfield Bank:

• US State Dept., published in 2005
• Inquirer article, published June 25, 2012
• ABS-CBNnews.com article, published June 21, 2012
• Want China Times article, published June 22, 2012

All of these are verifiable and reliable sources. Please note that as per reliability in specific contexts, usage of secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. I currently cannot find a first-hand government source that says the PH govt is unambiguously claiming the Bank, but I believe my secondary sources are sufficient to substantiate the PH claim as these are reliable sources afterall. My argument is that if what Inquirer, et al has published is untrue, the DFA would have already corrected them by now through an erratum by these news agencies, and that the DFA is just adopting a policy of deliberate ambiguity in order not to complicate the dispute situation further now that the country is embroiled in the Scarborough Shoal issue.

If you have thoughts on the issue, please take time to join and review the discussion at User_talk:Namayan#Macclesfield_Bank. Xeltran (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And there's one missing link, an official government paper indicating that it is being claimed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. -- Namayan (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You have the burden of looking for references that states otherwise. My sources pass WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Even the first edit to the article has included a PH claim and has been there ever since. I only added sources just recently in order to have the information there become verifiable. The fact is, there is a reliable and verifiable source that says PH is claiming the Bank; we don't need to dig up all the PH's government websites just to find a primary source when there are other sources to verify such that such claim exists. The passage of the Baselines Law of 2009 does not repeal any other existing territorial claims. If you self-interpret the non-inclusion of the Bank in any of the provisions of that law as withdrawal of the government's claim to it, then that's original research. Xeltran (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please churn out anything that reflects official state position on the matter, because that alone would suffice the claim. -- Namayan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to. I'm not the one looking for a source that apparently doesn't exist. As per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, any secondary source that pass such WP policy can be included in an article. Xeltran (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it be conceived that such a territory is being claimed by the Philippines, when Philippine territory is based on:

• The territory ceded by Spain to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898.
• Treaty in Washington between Spain and the United States on November 7, 1900 .
• Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain on January 2, 1930 (covering islands off Northern Borneo)
• RA 3046, the original Baselines Law.
• RA 5446, corrected typographical errors in RA 3046, where it reserved without prejudice the delineation of baselines in North Borneo.
• PD 1596, covering the Kalayaan Group of Islands.
• PD 1599, defining the EEZ of the Philippines
• RA 9522, new Baseline Law.
• Plus other international agreements/entitlements that the Philippines is a party to like UNCLOS, which gave the countries the right to an EEZ and extended continental shelf (Benham Rise).

Please guide me, if any of these would encompass Macclesfield Bank?-- Namayan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC

Again, you're basing all your assertions on original research: you list laws and interpret them on your own. Are you sure you've listed all the basis of the PH gov't on how it will defend its claims? You're not an expert on the subject. How can you say what territories are being claimed or not? You're not even privy on how the PH gov't. defends its territorial claims. Can you prove that what Inquirer, et al published are non-factual? These agencies are far more credible than someone who reads a few laws and interprets them at face value. We've been going around these a number of times already. Just prove that what that article says is false. I don't need to look over all the books in Congress just to place a verifiable sentence in Wikipedia, when one reliable news article is enough to prove the same and when WP:RS and WP:VERIFY are as clear as sky (best you read over them if you haven't.). Xeltran (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, it remains to be seen if any of these documents contained Macclesfield. How can news articles supplant an information that is non-existent? -- Namayan (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're implying that these news articles are false. That is something you have to prove. How can you be sure that the documents you've listed are the only basis for the territorial claims? You're acting like an expert for a subject which you are obviously not an authority of. Inquirer, et al says PH claims the Bank. That basis is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you wish to pore over voluminous books or records of the government, then do so if you wish to. Xeltran (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Inquirer is not the State or an official arm of the State that could rightfully say that we claim the territory. Only when there is an official document that will tell that the Philippines has extended its claim to Macclesfield, which is so close to Paracel islands, then this Inquirer information must be accurate. Why would the PH cry out loud against China's incursions in the country's EEZ, when Macclesfield is way beyond our own? How will I be able to produce a document which would indicate the PH does not claim the bank when it doesn't even claim it? Should we have official government papers that would say, we don't claim Northern Marianas, Palau, Guam or Keeling in Taiwan? Kindly refer to this [1] -- Namayan (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not an expert of the subject so stop poring over those UN records and tell us which territories are claimed or not. I can produce a document that says PH claims the Bank. And those sources are reliable and verifiable. I don't need to provide a source directly from the State in order to include something or not include in Wikipedia. You have never disproved that the Inquirer, et al articles are wrong. PH claims the Bank until you can prove that what they published are clearly wrong. Xeltran (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone is even better than the U.N. now which accepts the limits of territories/claims of its member states. -- Namayan (talk)

I've provided a source that says PH claims the Bank. Are you accusing Inquirer, et al of posting wrong information? Are Inquirer, et al not reliable sources? Are information posted by Inquirer, et al not verifiable through another source? Prove that what they posted are not true at all. You can't just read a few laws and treatises and say, "The Bank isn't mentioned in any of here so it's probably not being claimed by PH at all." That's original research. Xeltran (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have to see if the Inquirer reflects official Philippine government position on the matter, which is still unsubstantiated. As far as I've seen, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/PHL.htm does not reflect it. -- Namayan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have to see if the Inquirer reflects official Philippine government position on the matter? You're not convinced that what Inquirer is posting is true? Please provide sources that say that what Inquirer publishes is false. You're committing original research yet again by reading passages from the UN website and interpreting something that isn't there in the first place. Don't remove perfectly referenced statements from the articles concerning this issue. Xeltran (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there's nothing more official and accurate than Philippine submissions to the UN and PH territorial laws than the Inquirer. Please substantiate the Inquirer news article with official government position. -- Namayan (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here to offer a view from another angle.

