Talk:Santa Ana, Manila
Latest comment: 2 years ago by AviNakamoto95 in topic Multiple discrepancies regarding barangay count
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The article Historic houses in Santa Ana, Manila was created from this article, see this edit. |
Proposed New Page edit
Can we create a separate page for the Ancestral Houses of Santa Ana? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Go ahead, i don't see any reason why you can't. Although an article on all ancestral and heritage houses in the whole Manila or Metro Manila would be more useful for readers, broken down by city and district.--RioHondo (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- RioHondo, Could I just copy and paste the section on ancestral houses? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- For the information of contibutors: JJ Carpio, Charles Boris Manez, Hannachiever07, Ngiping kidlat, KisekiLacroix, Urbanroamer, JannicaDiaz, Robby dela vega, Ramiltibayan, Ronaldbunag, Archnapibanez --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. Although, I would really appreciate expanding its coverage to every heritage house inscribed in some government heritage list within the Manila metropolitan area at least. For one, we don't have this kind of list of structures for Intramuros which I think is more notable and more popular than Santa Ana. So I think limiting the heritage houses to those in Santa Ana would not generate enough readership than it would if it were to cover the entire region which most listings here are really based. It's always per province or in the case of Manila, per region.--RioHondo (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the initiative Carlojoseph14. I suggest migrating the articles of the ancestral houses to a new page dedicated to the Santa Ana Heritage Zone with focus on the NHCP declaration. Then we can cluster the ancestral house articles according to the Areas where they belong. Maybe we can ask joelaldor and the rest of the WHMP team for their references regarding the declaration then create a new page. JJ Carpio (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- RioHondo, this is the output of Wikiexpedition Santa Ana. The District of Santa Ana is a Heritage Zone (just like Pila in Laguna). I'll agree with JJ, a dedicated page for Santa Ana Heritage Zone. As a heritage zone, for sure, they have listed structures (houses, buildings, church) just like in Pila. Maybe another separate page for ancetral houses in Manila. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we should check this this article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Intramuros and Vigan are heritage zones too but they don't have separate articles for whatever the NHCP or UNESCO describes as their heritage zones. And I don't think they are necessary, especially if their articles are too short. Just make sure they don't end up as WP:CFORK though.--RioHondo (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The advantage of Santa Ana is because it was visited by the team last September. I think, Intramuros will soon have a dedicated article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with content forking is the potential conflict as to which article should be linked in all other articles. For example, when an article mentions Vigan, should it link to the city of Vigan or to a separate Historic Town of Vigan article? Same for Intramuros and an Intramuros Heritage Zone article. That's what we are trying to avoid. If you ask me, i think Santa Ana, Manila is short enough to accomodate a section on its heritage zone.--RioHondo (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see now. So, a better page will be Ancestral Houses in Manila or Ancestral Houses in Santa Ana, Manila? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- List of heritage houses in Manila sounds better to me. Ancestral is too specific a category to me. :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is also better. A new page dedicated for heritage houses in Manila, separated by districts will be created. First on the list is to migrate the section of heritage houses in Santa Ana. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try to contribute to your list too and make it Metro Manila-wide as in the other lists we have created so far: List of Cultural Properties of the Philippines in Metro Manila, List of historical markers of the Philippines in Metro Manila and List of Roman Catholic churches in Metro Manila. You can find the articles created so far in Category:Houses in Metro Manila. Good luck.--RioHondo (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- And I found this: Ancestral houses of the Philippines --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like there's not a lot for Metro Manila. But if you look at the Cultural Properties list, there's at least 15 sites there that are houses so we can start from there. Im not really sure now what makes a house a heritage house especially after reading that article. Nor do I know if all those old houses we have are indeed ancestral in the strict sense of the word. But i know all those old houses are historic houses so maybe we can have a List of historic houses instead.--RioHondo (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- And it looks like we are back again to your question posted on the Tambayan page regarding the classifications in the National Cultural Heritage Act. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, until the classifications are clearly defined, we should be using generic terms here to prevent arbitrary additions or deletions. But with the definition we have of ancestral and heritage houses found in that article you posted, not all in the Santa Ana article can be accommodated to your proposed list, so im suggesting we use historic houses instead.--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let's wait for suggestion of experts regarding the title proposed page. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Correct, heritage houses were the right term, because a house could be declared ancestral house if it has been inhabited by 3-4 consecutive generations, according to Martin Tinio. --Charles Boris Manez (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which not all houses listed in this article are. But at the same time, the article on Ancestral houses also mentions that heritage houses are those that are "deemed of significant importance to the Filipino culture and declared 'by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines'" as such. So with that definition, not all of those old houses can be included in the proposed list either as only a few are NHCP-declared. I was suggesting to use the generic historic houses instead?--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot find the definition of heritage houses in the article of Ancestral Houses in the text of RA 10066.-Carlojoseph14 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Joelaldor:, suggestions? What is the appropriate title: ancestral, historic, heritage houses?
