This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Can we all come to an agreement or consensus that all articles on barangays in the Philippines are all inherently notable so we can put an end to these neverending AfD nominations which all end up to being kept by the way? Can people try to read and understand WP:GEOLAND and what it means for our barangays? I seriously don't understand why people are discouraging the creation of barangay articles when i find them to be MORE IMPORTANT than the wider, generic city or municipality articles they are in, as they actually can be used to summarize and describe WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE. We don't live in those big cities or municipalities where people don't know each other. People live in barangays and are therefore far more important if we only try to improve the coverage of each one. I myself have created some barangay articles in Metro Manila and i actually learned a lot more about where people live, the actual communities, unlike in their generic city articles which covers basically just the general topics and their politics (boring generalizations really). I hope we can add this somewhere like WP:MOSPHIL like a statement that says barangays and all populated places are notable! :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 04:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
"articles like Quezon City, Pasay, Caloocan, etc are worthless TBH", and I vehemently disagree. If you ask any random Filipino, I think close to 100% would know the town or city they live/work in and even their local officials, like the mayor. But if you ask them what barangay they reside/work in, I would wager that maybe not even 50% would know which barangay much less who their barangay chairman is. Heck, I recently got a barangay business clearance document and I have now forgotten who my barangay chairman is. I don't even vote in barangay elections because the barangay has barely any impact on my day-to-day life, whereas the gated subdivision I live in has much more of an impact. This lack of knowledge/awareness for barangays among Filipinos is actually evidence that barangays are not inherently notable (though some certainly are notable). You may argue that Wikipedia can help improve this awareness by having barangay articles, but that is putting the cart before the horse.
"populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable."That these places are typically presumed to be notable is not a logical argument for saying that all such places are automatically inherently notable. — seav ( talk) 20:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"standards that all users should normally follow", guidelines are actually less restrictive and are
"sets of best practices"that
"editors should attempt to follow", but
"occasional exceptions may apply". You are so convinced that all barangays are inherently notable ("because, GEOLAND!!!111") and are not accepting of the idea that exceptions may apply, just like with all other Wikipedia guidelines. We should actually use common sense or seek guidance from other guidelines (like the broader general notability guideline) to inform our decisions on specific cases. — seav ( talk) 22:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE the barangay article gets deleted because a fellow Pinoy wikipedian here thinks it is trivial, let me just put it on the record here that the barangay's history is no trivial matter. From a really quick Google Books search, i found these interesting and i would say notable accounts of the barrio/barangay:
This is what i have been saying about barangay articles, that local community topics have their own stories to tell that are not found in their city articles! And i have barely scratched the surface there, if only we start taking our local government units seriously. If only.-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
??? What is OR there? The fact that Mayapa was part of a friar estate owned by the Dominican priests? Or it being a place where a steam mill was located? Those are in the first source! Even the locations of the other mills of the hacienda mentioned in the source are in fact their own barangays today. The source says "the sugar mills, with all their camarines (Spanish/Filipino for shelters or bamboo huts if you will) and accessories are called Mapagong, Mayapa, Siranglupa, Real, Punta..." You can even check Calamba, Laguna to see that those are actual barangays today. (SirangLupa being the other article nominated to AfD for also being "trivial"). Ive written on several of these estates-turned-barangay articles to know the pattern of development of different parcels of friar haciendas into barrios of tenant farmers, and eventually the barangays as we know them today. It shouldn't be difficult to understand if you know Philippine colonial history. So where is OR in all of these? The account is clearly worded and straightforward when it described the settlements within the friar estate at the turn of the 20th century. And for the nth time, Notability is in their being populated legally recognized places and in this case, with a history of continuous inhabitation spanning more than a century. Its length of existence alone beats half of the existing municipalities we have individual articles for. The sources combined not only verify its existence, they describe the growth of the populated place from a colonial farming community to a military camp and now a regional government hub. I havent even started to dig into the history of its parish. Anyway, im done lecturing here, meanwhile you havent told us where you're from cos its like i had to explain all these concepts to a complete outsider.-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"trivial coverage"if you look at examples in WP:GNG). You also mentioned Molino in Bacoor. Well, there may be a valid case to have a separate article about Molino as a place if we can have content that is rich and separatable from Bacoor itself, but I really don't think we need separate articles on barangays Molino I, Molino II, Molino III, Molino IV, Molino V, Molino VI, and Molino VII. — seav ( talk) 10:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"trivial coverage"according to WP:GNG).