In this recent edit, I added a clarification to the MB article, saying that the nations claiming MB claim it "in whole or in part". I think that there is a disconnect over the definition over what is and is not included in MB. The MB article describes an "elongated atoll", and also says that a number of geographic features not included in this "elongated atoll" are included in MB (under the name of "Zhongsha Islands") as far as the PRC is concerned. One of these geographic features is Scarborough Shoal. The Philippine government may or may not consider Scarborough Shoal as being located within what it considers to be the geographic limits of MB, but there's no disagreement that the Philippines does claim Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines, then, appears to claim part of what the PRC considers to be MB.

I don't know what the PDI reporter had in mind in writing "The Philippines claims parts of the Spratlys and Macclesfield Bank," but that seems to fit with my understanding and with my clarifying edit. (I also don't know how well researched the PDI reporter's assertion "The Philippines administers Macclesfield Bank through the provincial government of Zambales." was). However, I see that this, mentioned and linked above as "US State Dept., published in 2005", says, at footnote 27 on page 14, "15°50’N, 114°20’E. Macclesfield Bank is also claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam."

Can we agree that it is not universally recognized that the Philippines has no territorial claim in the area of Macclesfield Bank, and that the definition of precisely what comprises Macclesfield Bank is not crystal clear and may possibly be understood differently by the PRC, Philippine, and US governments, by reporters and editors of various newspapers, and by individual Wikipedia editors? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There are points to consider, if one goes through all the legislation on Philippine territory, it's for certain that Macclesfield lay beyond these. Why will the government harp, that China is making incursions in our territory's EEZ, when Macclesfield lies beyond that? Scarborough for its part actually lies beyond the so-called "Philippine Treaty Limits", but it is well within the EEZ. What's missing is Philippine official position that we do indeed claim the island, but it makes all these. I've downloaded a map somewhere which illustrates the maritime claims of countries in the South China Sea, and it would show that it's actually Vietnam which stakes a claim on Macclesfield and not the Philippines. Here's the map [2] -- Namayan (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is absurd to assume that the four sources would publish something non-factual. The most preferred reference for a PH claim would be from the government itself, but since we currently do not have one at hand, we cannot just ignore what the other verifiable sources say. Looking over at the UN website and interpreting the non-mention of the Bank in any of the documents as non-existence of the PH claim is original research since self-interpretation of primary sources is highly frowned upon in Wikipedia and secondary sources that will prove such claim has already been presented.

Assuming such claim didn't exist at all, we still have verifiable information at hand through these sources. Afterall, 'verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. Xeltran (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the refusal to recognize official documents of the Philippine government which should be the main source of information in this subject. Why would, as I would reiterate again, the Philippine government qualify that it does not claim Macclesfield, when it really doesn't. -- Namayan (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is reading a few laws and interpreting them by yourself. The M. Bank claim has been posted as early as 2005 (even earlier probably) by the US State Dept. If it wasn't true, PH would have already clearly said that it doesn't claim it. The problem is refusal to recognize that sources are available to verify such claim. It's absurd to think that just because one can't find a primary source from the government means that such claim does not exist. It's like saying the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 didn't happen because the PRC continues to deny it and there are no official government records to back it up. Why would Inquirer, ABS-CBN, etc. post something that is not true? That's irresponsible journalism and is highly unlikely to happen for an issue of that magnitude. It's wrong to assume that what they published are false until proven true. That's not how you read a newspaper. Xeltran (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the U.S. State Department in a position to say which territories must the Philippine claim? What is wrong again about official documents, when it doesn't indicate such claimed territories. Should we suggest to Congress to have a provision "Areas not claimed by the Philippines" "Territories the government doesn't exercise jurisdiction or sovereignty"? It's non-mention means it does not, does that constitute original research, or simply plain logic/common sense? Please don't insinuate ABS-CBN or Inquirer provides wrong information, because they have once apologized to me for displaying the image I created in their news report without proper citation, should it be wrong to assume their researchers don't use Wikipedia, oh that is original research. -- Namayan (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The US State Department and the rest of the articles are acting as secondary sources. There's big difference between being a mirror of information and being in a position to say which territories must the Philippine claim? It's very wrong to assume that they would invent something and publish it. The Inquirer and ABS-CBNnews articles are so recent. I cannot vouch for your apology story because that's not verifiable at all (AKA story can be made up out of thin air). We are not in a position to interpret laws because we're not authorities of the subject. One can always say, "I didn't find anything about that there so it must not be true at all!" That's not right; because that's original research. I saw the article and it says something about the claim. Is it right to assume that 4 references would publish such and still is false/inaccurate? Flag the sentence as {{bettersource}} or {{dubious}} for all I care. But to remove the whole claim just because you can't find it at your desired source when other sources prove the same is wrong, just plain wrong. Xeltran (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I can circulate that e-mail, as it's an official Wikimedia Philippines e-mail, I don't have a problem doing that. So I guess our laws should have a provision that states "Areas not claimed by the Philippines" or "Areas the Philippines does not have jurisdiction or sovereignty" just for us to understand that it does not claim Macclesfield Bank. Seriously, the demarcations of Philippine territory are enough proof which areas we claim and areas we do not claim. That does not constitute original research. Kindly refer also to NAMRIA's website. -- Namayan (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, be my guest. Email Inquirer, et al and ask them where did they get that information about the claim. Be sure to back it up with OTRS. And no, you're the one suggesting about such provision in the law, not me. I'm sticking with my sources (sources that you've never disproved their credibility up to now). I see you've been reading a few demarcation lines and have been interpreting which claims are held by the PH or not. That's original research yet again because you haven't presented a credible source that specifically says that what Inquirer, et al posted a few days ago are wrong and you're assuming that all they've been posting up to now about the claim is inaccurate. It's no different from the case filed against the Supreme Court regarding the Baselines Law. You're in no position to interpret the baselines; only the Supreme Court is. Xeltran (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not me who keeps on using the Inquirer as a reference. I never thought a news report about a country's territory is more reliable than the state's legislation. -- Namayan (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not me who reads laws and acts like an expert on the subject. Do not disrupt articles by removing perfectly sourced statements. Your opinion that what Inquirer, et al posted are not accurate is based from your own opinion only. I will not hesitate to elevate this matter for admin intervention and report it as a case of someone removing completely referenced statements from the articles due to the fact that he thinks his own understanding is better than a recognized journalistic paper. Xeltran (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, someone who reads the news is treating it as the Bible truth. There are enough maps online which demarcates the Philippine territorial laws, and all of these do not encompass Macclesfield, not even the official map from NAMRIA. -- Namayan (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the appropriate location for this location is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. All subsequent discussion should be copied there or somewhere else. –HTD 15:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the inclusion of Macclesfield Bank in the territories claimed by the Philippines is sloppy journalism on the part of the cited articles. As with Namayan I don't know of any official source that says the PH government claims this territory and I've read quite a lot of articles, journal papers, and news reports about the Philippines' territorial claims. --seav (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been elevated to DRN. You're welcome to contribute your thoughts on the issue there. Xeltran (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