- I cannot find the definition of heritage houses in the article of Ancestral Houses in the text of RA 10066.-Carlojoseph14 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which not all houses listed in this article are. But at the same time, the article on Ancestral houses also mentions that heritage houses are those that are "deemed of significant importance to the Filipino culture and declared 'by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines'" as such. So with that definition, not all of those old houses can be included in the proposed list either as only a few are NHCP-declared. I was suggesting to use the generic historic houses instead?--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Correct, heritage houses were the right term, because a house could be declared ancestral house if it has been inhabited by 3-4 consecutive generations, according to Martin Tinio. --Charles Boris Manez (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let's wait for suggestion of experts regarding the title proposed page. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, until the classifications are clearly defined, we should be using generic terms here to prevent arbitrary additions or deletions. But with the definition we have of ancestral and heritage houses found in that article you posted, not all in the Santa Ana article can be accommodated to your proposed list, so im suggesting we use historic houses instead.--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- And it looks like we are back again to your question posted on the Tambayan page regarding the classifications in the National Cultural Heritage Act. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like there's not a lot for Metro Manila. But if you look at the Cultural Properties list, there's at least 15 sites there that are houses so we can start from there. Im not really sure now what makes a house a heritage house especially after reading that article. Nor do I know if all those old houses we have are indeed ancestral in the strict sense of the word. But i know all those old houses are historic houses so maybe we can have a List of historic houses instead.--RioHondo (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is also better. A new page dedicated for heritage houses in Manila, separated by districts will be created. First on the list is to migrate the section of heritage houses in Santa Ana. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with content forking is the potential conflict as to which article should be linked in all other articles. For example, when an article mentions Vigan, should it link to the city of Vigan or to a separate Historic Town of Vigan article? Same for Intramuros and an Intramuros Heritage Zone article. That's what we are trying to avoid. If you ask me, i think Santa Ana, Manila is short enough to accomodate a section on its heritage zone.--RioHondo (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The advantage of Santa Ana is because it was visited by the team last September. I think, Intramuros will soon have a dedicated article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd still go with historic houses though, as it has been made clear that 1) ancestral houses are only those that have been resided by the same family for the last 3-4 generations, which many of those houses would not qualify under, and 2) heritage houses, at least from my understanding and without an official definition saying otherwise, are those houses that reflect the Filipino heritage which really requires at least a declaration from a cultural agency saying they do represent Filipino heritage in house building/architecture. Cos even if you have a house dating back to the early 1900s, but its architectural style is japanese or bohemian, i don't think you could still call it a heritage house of the Philippines. That would be some other country or culture's heritage wouldn't it? An alternative would be List of the oldest buildings in Manila, only you'd have to include structures other than houses, like the oldest churches, etc. See the ff examples: List of historic houses in Massachusetts and List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts. Im good with either article.--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment RioHondo. Comment noted. Looking for consultations. Joel is the lead of WMPH's Cultural Heritage Mapping Project. The National Cultural Heritage Act states that any building, 50 years old and above, are considered part of the PHL Registry of Cultural Property, a registry of cultural property of the country deemed significant to cultural heritage. Although without declarations, houses may fall into Grade 3 Cultural Property or Uncategorized property. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi everyone. I suggest we go with Vintage Houses in Santa Ana, Manila. I was able to access the book Casa Boholana by Czarina Saloma-Akpedonu and Erik Akpedonu. The book documents practically all old houses in the Bohol province and in the introduction, the authors explained why they names the book "Casa Boholana: Vintage Houses of Bohol". What do you think Carlojoseph14 and RioHondo? I will cite the contents of the book here once I gain access to it again. --JJ Carpio (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. Why do they used Vintage? Do you remember?