A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class. At least when it comes to geographic entities including populated places as they appear in gazetteers. But just because articles on islands and islets, rivers and creeks/esteros, and mountains/hills in the entire Philippines may be created doesn't mean an article for each one of them would actually be created. It would take a lifetime or most probably never. Those that have already been made however, regardless of how unfamiliar or seemingly insignificant they are, like have you seen the individual Category:Islands of Iloilo?, they are all kept. I don't see people questioning their individual notabilities or mass nominating these articles for deletion, even when some of them are uninhabited or are forever stubs supported by only one source that says nothing other than they exist. Do they establish notability according to your standards? So the same should apply here. And just like island or islet articles, Molino could be treated as an archipelago article for convenience or for better presentation. But that doesn't mean we can stop others from pursuing each and every island or rock of the Calamianes or Cuyo Archipelago. Or an article on a mountain range instead of one per named peak, although named peaks within a range can also qualify for their own. Should an article on a river cover its entire basin or could its individual tributaries and creeks also have articles? It works either way too. Im not bothered by editors preference for a single island or island group articles. What bothers me is the double standard and the strict control of the little there is. Don't worry there's not a lot of editors doing gazetteer work here, our priority is still our Showbiz project of course and an article on every single Philippine movie and TV program, past, present and future. Lol! We never miss on these topics, well that and pageants. ;) -- RioHondo ( talk) 05:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class....": Have you actually read the whole of WP:NGEO? This current discussion with you is actually making me think that you still have quite a bit more to learn about Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines despite having been editing for over 7 years. You point to the articles on the islands of Iloilo as evidence but this is just another "other stuff exists" argument. Unless and until the island articles have actually survived an AfD discussion or have been merged but reverted with a proper discussion (i.e., their existence as separate articles have been questioned and their notability has then been established per the WP:NGEO and WP:GNG guidelines as appropriate), then the fact that these articles currently exist is not actually proof that they are Wikipedia-notable. For example, I may actually decide to just go ahead and merge/redirect Himamylan Island to Carles, Iloilo because I think this uninhabited island is not notable per WP:NGEO (because of the criteria under the "named natural features" subsection). But I generally leave such articles alone for now because I would like to concentrate on other areas in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons).
"This guideline specifically excludes maps ... from consideration when establishing topic notability".
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 17 (
help)
The thread has died once more. Like every other "barangay notability" section does... We need to settle this argument down and agree to a specific understanding. Perhaps we could create (or add) some guidelines (to MOS:PHIL) that will evaluate barangays if whether they are notable or not? And will no longer depend on a guideline that only presumes a notability but does not evaluate them specifically. I do not wish to end up discussing this topic in the supreme court for that would be preposterous. But in all seriousness, not all barangays are "inherently" notable. They may pass WP:GEOLAND and etc. but that isn't enough for Wikipedia standards after all we want to make this encyclopedia better as well as information to be verified and be accepted as a proper source of information that could be used in hundreds or thousands of research and studies that may further understanding of the information given or do you? — hueman1 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wiki editors who visit the talk page of Tambayan Philippines,
I am reviewing some of the Wiki entries related to Pre-Colonial Philippines and I have found out that several of them lack sufficient sources to back up their claims. In particular, I have PRoDed some of these new articles that do not meet the verifiability and notability standards:
I have written further explanations in the respective talk pages of the article in question. You are invited to participate in the discussion if you have something to contribute. I also reviewed another article (written by the same author who wrote the two articles listed above) with too many claims but with only two sources, one unreliable source and one unverifiable source with a bad citation format. I will also PRoD this article and my fellow Tambayan dwellers are welcome to participate in the talk page discussion:
Other articles that I have identified with similar problems regarding source verification and/or reliability (not to mention notability issues) are the following:
I'd like to know the opinion of others whether these pages are justified to remain in Wikipedia despite their unresolved problems regarding sources. Stricnina ( talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
[..]y dicho Lontoc se casó con la Señora de Pasig que es Calañgitan[...]
— Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, Historia de Filipinas para uso de los alumnos del Instituto Burgos y de otros colegios particulares (pg. 6)
I would like to know whether Wiki entries with only one citation like the one dedicated to Rajah Gambang is justified and merit its own Wiki page in the first place. Also, the remarkable specificity of claims (like the very name and existence of a certain Rajah Gambang, together with years of rule and name of wife) despite the overall scarcity of primary sources on pre-Hispanic Philippine history will only make more serious and fact-based editors raise their eyebrows. I personally suggest total deletion of the Wikipedia entry as per the WP:Notability standards, seeing that almost zero sources are presented, thus proving that it has not received significant coverage in scholarly circles, making the existence of the page totally unjustified.
I also would like to raise my concerns regarding the very existence of Battle of Manila (1258) and Battle of Manila (1365) for similar reasons, especially the lack of significant coverage of these events in scholarly circles besides pure minor trivial fact. Stricnina ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to inform fellow editors to kindly check Alwyn Alšarifović Abubakarov's edits, as most of it involves removing the Tagalog language from several Philippine-related articles (usually geography-related), without citing sources as needed. Thank you. — Sanglahi86 ( talk) 02:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
. Whether we like it or not, Filipino is based on Tagalog. – Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)"The racist and undemocratic imposition of Tagalog, sugarcoated as "Filipino", on the Bangsamoro region already qualifies as "good reason" for its exclusion"
Hello.
What is the general date format within this project? I thought it was mdy, due to the historic relations between the Philippines and the United States (where it is mdy), but I recently saw an article ( Eddie Garcia) tagged with {{ use dmy dates}} despite having many dates in the mdy date format.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 11:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
dmy
format. As for the article content itself, the dates still use mdy
format, so I am unsure if these should be changed to dmy
as well. –
Sanglahi86 (
talk)
14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)To the dwellers of Tambayan Philippines,
You are all invited to participate in the talk page discussion regarding the naming of the Wiki entry which is currently named as "Indian influences in early Philippine polities". The article has assumed at least three different names in its entire history and we are currently deciding on what title should the Wiki entry have in order to avoid possible continuous renaming by different editors based on their own reasons and/or preferences. If you have constructive opinions and suggestions, you are more than welcome to participate in the talk page discussion. Stricnina ( talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Good morning guys,
I recently edited the Wikipedia page, SM City Bacolod. I would like for you guys to rate it again because of this massive edit. It would mean a lot to me if you check it out soon. This is the one of the few malls I visit every time I head back to the Philippines. KCastillo11 ( talk) 16:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I notice that government officials serving posts (especially appointive posts) in an interim basis are referred to as an "Officer in Charge" or OIC which is essential an acting or interim role. I am seeking consensus on what standard shall we adopt. Shall we use OIC because it's official or "Acting" since it's can be understood by an international audience and is arguably the common term for OIC (Acting Secretary rather than OIC) Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about removing mention of such a post from Wikipedia articles at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic. So far, I have not publicised this discussion beyond that talk page and mention of it here. Please provide input there if you have information and/or concerns about this. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, there's a AfD on Ariel Abadilla at the moment (Mr Abadilla was the first Philippines ambassador to Ireland and seems to have also been an Undersecretary in the Dept of Foreign Affairs). I was wondering if any Philippines-based editors could vouch for his notability (or not, whatever is the case). I've suggested keep but happy to be guided otherwise. The debate seems to be currently dominated by foreign editors who may not be aware of local sources. The AfD is here. Thanks in advance. Bookscale ( talk) 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an IP editor constantly adding duplicate, redundant, unnecessary, and poor grammar info to LGU articles in Bataan and other places in Luzon. (S)he continues to add distances to San Fernando, Pampanga, to a variety of places, many of which are not even in the same region (hence not their regional center) and many of which are utterly wrong distance. See contributions here, here, here, and here. Because this is an IP editor, I may miss similar edits. Please help me to keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I started an incident report, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent IP editor adding wrong info. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the disruptive IP editor is back, see 107.215.191.154 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Help me to keep an eye on the articles that he edits and roll them back. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
User:MegaCebu2050 keeps on adding info and links about Mega Cebu at Cebu and Cebu City. But the draft article on Mega Cebu has been declined because there is not significant coverage. There is indeed nothing at this draft that explains what ties all 3 Visayan regions together in one megalopolis; it is nothing but a list of transportation and infrastructure projects without context. It seems therefore that this user is actively trying to promote a fringe idea, concept, or speculation, that has not found acceptance in general (all of which is contrary to WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SPECULATION). Are there some knowledgeable Cebuanos or Visayans that can look into this? I doubt Mega Cebu is a real concept (at this time), but maybe other editors know if there is any validity to this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am delighted to officially announce to you that the 16th iteration of Wikimania, Wikimedia's international confrence will be coming to Southeast Asia for the first time and the location is Bangkok, Thailand! Though travel grant (also known as scholarships) are available, we encourage you to attend this event even you were not able to get the scholarship. We aim to finalise the exact conference dates as soon as possible. It is between July - August. -- Exec8 ( talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Win Gatchalian.