R.A. 10170: Quezon City now has 6 legislative districts

R.A.10170 has split Quezon City's District II into 3: District II, V, and VI. The newly created positions for the House and the Sangguniang Panlungsod will be filled in next year's National Elections. Time to update the articles and redraw maps... --seav (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures on the list of public art in Manila slated for deletion

Apparently, some overzealous user on Commons has decided to tag most images on the list of public art in Manila up for deletion, on the grounds that the Philippines has no freedom of panorama provision. As the IPO wants case law to settle the matter (though I don't see the likes of Napoleon Abueva suing), all I can say is "Oh dear God". :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Having just come steaming from the ears from yet another discussion on whether a commemorative plaque by the Philippine Historical Committee can be considered a work of the Philippines government or not, I say fuck Commons. All anyone ever does there is find gaps and loopholes in various laws to justify deleting everything. The only impression I've ever gotten from volunteering there is that they don't want your pictures.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No matter which we can do, but discuss it far from expectations. I'm helpless, just taunting damn commons. Jonas'VM ☼ 08:30 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame Commons. Blame our shitty laws. –HTD 02:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines has pretty up-to-date copyright laws, especially given that our law is from 1998. But I digress: several parts of the law came from PD 84, passed in Marcos' time anyway.

This does put into perspective a very important question: in the interest of always staying on the "right" side of the law, should we disenfranchise an entire viewing demographic by deleting images wantonly just because the letter rather than the spirit of the law, and of Wikipedia's mission, prevails? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I will go over the deletion requests this weekend to categorize the DRs like that of commons:Category:United States FOP cases so that it would be easier to undelete when our laws on FoP are settled. --Bluemask (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Young Critics Circle

Just a heads up, everyone. Feel free to chime in your comments at the AfD page. --- Tito Pao (talk)

My bad. See also this --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Philippines (navy blue).svg

While editing Demographics of Filipino Americans I went to check a wikilink to the article Commonwealth of the Philippines. In doing so it appears that the wikicommons file File:Flag of the Philippines (navy blue).svg appears to have been deleted. It was deleted from Wikipedia, as it had been moved to Wikicommons, however when you check there is no such file! Can we find someone please who can revert this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a WikiCommons administrator deleted the image see here. Is there anyway this can be reversed, the deletion of this image is very disruptive to historical articles regarding the Philippines prior to the flag change during the Marcos Regime and the flag change in 1998.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, since it has been deleted in wikicommons, the deleted file here should be restored?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonder what happened, it appears that the file has been restored? Well, that's one less thing to worry about. Thanks to the restorer.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's appearing now, and appeared earlier on the file page but not elsewhere. –HTD 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Lack of images. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Storyland

Template:Storyland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Filipino American from C/B to GA

The article has gone significant work and most everything is sourced now with reliable sources. I was wondering what we can do to move this article from C or B to GA. There are several tags on the article, including article size issues, and issues regarding external links. Can someone please look at the article, and provide new eyes to see what can be done regarding those tags, especially the external links section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the article

• The Immigration section still has some tags.
• The article mixes templated and hand-coded cites; I don't know how strict GA evaluations generally are about WP:CITEVAR, but that is a negative point.
• The article has dead links (I just tagged some. checking the article with Checklinks turned up an apparent bug in that tool seemingly caused by unusual ref names in the article, which I will report, but it might be a good idea to avoid the unusual <ref name="url=http://...whatever"> ref names.).

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Lincecum GAR

Tim Lincecum, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Elastic strings?

I know this isn't the right place to ask for such things, but since this is a noticeboard about the Philippines, I was wondering as to where can I buy elastic strings similar to this in Manila, i.e. what store in Divisoria. I can order stuff on eBay myself, but I don't feel like going through the hassle and bureaucracy of being in that EMS office. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried checking eBay Philippines (http://www.ebay.ph)? Or perhaps Sulit.com? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

None of them offer such strings. The ones I'm referring to are used on holding up the appendages on an American Girl doll, btw. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've seen those in Manila, but if its the same as the elastic string that we call "chinese garter" here lol, then i'm sure you'll find it in any bargain mall like 168 Shopping Mall in Divisoria (Binondo) along Recto Avenue. There's also Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan but the odds of finding them are better in Divisoria, i think they sell everything there. RioHondo (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the strings used in Chinese garter are a little on the flat side. Might try looking for the strings in Divisoria, though. Either that or I might as well be forced to ask my relatives in the States to order a doll restring kit instead. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Alipin, Timawa, Maharlika, and other articles on pre-Hispanic Philippines