- I remembered Sir Martin Tinio's book, Philippine Heritage Homes --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Vintage is just synonymous to old or historic. The reason I picked historic houses is because there is actually a Wikiarticle on historic house and none for heritage house nor vintage house. It's the global standard term for houses that are old or vintage and needing protection. There is also a global wiki-wide List of historic houses and Category:Historic houses including Category:Historic house museums for which we already have our Category:Historic house museums in the Philippines. So prime consideration is to use generic Wiki naming conventions where official names don't exist. --RioHondo (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- On that note, I guess we can utilize the term Historic house. The book Casa Boholana only distinguishes between using the terms vintage house and heritage house with the latter only used for houses officially declared by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. As stated on the conversation above, we need to be careful in using the term heritage house or heritage home. As for why the authors used vintage instead of historic, I have no idea. However, I might be able to reach them in some way and ask them why they chose vintage over historic. If the reason for choosing the former is irrelevant then I guess we can simply stick with the Historic house since the terms has been established on Wikipedia. However, if vintage and historic have different connotations especially within the Philippine context, then I suggest we do a little more research regarding this. --JJ Carpio (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed on the caution with using the term heritage house. I think it's safe to say that since the English language used in the Philippines is American English, then we just copy off from them and the terms they use. "Vintage houses" just seems so flashy and glamorous description, suits a coffee table book with a hefty price tag. No need to market our articles here with such descriptions, the more neutral the better. :)--RioHondo (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've figured it out. It's not that vintage was used because of its glittery appeal, the authors may have used vintage because their documentation was not limited to old houses with most of its parts still intact or in their proper context. I was scanning the book early today and saw that they also documented houses with parts "recycled" from older houses. If that's the case, vintage houses may refer to an old or a newly-constructed house built from materials from an older house (an example of which will be the houses at Las Casas Filipinas de Acuzar). Particularly in the context of the Wikipedia Philippines Cultural Heritage Mapping Project, houses like those found in Architect Acuzar's property are not to be included in the list of sites to be documented because those houses were uprooted from their original locations (unless something historical event took place in that decontextualized house that merits recognition). Carlojoseph14, were you present during the first WHMP Pre-deployment meeting last June/July/August? Going back, on that note I guess it is better to use Historic house although I highly suggest we expand the current definition of what historic houses refer to. --JJ Carpio (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. I was not able to attend the first WMPH Deployment. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- And on that note, we have agreed to create a page on Historic houses in Santa Ana :) Thanks JJ and RioHondo! Good work. I'll agree to JJ that we should also update/expand the article on historic houses on the Philippine context. --02:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've figured it out. It's not that vintage was used because of its glittery appeal, the authors may have used vintage because their documentation was not limited to old houses with most of its parts still intact or in their proper context. I was scanning the book early today and saw that they also documented houses with parts "recycled" from older houses. If that's the case, vintage houses may refer to an old or a newly-constructed house built from materials from an older house (an example of which will be the houses at Las Casas Filipinas de Acuzar). Particularly in the context of the Wikipedia Philippines Cultural Heritage Mapping Project, houses like those found in Architect Acuzar's property are not to be included in the list of sites to be documented because those houses were uprooted from their original locations (unless something historical event took place in that decontextualized house that merits recognition). Carlojoseph14, were you present during the first WHMP Pre-deployment meeting last June/July/August? Going back, on that note I guess it is better to use Historic house although I highly suggest we expand the current definition of what historic houses refer to. --JJ Carpio (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed on the caution with using the term heritage house. I think it's safe to say that since the English language used in the Philippines is American English, then we just copy off from them and the terms they use. "Vintage houses" just seems so flashy and glamorous description, suits a coffee table book with a hefty price tag. No need to market our articles here with such descriptions, the more neutral the better. :)--RioHondo (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- On that note, I guess we can utilize the term Historic house. The book Casa Boholana only distinguishes between using the terms vintage house and heritage house with the latter only used for houses officially declared by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. As stated on the conversation above, we need to be careful in using the term heritage house or heritage home. As for why the authors used vintage instead of historic, I have no idea. However, I might be able to reach them in some way and ask them why they chose vintage over historic. If the reason for choosing the former is irrelevant then I guess we can simply stick with the Historic house since the terms has been established on Wikipedia. However, if vintage and historic have different connotations especially within the Philippine context, then I suggest we do a little more research regarding this. --JJ Carpio (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Vintage is just synonymous to old or historic. The reason I picked historic houses is because there is actually a Wikiarticle on historic house and none for heritage house nor vintage house. It's the global standard term for houses that are old or vintage and needing protection. There is also a global wiki-wide List of historic houses and Category:Historic houses including Category:Historic house museums for which we already have our Category:Historic house museums in the Philippines. So prime consideration is to use generic Wiki naming conventions where official names don't exist. --RioHondo (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment RioHondo. Comment noted. Looking for consultations. Joel is the lead of WMPH's Cultural Heritage Mapping Project. The National Cultural Heritage Act states that any building, 50 years old and above, are considered part of the PHL Registry of Cultural Property, a registry of cultural property of the country deemed significant to cultural heritage. Although without declarations, houses may fall into Grade 3 Cultural Property or Uncategorized property. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Page on Historic houses in Santa Ana, Manila was created. Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- For the information of contibutors: @JJ Carpio:, @Charles Boris Manez:, @Hannachiever07:, @Ngiping kidlat:, @KisekiLacroix:, @Urbanroamer:, @JannicaDiaz:, @Robby dela vega:, @Ramiltibayan:, @Ronaldbunag:, @Archnapibanez: --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
What Story??? edit
Why is the "Prehistory" section under the "History" section? lol
Also, how can "900-1,000" years ago be "prehistory"??? LOLOLOL 24.117.62.13 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Multiple discrepancies regarding barangay count edit
It seems like this issue hasn't really been touched upon. But I noticed from skimming the page that the barangay "count" of Santa Ana has a massive discrepancy. One of the statement introduction says that Santa Ana has, and I quote "thirty-two" barangays and proceeds to list the correct number of barangays: Brgy 897 to Brgy 905. However in the infobox, it's written that there are "99" barangays in Santa Ana with a footnote to a 2007 census which can no longer be accessed. Furthermore, in this section of the article about Manila City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila#Barangays_and_districts), it states suddenly that Santa Ana has "34" barangays which, frankly enough, comprise three very different numbers. Anyone care to check which among the following is true? Thanks. AviNakamoto95 (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)