Hi all! I would like to invite you to discuss the article Win Gatchalian. I appreciate your inputs as it will help me learn on the manual of style and editing for articles related to government officials!
What is the current position on the inclusion of a list of bills passed, authored, co-authored in articles? I have observed that some articles of Philippine senators have a long list of bills passed while others do not (example: Bongbong Marcos, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Manuel Villar, Cynthia Villar do not have a list of bills in their articles while Teofisto Guingona III, Win Gatchalian, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Ralph Recto, Sonny Angara have).
Thanks! Markoolio97 ( talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Good day (or night), I just want to inform you that this new editor (Sofiasean560 wiki) has been replacing some political maps on Philippine provinces with his/hers "slightly modified" versions without adding an edit summary. He/she also had engaged an edit war with me (I guess?) when I reverted his/her edits (last week or so?). Any thoughts my fellow Wikipedians? hueman1 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a new user named Xiang09 (most likely the same 120.28.57.166 judging from both the user's obsession to the Philippine Mythology page and to the related ones) who is probably struggling with following the basic Wikipedia guidelines, trying to undermine my inline tags like "verification needed", spamming the same citations from the same website (notably "The Aswang Project" and the "Myths of the Philippines; Gaverza", just look at the footnotes on how many times those two sources are cited, especially the Gaverza one), and removing the templates like "Original Research" without giving proper justification. Although I have yet to verify this, I am afraid that he might also be copy-and-pasting some of the contents of those sources in the Wiki article. I suggest someone control it.
When asked for references regarding specific passages in Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, the same user Xiang09 also spammed the same "Kasaysayan: The History of the Filipino People" several times (in most likely a copy-and-paste fashion, as you can clearly see here) while removing the inline tags that I have put in place in order for someone else to add the proper citations with the QUOTES from the relevant pages of the sources. This user is apparently undermining all of my inline tags and I am tired of re-checking his newer edits, like the ones about "colonially-imposed toxic masculinity" on the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines. Stricnina ( talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
More specific complaints:
Stricnina ( talk) 10:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!!! Below are the revised version of Philippine name template which I'd been edited as it follows:
Kindly try to review my revised work before you judge it!!!! RenRen070193 ( talk) 06:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, application forms for various legal documents define the first name as the "Christian name(s)," the middle name as the "mother's maiden surname" (this becomes the basis for the middle initial), and the surname as the "father's surname."