I'm currently completely revising our articles on pre-Hispanic Filipino society. I've already finished Alipin, Timawa, Maharlika, Maginoo, and (partly) Lapu-Lapu. I will be tackling Datu and Babaylan (which I'll probably merge with Katalonan) next. Are there any articles I'm missing? I'm primarily using the works of William Henry Scott as reference. Any help in reducing cross-article contradiction and confusion as well as additional expansions would be very welcome. Pointing me to additional references will also help. These have been in very poor condition for years now, and home to a lot of nationalistic revisionism and nonsense.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can anyone confirm the stuff on the Boxer Codex article? The photo captions seem to be quite arbitrary. The pictures labeled "timawa" for example were actually originally labeled Nanirales, whatever the hell that meant. Claims of royalty being color-coded is also quite suspect, though imported red cloth was indeed quite expensive. Does anyone know where to get an online copy of the codex? Or if not, at least can visit the Ayala Museum which I think has a display and an English version of the codex?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah scratch that. The number of articles I would have to update is simply overwhelming. :/ I guess I'll just get back to my usual topics of interest - biology.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep working on it a litte at a time! :-) There's so much work to be done :-S -- Alternativitymobile (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nyeah, it's not my field of interest, and like most things I force myself to do I eventually run out of juju, heh. That said, Datu needs to be brought in line with the article on Maginoo. I also noticed that there are claims in some articles that the Visayan title "Salip" is the equivalent of the Muslim title "Caliph", and use it as proof that some Datus were Muslim (Lapu-Lapu, for example). It's not actually, "Salip" comes from Sanskrit "Sri Paduka" rather than Arabic Caliph. Babaylan also needs expansion, particularly the fact that homosexual men commonly became babaylan in Pre-Hispanic times in addition to women, similar to the two-spirits among Native American peoples. It also should be merged with the Tagalog Katalonan, since the subjects of both topics are more or less the same, differing only in minor details.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Images for the PH articles

I think we need some high resolution images for the Philippine articles. Several are sourced from VGA, cellphone cameras, which is seems not dainty.Jonas'VM ☼ 11:51 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And so does the icons for government organisations. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you guys plan to upload hi-resolution seals of government offices, upload them to Commons instead, as free content from the Philippine government is accepted there. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I did to the General Trias, Cavite seal. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Education data in Palawan is out of date.

There is out-of-date information from 2004 in Palawan#Education concerning the enrollment rate in public elementary schools, but I haven't been able to find any more recent data online. Is there anybody here who has a better idea of where to look for recent enrollment data? Kind regards, Matt (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest sending an e-mail to the Department of Education, or send them a tweet (Department of Education on Twitter). Unfortunately, even the DepEd doesn't have (updated) information online on their website. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

See this thread at ANI. GotR ^Talk 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Heroine

New artick, just started working on it. It's now live, thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

10 years of Wikipedia in the Philippines

Hi guys. In 2013, we will be celebrating ten years of Wikipedia in the Philippines (the date of reference is when the Tagalog Wikipedia was first founded on December 1, 2003). Because this will be a big year for Filipino Wikipedians (both within and outside the Philippines, of course), I wonder how we should celebrate this momentous occasion in our history? It's actually a very good question to ponder on. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Artista Academy

I checked out this article by chance, but the text seems atrocious in terms of NPOV quality. This screams cleanup and I've chipped in with the lead. Help out, thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes (or additions) to WP:MOSPHIL

There are two changes (or additions) to WP:MOSPHIL which are being proposed:

• RioHondo is suggesting (originally at the MOSPHIL talk page) that we come up with a naming convention for barangays, particularly in cases where the barangay is notable enough to warrant its own article. (For those who are unaware of the community's stand on barangays, it has long been the community's view that barangays are inherently not notable unless proven by WP:RS.)
• I'm suggesting that we make use of the Philippine peso sign (₱) mandatory, and MOSPHIL can be used to enforce it. (This way, we can be consistent with our use of the peso sign, and eliminate arbitrary P/PHP [except in certain circumstances]/PhP/Php usage.)

Any thoughts? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:barangay articles, I suggest using the format "X, Y" or "X, Y, Z"; where X=barangay, Y=city/municipality, and Z=province. Z would depend on whether or not the Y article is titled with it. I also agree with the mandatory use of the Peso sign (though I can't see it from my end, I only see a box like this-->  ) :P RioHondo (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't see the peso sign, that means either you're not using a modern operating system, or your browser is old. Computers running Windows XP (or Vista) or later should see it, as well as Macs and Linux machines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. May I also propose the following changes to the naming convention for cities:

1) That only highly urbanized cities and independent cities may be titled independent of their province, and that those of component cities, by the very definition of the word component and their status within their home provinces(that of still being able to elect their provincial officials), should still retain their province in their article titles.

2) In the case of independent cities or HUCs sharing the same name with other independent cities or HUCs (though, I don't think there is one yet out of the current 38), they go back to being disambiguated. RioHondo (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't decide on barangay titles, but I should be cautious with the mandatory use of the peso sign. Not everyone knows how to add it, and as stated, there are still several prehistoric machines around. In fact I wouldn't advocate its use except probably for money related articles. –HTD 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the peso sign can't be typed with a regular (American) keyboard anyway, we can use the solution that is being implemented with the Indian rupee sign: a template. Or, in our case, since the sign is encoded in Unicode already, a substituted template. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol @ prehistoric machines. Yes, a template would definitely be more effective due to the above stated issues with keyboards and those machines. :) And again, with regards to barangay titles, my proposal was just to emulate the style already established for Manila districts, like Ermita, Manila and Santa Mesa, Manila.

Although there are workarounds, I still be cautious on these; I'd probably wait until news websites start using the typographical symbol, and until prehistoric machines are either phased out or are able to display the symbol before making mass changes. People are still used to seeing the capital "P" to denote the peso sign, so when they see something else thanks to an old computer, they'd get more confused than be helpful.. –HTD 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can't type the sign on a Philippine computer to begin with since we don't have keyboard layouts that support the sign anyway (although amusingly enough, we have a national typewriter layout that makes provisions for both the peso sign and ñ), I highly doubt newspapers will start using the sign, despite the fact that the sign is used in advertising (both print and broadcast), as well as online in some cases. I do think that it's better that we start adopting it now rather than later, since that in turn gives an incentive for others to use it, technology notwithstanding. . --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I know of one newspaper that uses the Peso sign in both headline and body text in all their articles: The Manila Bulletin. However, with my other subscription, The Philippine Star, they're still stuck in P. --RioHondo (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Philippine Daily Inquirer also uses the peso sign, but inconsistently. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (UPDATE: The Inquirer uses the peso sign in headlines, but not in body text. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia is supposed not to be a "trail blazer" in these things (there's a WP page for this but I forgot). Wikipedia should be the last to adopt, after at least "some" of the reliable sources had already done so. –HTD 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Howard, we're not trailblazing anything. The peso sign has been there for more or less a century, enshrined in local legislation and in use by Filipinos (including the same reliable sources you speak of) for roughly the same time period. This should not be compared to the case with the Indian rupee sign, which the English Wikipedia adopted pretty early on. If the sign exists, then by all means we should use it. (Now if our government leaders can have the foresight to reaffirm the use of the peso sign, let alone make it easier for "prehistoric" computers to see the sign, then I'll be really happy.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If other reliable sources use the sign, then we should. If they don't, or at least, use it inconsistently, then we shouldn't. When we write with our hands, we draw the symbol, when we encode it, we usually don't; when we read on books, newspapers and website, we usually see "P", save for advertising materials. Now once we encode it, get used to seeing it when reading printed material, and we use it full-time, I can support this proposal.

I've been reading the Philippine Star ever since they cost P7, and while the symbol does appear on the masthead, it has never used the symbol on the text per se. I dunno know now since I've stopped reading newspapers in general and rely on websites, but generally, I either still see "P" or even "PHP" or they even write out the entire "peso(s)" word. See this article from Interaksyon, for example. –HTD 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, the Philippine Star costs P20 now, sir. But yes, still no Peso sign anywhere in their broadsheet today, aside from that on their masthead and a few ads as you mentioned. But while I still agree that the peso sign must be used as much as possible for education, making it mandatory at this point with all the prehistoric keyboards and machines around would be impossible. But at least we could probably start with the Philippine peso article, that one is full of little boxes. :P RioHondo (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the Star when it was P7. Maybe the late 1990s. As for the Philippine peso article, I guess that's where the peso sign should be prevalent, but as (1) there are still a lot of prehistoric machines around, (2) in printouts and websites, the peso sign is rarely used, and (3) the reader expects - and understands - that a capital "P" followed by a number means it is a peso sign, that means we should wait until (1) most of the prehistoric machines are upgraded, (2) the peso sign is consistently used in books and websites, and (3) everyone is wired to know that the peso sign should always appear in websites and books when dealing with prose. –HTD 18:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i was just wondering who i was speaking with actually, you're like 30 years my senior? Hehe! But well said on the defense. :) RioHondo (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 27, but I've started reading ever the Star since I was in high school, mostly to hone my English skillz. –HTD 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As for component cities, they are growing in numbers every year. In the past couple of months alone, there had been at least 10 move requests from proud mayors and their die-hard fans, which is making maintenance even more difficult. Page move wars occur with every city conversion, each move an attempt to locate where they fall on the very long list of ambiguous conditions. Every month, every year we will be faced with the same issues, all because Mosphil allows such practice. When to use City, If it's a capital city, When to use province, City with the same name, Component city with the same name, Two or more cities with the same name, When to use Philippines, Special title. Give Wikipedia a break. :) RioHondo (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As for cities, I was actually quite happy with the moves that were done the past year(s). This removed the word "City" from article titles unless needed, although that also meant the removal of the province name. While I'm in favor of bringing the province names back to article titles for component cities full time, there had been moves elsewhere in wikipedia in removing the place name disambiguators when it's not needed (So San Francisco, California became San Francisco.) I still prefer seeing San Jose del Monte, Bulacan than the current San Jose del Monte but the current situation is still better than seeing San Jose del Monte City. –HTD 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested this when the current naming convention was being discussed, but it was shot down. However, I still prefer the old system. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess with US articles they go by the general WP:MOS guidelines. But since we have our own WP:MOSPHIL, we are free to follow our own format. And I too love the fact that we have managed to remove all those "trapo lingo" from our articles. But unfortunately, outside these main articles, trapo lingo still persists. On the one hand, you have San Jose del Monte, and on the other: List of subdivisions in San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, Legislative district of San Jose del Monte City, Brgy. Fatima III, San Jose del Monte City, Barangay Tungkong Mangga, City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. So while the main city articles are governed by WP:MOSPHIL, their related articles are not. And that is why i'm calling for changes to it, starting with barangays. --RioHondo (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it "trapo lingo" if the Philippine government itself uses "xxx City"? The only reason why the current guidelines were enacted in the first place was frustration over the case of the League of 16. Now that the episode in question is behind us, we can put the issue now into perspective without the interference of that issue. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying our national government uses trapo lingo. I'm referring to the government that created SOCCSKSARGEN, CALABARZON and MIMAROPA. They're trapo. Lol! I keed! :P But when PNoy says "pinoys" to refer to filipino people in his english speeches, would you say pinoys should be the acceptable term? If anything, id say "xxx City" or pinoys or presidentiable are just Philippine english terms or quirks that don't fly here in wikipedia or in any Standard english encyclopedia for that matter. But that's a different topic hehe! RioHondo (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've swung back and forth on the use of the word "City" in article titles, but I've become convinced that ditching the word is the best way to go. Ultimately, in ordinary conversation, very few add the word "City" to places that are already cities, except for the exceptions that we're using. For example, if you ask a person from San Juan where he lives at, he'd say "San Juan" instead of "San Juan City". Adding the word "City" is mostly done on beauty pageants ("I'm Krissy from Navotas City!"), and "pasikat" talk.

Haha! I know right, and if this conversation takes place outside Metro Manila or Luzon, you'd normally hear people say they're from Manila or Maynila first before saying exactly where in the metro, like San Juan, if the person asks. Same goes for those from Mandaue or Lapu-Lapu, they'd say Cebu. But very rarely would you hear anyone say they're from xxx City or City of xxx. Like those from San Fernando, they'd say they're from either San Fernando, La Union or San Fernando, Pampanga, not San Fernando City (if they're from La Union) or City of San Fernando (If they're from Pampanga) as how the trapo linguists would have wanted them to. :) RioHondo (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For people living at the metro, it is not exactly the case: the people who were born and raised in Manila (those who had not migrated to the metro) would, more often than not, identify with the "neighborhood"/barangay (district) first; for example, Tondo, Singalong, or even Barangay Bangcal in Makati. It's those who came from elsewhere and went to the metro, or those who move from one place to another, generalize that the metro is Manila. –HTD 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno where you come from, but I know that regardless of where you live in Manila (Tondo, Makati, San Juan, Project 6), people in the provinces would call you Manila boy/girl. Lol. (You know, Maynila vs. promdi?) :P And yes, almost anyone I ask that visits the province on my breaks in the province, i get "taga Maynila ako" or "from Manila ako". And i'd always go "Ah ya san ka sa Manila?" Lol! Anyways, i guess we just have different experiences. :) RioHondo (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And people from Manila call anyone that came from Visayas, whether Bogo or Tagbilaran as "Bisaya". –HTD 19:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For people living in the provinces, it's a mixed bag, really. When you're in the Metro, when they ask you where you're from, they'd answer "I'm from <province>." If you live at the provinces, the person would say "I'm from <town>/<city>."