Hi! I need your thoughts on this one. Please feel free to discuss it here. Thanks! — Emperork ( talk) 11:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
US Banknote Contest | ||
---|---|---|
November-December 2019 | ||
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here |
Sent by ZLEA at 23:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)
Good day Sir/Madam! The national language of the Philippines is “Filipino” and not “Tagalog”. It is supported by Commission on Filipino Language (Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino). These are the links:
1.) http://booksphilippines.gov.ph/archives/5172 2.) https://learningfilipino.com/blog/difference-between-tagalog-and-filipino/ 3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_language 4.) https://theculturetrip.com/asia/philippines/articles/tagalog-or-filipino-explaining-the-philippine-language/ Jsnueva1022 (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Jsnueva1022 ( talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I am in the process of revising the article "Delano grape strike," so it can accurately capture the involvement and contributions of Filipino farm workers during this event. I would appreciate any and all feedback you have to offer. Please feel free to look at my current revisions in my sandbox (linked on my user page) and discuss on the article's talk page. Salamat! AMRara ( talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:DXAP-TV, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I have proposed a page move that is related to this WikiProject. Input welcome! – Austronesier ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
With the recent plebiscite held last December 7, 2019 on changing Compostela Valley's name to Davao de Oro lapsed, I'd like to have the consensus of the community if we can move now the page to its new name. I can't find any link with the results of the plebiscite for now though but I saw this one: 1 — Emperork ( talk) 15:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add your opinions as to whether lechon should be called a "national dish" here: Talk:Lechon#National Dish -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 00:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters. — Marchjuly ( talk) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at
Adamson Soaring Falcons and some of the other similar team articles listed in
Category:University Athletic Association of the Philippines? There seems to be quite a bit of unsourced content (including some
WP:FANCRUFT) and well as some other pretty detailed information which might need to be re-assessed. I can understand outhow it's beneficial to readers to list some general information about a school's athletic teams and their accomplishments, but I don't think listing team rosters (including player heights and other personal information) are really helpful to the reader. Perhaps such information would make sense in an article about a particular team for a particular season, but not really in a general article about a university's sports teams as a whole. Wikipedia notable players can be mentioned as part of the prose or in a list of notable athletes, but not every player who was a member of one of the school's teams needs to be mentioned. It seems that a lot of this content is being added by IPs or
WP:SPAs who probably mean well, but are really just
WP:Namechecking people who don't really warrant being mentioned. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike error. — 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)]
FYI - There is an ongoing page move discussion Talk:Visayans#Requested move 27 December 2019. The article is rated "High" in the importance scale for this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate feedback on my latest article, Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel. (I previously got constructive feedback from here on Tagalog profanity.) This subject was very difficult to write about, with many twists and turns. Psiĥedelisto ( talk) 09:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
From this poiny on I'll refer Philippine highway network as PHN. Sorry if I'll be havinv typos due to lack of time.
@ RioHondo: @ HueMan1: @ Sky Harbor: @ Jojit fb: Paki-tag po ng iba pang users para sa diskusyon na ito. Salamuch! :-)
Recently I contacted HueMan1 through Messenger and we discussed some issue in PHN. It appears that Pulilan Regional Road is not wholly under PHN. The segment east of the Academia de Pulilan (shown in the pic) appears to be unnumbered. What I though before of "mistaken installation" of N115 sign at the road leading to AH26 from Academia junction (pasing through Longos) is actually CORRECT. Not only that, one thing we mentioned is that E4 only encompasses Subic Freeport Expressway (I presume its the official name of STE now the SFEX).
I don't know if DPWH has updated their road atlases or what. What appears to be stable highway system is unpredictable in reality. I understand its still in the beginning stages since more hiways are being integrated ij the system. But further clarification is much needed. The websites seem not to load properly. Also the dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is not loading well on my browser.