It's like what I've read: a Nigerian in London is an African; at Nigeria is from one of the states there; when he's on his home state, he's from his hometown. And so on. –HTD 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As for other articles still stuck in "City" hell, they're just waiting to be moved (or were moved too many times already they can't be moved simply anymore), although unless there are exceptions, such as when a school is known primarily with the city name having the word "City" on it (hypothetical: "Saint Mary's Academy of Dasmarinas City"). These also include the legislative districts articles, which I'd be separating into individual districts from being grouped with their mother provinces/cities (ex: Legislative districts of Marikina City will be split into 1st legislative district of Marikina and 2nd legislative district of Marikina, and so on).

Actually, I have been moving articles to conform to these guidelines, but I always get the "This is not covered by WP:MOSPHIL as it only refers to the city articles and not barangays, or other articles" lecture from them. So the articles end up getting moved back. Specifying explicitly that WP:MOSPHIL applies to all titles of related city articles as well would certainly help in these efforts. I agree with those exceptions tho pertaining to official organizational titles. RioHondo (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is not part of a title (such as the "Saint Mary's Academy of Dasma") it conforms with the MOS. For example, the "list of schools in <place>" and "list of people from <place>" or even "<barangay>, <place>" should conform to the MOS. –HTD 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosphil doesn't explicitly say that hence the confusion. RioHondo (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno how MOSPHIL is written but the foot should follow the head. –HTD 19:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still some kinks to the cityhood naming, such as the case of the badly-titled Lapu-Lapu, Philippines (which should be at "Lapu-Lapu City"), but overall, the moves were done cleanly.

Lapu-Lapu City it is, as it is the natural disambiguator from Lapu-Lapu the person. RioHondo (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As for WP:MOSPHIL being it's "own" guideline, as much as possible, WP:MOSPHIL should conform to other other nationally-derived MOSes, unless local usage is a lot different elsewhere. In our case, it's not. –HTD 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. RioHondo (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice: There's a discussion on amending some MOSPHIL's naming conventions for places at that page's talk page. –HTD 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Manila Village, Louisiana

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jean Lafitte, Louisiana#New Historical Plaque. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please watch

Not to follow an editor however can an administrator who is a member of this wikiproject please review the actions of an editor who has show a recent history of adding copyrighted images into the infoboxes of Filipino celebrities, such as what occurred at the Lea Salonga article (and elsewhere)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the title of this Wikiproject "Tambayan Philippines"?

I'm just curious. I'm Filipino and all the other Wikiprojects of the other countries are like this: Wikipedia: WikiProject (name of the country). Why can't we do the same? It's like we are trying hard to be different? I don't know how to change a WikiProject name so yeah. Is there anybody here who agrees with me? Sairyu (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's never bothered me. It's a "don't fix what isn't broken" situation. Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines is a redirect here, so it's not as if it's disrupting anything.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tambayan was originally a regional notice board for Filipino Wikipedians, which eventually incorporated WikiProject features around 5-6 years ago. We never bothered to change the name, since most of the Filipino Wikipedians at the time, and probably even now, would be more accustomed to the Tambayan than a WikiProject Philippines, among other reasons. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Philippine Military Ranks Page

I have lived in the Philippines and have been looking online for info on this topic and I belive that the global security website can help.

However I request that someone ese edit the page because I do not know how to edit the page. Or someone could write insurctions for me. Thankyou!

Emperor Elijah M. F. Talbor (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You must be looking for Military ranks of the Philippines. –HTD 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Manila-related articles and lists.

I have been working on different articles and listings on several topics concerning Metro Manila and I can not for the life of me understand why there has to be so much compartmentalization and divisions specially with regards to general topics as transportation, skyscrapers, even geography, and education. Why, the list of tallest buildings in Metro Manila had been simply a redirect to the Philippine list, and instead each Metro Manila LGU of a few kms of each other came up with its own list. Transportation in Manila was merely focused on the city proper without considering majority of its citizens work and commute daily to other places in Metro Manila. A separate article on Education in Paranaque City? I live in Makati but I have always regarded myself as a Manileño and a Manila citizen, and the whole Metro Manila, my playground. The world sees Manila as the entire Metropolitan area, so that the flooding in Marikina River and Quezon City in the last few days was headlined Manila floods in all world media. NAIA is not a Pasay or Paranaque airport but a Manila airport. Even the hotels and condominium developments in the metropolis label themselves as Manila-- Bellevue Manila in Muntinlupa? Resorts World Manila in Pasay? Holiday Inn Manila Galleria in Ortigas? Novotel Manila Araneta Center in Quezon City? Anyway, I have revised the above articles to make them more "pan-Manilan" and be more useful to worldwide readers (including Manila metro citizens like myself, and all the rest in the provinces) who may not know Paranaque, Makati, Taguig, Malabon, etc. but knows Manila. Cheers! RioHondo (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of tallest buildings in the Philippines was originally a Metro Manila-only list, but I moved it to make it more inclusive since there are also skyscrapers outside Metro Manila, and 95% of all skyscrapers in the Philippines are in Metro Manila to begin with. If and when other cities will have denser skylines with taller buildings (and, in my personal opinion, Cebu City doesn't count yet in this regard), then we can consider spinning off lists again. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an ongoing proposal to merge all those lists of tallest buildings in Metro Manila here: Talk:List of tallest buildings in the City of Manila#Requested move. This will affect the individual lists created for Metro Manila suburbs: List of tallest buildings in Makati, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Pasig, Quezon City and Taguig. To me, this practice of treating each and every Metro Manila LGU as a separate city from the metropolis is just unforgiveable. I have likewise removed those individual lists from the Template:Tallest buildings in the Philippines. RioHondo (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be pretty much in favor of merging the tallest skyscrapers in the metro into one article but I'd caution on doing so on other topics, such as education or even addresses. As shown by the recent monsoon flooding, it's still up to the individual LGUs to suspend classes, which is one of the powers possessed by them. The only "pan-Manila" in anything is what the assignment of RTC judges (which is essentially per judicial region -- not identical to the normal regions, and what the MMDA does, which is mostly traffic on major roads, garbage disposal (garbage collection is still per LGU) and whatever else that they do. Think of it as Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex: the Cowboys Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys isn't advertised as from "Dallas" but from "Arlington". I'd strongly discourage saying that "Resorts World Manila is in Manila": my first choice would still it "RW Manila is at Pasay(, Metro Manila)" or "RW Manila is at Manila".

If anything, for Metro Manila-centric articles, I'd recommend naming as "<topic> in Metro Manila" while retaining city-centric topics if they already exist. Hence "Transportation in Manila" should be about Manila the city, while Transportation in Metro Manila should be about the metro. Imagine the confusion on a Government in Manila which states that Herbert Bautista is the mayor of Manila; it'll be wrong on all accounts. –HTD 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: On article titles, I understand that the word "City" should be dropped unless it's a disambiguator. Hence, Education in Iloilo should be about education in Iloilo province, while Politics of Iloilo City should be about politics in Iloilo City. –HTD 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. Though I agree with you that specific topics like governance and administration could only be a city-specific and city-centric thing, I kind of have a different take on all the rest. As one commentor pointed out in the talk page, we don't need this level of specificity in general topics outside government, like Transportation for instance. When the transport system in the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila are all interconnected and there's not one LGU that has its own unique system, why should there be a separate article for each one of them? For example, before I edited the article, it only talked about its Manila Light Rail Transit System, but what about Manila Metro Rail Transit System albeit suburban and outside its city limits? The Commex or Metro Commuter of the PNR is not a city-specific thing, and so is the Pasig River Ferry Service. There's also the Metro Manila Arterial Road System with all its radial and circumferential roads. So when it comes to Transportation topics, a single metro-wide article is what's needed. As for places and addresses in the metropolis, I strongly encourage using the format "LGU, Metro Manila, Philippines", or better yet, just simply Metro Manila, Philippines. E.g, "Resorts World Manila is a casino resort located in Metro Manila, Philippines", only mentioning Pasay when it comes down to specifics in the article, or in the infobox address. Some examples: Ortigas Center, Bay City, Metro Manila, and Newport City, Philippines which mentions Metro Manila as their location above all else. "Pasay, Philippines" or "Quezon City, Philippines" by themselves without mentioning Metro Manila or its location vis-a-vis Manila at least, doesn't help to enlighten the readers or promote these articles in WP and google searches. It's like Orlando, Florida and its Walt Disney World (despite the latter's location outside the city), same goes for Paris and La Defense. I mean let's be honest, no one knows Pasay or Mandaluyong outside the Philippines, even Makati is not a household name. All people ever do is type Manila + topic in all searches they do on this emerging city. Cheers! --16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You can never be too sure on this though. For example, in the case of transportation, there are unique forms even within the metro. In Manila, there are the now banned kuligligs, in Mandaluyong, the ADB-sponsored electric tricycles ply the streets, and in Makati there are electric jeepneys. There might also be unique problems or issues per city.

Basically, it's like our perception of Cebu, heck the whole Visayas. It's centered on Cebu City, ignoring the fact that Mandaue has emerged to be somewhat like a Makati of Cebu: is it proper to say that Marcelo Fernan Bridge is at [{Cebu City]] when it connects Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu City? (BTW, the Marcelo Fernan Bridge article serves really bad injustice as it doesn't mention where exactly it is, even in the infobox, while Cebu City ("It was named after Senator Marcelo Fernan, a political figure from Cebu City.") gets the credit. As for Makati, it is pwning Manila, heck QC and even Pasay is pwning Manila now). Again, I won't oppose a metro-wide article on anything, but if a city-wide article is sustainable, there's no problem in building one, and that this Manila=Metro Manila "approach" should be approached with caution. –HTD 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because Mandaue is pretty insignificant and not worth mentioning like the Tårnby Municipality where the longest combined road and rail bridge in Europe, the Øresund Bridge, actually connects in Denmark from Malmö, Sweden. Alas, the more popular city (Copenhagen) gets the credit there as well. :P At least with Lisbon's Vasco da Gama Bridge, another long bridge in Europe, the "LGUs" are indicated in the infobox. And that's exactly how I prefer Metro Manila places and topics to be presented. Metro Manila, afterall, is "referred to as simply as Manila." (Metro Manila#Etymology).

Not entirely so. The ratio of Mandaue and Cebu City's population is about 1.5:4, while Tarnby vs. Copenhagen is about 1:14. –HTD 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay.. so is this about population now and not their legal existence as separate cities/municipalities? By the way, why don't you check out Transportation in Los Angeles and Transportation in Chicago and tell me why those articles are metro-centric when both LA and Chicago are mere cities. Shouldn't they be titled Transportation in the Los Angeles area or Transportation in Los Angeles County; or for Chicago, Transportation in Cook County or Transportation in Chicago Metropolitan Area? Go ahead and change Transportation in Dallas to Transportation in Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex. And while you're at it, why not go full out and move every other related article and list of all those cities slash metro areas like you did to my articles. Umm,..List of baseball parks in Los Angeles, Sports in Detroit, List of sites of interest in Philadelphia, etc etc. okay whenever you're ready. Lol! ;) RioHondo (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Whatever the US names their articles is irrelevant. Checking out your example in "Transportation in Dallas", Fort Worth is mentioned five times, talking about rail systems in isolation with what's happening at Dallas, and the airport by which they both share. LOL the Dallas article is actually quite rightly named! –HTD 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, reading the Transportation in Los Angeles makes it appear to be about the city, and in cases where it is outside the city per se, it specifies it. Take for example the "Intercity bus services" section as it specifies buses both inside and outside the city. The seaport section talks about going to Avalon, California, which is outside the city per se but is a part of the county. My best bet is that it is about the city, as judging from Category:Transportation in Los Angeles, California, if it's outside the city, it's specified as either as "Los Angeles County" or "Greater Los Angeles" or even "Southern California". And yes, Transportation in Greater Los Angeles does exist! LOL