A thorough discussion should help. Maraming salamat po! JWilz12345 ( talk) 11:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to add tge pic. I added it now. JWilz12345 ( talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Dagdag lang po, if DPWH is correct in their designation, Pulilan Regional Road veers southward after Academia de Pulilan intersection. The remainder, based on dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is "Pulilan Railroad Station Road." Sus kailangan ko pong irequest renaming of my files on Commons having this case - 2 files I guess including the one above? JWilz12345 ( talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Addition lang po: Whenever I go to Robinson's Townville with my mom by riding on a jeepney, I can notice the route past Academia de Pulilan. The road goes to the south with good quality asphalt road, while going straight towards Palengke/Robinson's area the road becomes a bit of inferior quality, with good portions only in the immediate area of the mall and the junction area. This is per experience. Also, heavy vehicles are now prohibited from going past Academia and are urged to turn south towards Longos. But again, this might be WP:Original research so I don't want to include yet in the article. JWilz12345 ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Inviting contributors to participate in Wikiproject Asia's 10,000 Challenge. You could create, expand, substantially improve any Asia-related articles. Please refer to the campaign's page for more details. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 15:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Can't seem to change it. And who the heck uses "Aspin"? Asado ( talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
|name=
still reverts it to Aspin (dog) though. -
SUB
WAY
15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)This is a heads up that this page is being heavily edited because of Suarez' recent death. Be aware that some of the recent edits are heavily POV. (In particular, some edits try to remove properly-cited information that are perceived to be negative.) I'll try my best to clean up this article, but feel free to help. Thanks! --- Tito Pao ( talk) 01:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't wanna cross the 3RR boundary here. Can someone please have a look at Red Rose 13's edits? That user returned their edits that I removed which, even though it was directly taken from the cited reference, makes the article look like a subtle promotion of Suarez. Thanks! --- Tito Pao ( talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The description of the Laban sign is confusing and probably inaccurate; see Talk:Laban sign#shape of sign?. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I did a quick glance at the Wikipedia article with the title Art of the Philippines but the content confused me. Apparently no scholarly criteria has been used to define what can be included in that page as "art" or not, no wonder almost any aspect of Philippine culture and history can be included there, from archeological artifacts like the Agusan image and the numerous lingling-o, to martial arts like arnis, and even to Filipino cuisine itself. Everything goes there, while the cited sources apparently don't even define them as "art". So what constitutes art according to the reliable sources available? Can all aspects of Philippine culture be considered as "art"? Should I also add OPM, the numerous Iglesia ni Cristo architectural buildings, the San Juanico Bridge, the pre-colonial burial sites as "art" too? What do the sources say? Stricnina ( talk) 00:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In the same vein as Law 3037/2002, does Marcos's ban on arcade games and pinball deserve a separate article? There's plenty of sources that back it up, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling ( talk) 05:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
: But then again, the official gazette uses the operative words "and other prohibited and gambling devises" when it mentioned video game machines as with the PD and LOI. As with the other links you posted, I cant access their full versions so i have nothing to read there hehe! So again we go back to the issue of interpretation and legislative intent. What was the intent of PD519? Ban all video games? Or video game machines that are used as gambling devices? Because if your interpretation is the former, then you need a whole lot of RS that shares this interpretation. If it's the latter, then you know why they made those horse racing video games illegal. They are video games, but those video kareras are being targetted by anti-illegal gambling operations up to now hehe. Their basis? Marcos's PD 1602 that cites this earlier PD519 provision.-- RioHondo ( talk) 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
I invite anyone here interested to participate in the ongoing voting regarding the name change of the Wikipedia article Tondo (historical polity). I wish a discussion was carried out first before proposing the voting immediately, but alas the voting has begun. Feel free to drop your two cents regarding the issue there. Stricnina ( talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently the infobox of all LGU's has 3 maps. IMO a bit overkill and it makes the infobox so excessively long (they are already some of the longest infoboxes I have seen). I am proposing to hide the OpenStreetMap in a collapsible box, similar to {{ Infobox Italian comune}}. The extra code would be:
{{hidden | header = OpenStreetMap | headercss=height:5px; | content = <div class="center" style="margin-top:1em">{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}</div>}}
See the example here for Aborlan, Palawan:
|
All the advantages of the OpenStreetMap are still there, still available, but just collapsed, reducing the infobox to a bit more manageable size and appearing a little less cluttered.
Please provide your feedback and/or approval if we should adopt this approach. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Because when I searched for other cities in Asia, and some parts of Europe and the United States, I didn't see anything like this. Is this a problem? Because I don't think the OpenStreetMap feature is the clutter here, it's the locator map, but the problem with the OpenStreetMap map is that, it doesn't provide complete boundaries for LGUs, especially for rural areas. This is a problem for OSM contributors anyways, but in a way, it affects this feature a lot. What do you think? -- hueman1 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I found a simple solution for the mobile view: to use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} instead of {{hidden}}. The OSM is now visible in the mobile version but collapsed in the desktop version. See the life example at
Agutaya. Now the code is: {{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | titlestyle=height:5px | ta1=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}}
What do you think? --
P 1 9 9
✉
16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
P199's suggestion is great. We can also use a shorter code:
{{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | ta1=center | class=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}}
Side note: The collapsible list of councilors in
Pasig infobox had an unneeded CSS attribute display:none
. Removing it displays the list in plain list form in mobile view.