Ultimately, this is due to crappy scope; it can decide on which to discuss. Once this article (the LA transport one) is reviewed via PR, GA or FA, the scope will either tighten or broaden or something else will change. In crappy articles, you don't know what the article is talking about. We have an opportunity to define the scope. The Metro-wide. –HTD 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Going back to transportation, the "calesa" is the only mode of transportation unique to the City of Manila as far as I know. As a matter of fact, I've seen kuligligs in Pasay (especially the area of Libertad and behind the DFA bldg.) Electric tricycles? I see that everyday in Bonifacio Global City Ref. And I once took the the e-jeepney from RCBC Plaza to Gil Puyat LRT Station. Nothing is ever unique to any LGU here aside from their tribal leaders (aka mayors) lol. ooh, and the calesas do sometimes ply the Luneta-Roxas-Blvd-Plaza Rajah Sulayman-CCP Complex route too (which is again in Pasay outside the city!) so that's no longer unique either. :) Anyways, I get it now, approach with caution. Thanks! --RioHondo (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been to the DFA area 2 weeks ago but it was dark already and I was drunk so I haven't spotted any kuligligs. The kuligligs were a Manila original though, as they were used to haul fare in the Divisoria. Same for e-jeepneys. AFAIK, the CCP is on a border area so the kalesas are like the nomads who don't recognize political borders. lol –HTD 17:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming of articles

I'm sorry, but I can't allow myself to see the current state of the metro-centric articles, as you've moved named them to <Topic> in Manila. You said to approach it caution, well, if this is caution, I don't know what's dangerous is for you. –HTD 18:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Even when you said the Mayor of Paris (Bertrand Delanoë) is also the chief executive of the Paris metro area. A quick check in Wikipedia would show you a different name though: Jean-Paul Huchon, the president of the regional council for Paris region. :) RioHondo (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. He's the chief executive of Île-de-France. Two completely different offices, and jurisdictions. Same with Boris Johnson and who ever the Lord Mayor is.

It's like saying everyone who came from Ilocos Norte are from Laoag, even though they're from Paoay or Nueva Era. Or that the Sacramento Kings are Los Angeles' team since LA=California. –HTD 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Île-de-France is Paris region, go check it. It's a redirect. The List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris gets redirected to List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, same as the Manila one to the Metro Manila region. And i don't see any wrong in that. So you have two regions having several cities with several mayors, can you imagine a separate listing for Courbevoie whose mayor is Jacques Kossowski? Lol! RioHondo (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL? The Paris region is not Paris. Same thing with Metro Manila and Manila, and Greater London and the City of London. As for list of tallest buildings, no; that's why I said in the move discussion to move whatever is salvageable at the city of Manila article to the metro-centric article. Even NYC doesn't have a per-borough list of tallest buildings. I had never stated at the discussion there that there should be specific lists per city; after all, we're dealing with physical objects here, not intangible stuff. –HTD 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm looking at Cinderella Castle in the Orlando, Florida page right now. Did you know that "the city is best known for the Walt Disney World Resort"? Hihi. :) RioHondo (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Orlando, Florida article does tell you where it exactly is; however, US local government is an altogether different animal, with its unincorporated areas (I dunno which other country has this, maybe Canada), so we can't use that as a perfect example. List of Super Bowl champions, an WP:FL, explains these via lengthily footnotes. The point is, as much as possible, if you have to be specific, you should. Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space. After reading about your Paris region example, it's not even comparable: the Paris region has an area of 12,000 sq. km.; Metro Manila is less than 800 sq. km. Heck even the Paris region might have sprawling vineyards.

Significance is arbitrary: take for example in news reports in the recent floods: outside Metro Manila, the live coverage states they're reporting from, for example, Bulacan, sometimes, Hagonoy. Now in Metro Manila, the floods in North Fairview aren't stated as from "Manila", while those at UN Avenue were from Manila. Is the word "Manila" an accepted shortform for "Metro Manila"? Yes. Should we start calling the Ayala Triangle Park as a Manila park, or that the SM Megamall is a Manila establishment? No. Take for another example, buses going to Manila from the provinces: these are usually exact and are not emblazoned with "Manila". There's Divisoria, Cubao and the like. If the conductor asked you where you were going and you said "sa Maynila" in a Cubao-bound bus, either he could've asked to go find another bus or asked for a clarification. –HTD 07:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got 11 words for you: "Live mula sa ABS-CBN News Center MANILA, Ito ang TV Patrol." Geez, who would've thought Sgt. Esguerra Avenue, Diliman was in Manila? Teehee! But anyway, I rest my case. Metro Manila is Manila in the provinces outside NCR and even more so overseas. RioHondo (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as KROQ-FM bills itself as from Los Angeles when it is at Pasadena? I used to listen to this radio station before when Yahoo Messenger allowed me to, and they billed themselves as from "Los Angeles". Later they billed themselves as from "Pasadena, Los Angeles". Maybe they got some calls from local Pasadenans haha.

I've already said above that the shortform (should've been shorthand) of "Metro Manila" is "Manila".

I've thought about this, but if you can successfully WP:RM Manila to either City of Manila or Manila (city) or some other construct (Manila City?), and move Metro Manila to Manila, you can revert all of my moves and your arguments will have merit. I won't take part in any discussion. In the meantime, all metro-centric articles should be in "<subject> of/in Metro Manila" until the moves are done. –HTD 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)