Sanglahi86 (
talk)
12:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a regular here and just stumbled on this discussion. I don't have anything to contribute to the ongoing discussion above re details, but please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Places and WP:Settlement. Perhaps some adjustment is in order either here or there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I see that there are no other comments/objections and there seems to be more support than not, so I'll add the code above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Draft:John Paul Gomez and am almost ready to move it to the mainspace. Pretty much all of the sources I've been able to find (even Philippine media sources) spell his last name a "Gomez" without an accent mark over the "o"; however, while lookiing for sources I came across a source that spells his name as "Gómez" with an accent mark over the "o". WP:COMMONNAME seems overwhelmingly in favor of no accent mark for him; so, I'm wondering if it's something commonly dropped in English language publications for the sake of convenience, but is more frequently used in non-English sources or when precision is a priority. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the appropriate page to which Philippine Independence should point at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_17#Philippine independence. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 06:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Can we all come to an agreement or consensus that all articles on barangays in the Philippines are all inherently notable so we can put an end to these neverending AfD nominations which all end up to being kept by the way? Can people try to read and understand WP:GEOLAND and what it means for our barangays? I seriously don't understand why people are discouraging the creation of barangay articles when i find them to be MORE IMPORTANT than the wider, generic city or municipality articles they are in, as they actually can be used to summarize and describe WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE. We don't live in those big cities or municipalities where people don't know each other. People live in barangays and are therefore far more important if we only try to improve the coverage of each one. I myself have created some barangay articles in Metro Manila and i actually learned a lot more about where people live, the actual communities, unlike in their generic city articles which covers basically just the general topics and their politics (boring generalizations really). I hope we can add this somewhere like WP:MOSPHIL like a statement that says barangays and all populated places are notable! :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 04:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
"articles like Quezon City, Pasay, Caloocan, etc are worthless TBH", and I vehemently disagree. If you ask any random Filipino, I think close to 100% would know the town or city they live/work in and even their local officials, like the mayor. But if you ask them what barangay they reside/work in, I would wager that maybe not even 50% would know which barangay much less who their barangay chairman is. Heck, I recently got a barangay business clearance document and I have now forgotten who my barangay chairman is. I don't even vote in barangay elections because the barangay has barely any impact on my day-to-day life, whereas the gated subdivision I live in has much more of an impact. This lack of knowledge/awareness for barangays among Filipinos is actually evidence that barangays are not inherently notable (though some certainly are notable). You may argue that Wikipedia can help improve this awareness by having barangay articles, but that is putting the cart before the horse.
"populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable."That these places are typically presumed to be notable is not a logical argument for saying that all such places are automatically inherently notable. — seav ( talk) 20:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"standards that all users should normally follow", guidelines are actually less restrictive and are
"sets of best practices"that
"editors should attempt to follow", but
"occasional exceptions may apply". You are so convinced that all barangays are inherently notable ("because, GEOLAND!!!111") and are not accepting of the idea that exceptions may apply, just like with all other Wikipedia guidelines. We should actually use common sense or seek guidance from other guidelines (like the broader general notability guideline) to inform our decisions on specific cases. — seav ( talk) 22:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE the barangay article gets deleted because a fellow Pinoy wikipedian here thinks it is trivial, let me just put it on the record here that the barangay's history is no trivial matter. From a really quick Google Books search, i found these interesting and i would say notable accounts of the barrio/barangay:
This is what i have been saying about barangay articles, that local community topics have their own stories to tell that are not found in their city articles! And i have barely scratched the surface there, if only we start taking our local government units seriously. If only.-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
??? What is OR there? The fact that Mayapa was part of a friar estate owned by the Dominican priests? Or it being a place where a steam mill was located? Those are in the first source! Even the locations of the other mills of the hacienda mentioned in the source are in fact their own barangays today. The source says "the sugar mills, with all their camarines (Spanish/Filipino for shelters or bamboo huts if you will) and accessories are called Mapagong, Mayapa, Siranglupa, Real, Punta..." You can even check Calamba, Laguna to see that those are actual barangays today. (SirangLupa being the other article nominated to AfD for also being "trivial"). Ive written on several of these estates-turned-barangay articles to know the pattern of development of different parcels of friar haciendas into barrios of tenant farmers, and eventually the barangays as we know them today. It shouldn't be difficult to understand if you know Philippine colonial history. So where is OR in all of these? The account is clearly worded and straightforward when it described the settlements within the friar estate at the turn of the 20th century. And for the nth time, Notability is in their being populated legally recognized places and in this case, with a history of continuous inhabitation spanning more than a century. Its length of existence alone beats half of the existing municipalities we have individual articles for. The sources combined not only verify its existence, they describe the growth of the populated place from a colonial farming community to a military camp and now a regional government hub. I havent even started to dig into the history of its parish. Anyway, im done lecturing here, meanwhile you havent told us where you're from cos its like i had to explain all these concepts to a complete outsider.-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"trivial coverage"if you look at examples in WP:GNG). You also mentioned Molino in Bacoor. Well, there may be a valid case to have a separate article about Molino as a place if we can have content that is rich and separatable from Bacoor itself, but I really don't think we need separate articles on barangays Molino I, Molino II, Molino III, Molino IV, Molino V, Molino VI, and Molino VII. — seav ( talk) 10:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"trivial coverage"according to WP:GNG).
A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class. At least when it comes to geographic entities including populated places as they appear in gazetteers. But just because articles on islands and islets, rivers and creeks/esteros, and mountains/hills in the entire Philippines may be created doesn't mean an article for each one of them would actually be created. It would take a lifetime or most probably never. Those that have already been made however, regardless of how unfamiliar or seemingly insignificant they are, like have you seen the individual Category:Islands of Iloilo?, they are all kept. I don't see people questioning their individual notabilities or mass nominating these articles for deletion, even when some of them are uninhabited or are forever stubs supported by only one source that says nothing other than they exist. Do they establish notability according to your standards? So the same should apply here. And just like island or islet articles, Molino could be treated as an archipelago article for convenience or for better presentation. But that doesn't mean we can stop others from pursuing each and every island or rock of the Calamianes or Cuyo Archipelago. Or an article on a mountain range instead of one per named peak, although named peaks within a range can also qualify for their own. Should an article on a river cover its entire basin or could its individual tributaries and creeks also have articles? It works either way too. Im not bothered by editors preference for a single island or island group articles. What bothers me is the double standard and the strict control of the little there is. Don't worry there's not a lot of editors doing gazetteer work here, our priority is still our Showbiz project of course and an article on every single Philippine movie and TV program, past, present and future. Lol! We never miss on these topics, well that and pageants. ;) -- RioHondo ( talk) 05:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class....": Have you actually read the whole of WP:NGEO? This current discussion with you is actually making me think that you still have quite a bit more to learn about Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines despite having been editing for over 7 years. You point to the articles on the islands of Iloilo as evidence but this is just another "other stuff exists" argument. Unless and until the island articles have actually survived an AfD discussion or have been merged but reverted with a proper discussion (i.e., their existence as separate articles have been questioned and their notability has then been established per the WP:NGEO and WP:GNG guidelines as appropriate), then the fact that these articles currently exist is not actually proof that they are Wikipedia-notable. For example, I may actually decide to just go ahead and merge/redirect Himamylan Island to Carles, Iloilo because I think this uninhabited island is not notable per WP:NGEO (because of the criteria under the "named natural features" subsection). But I generally leave such articles alone for now because I would like to concentrate on other areas in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons).
"This guideline specifically excludes maps ... from consideration when establishing topic notability".
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 17 (
help)
The thread has died once more. Like every other "barangay notability" section does... We need to settle this argument down and agree to a specific understanding. Perhaps we could create (or add) some guidelines (to MOS:PHIL) that will evaluate barangays if whether they are notable or not? And will no longer depend on a guideline that only presumes a notability but does not evaluate them specifically. I do not wish to end up discussing this topic in the supreme court for that would be preposterous. But in all seriousness, not all barangays are "inherently" notable. They may pass WP:GEOLAND and etc. but that isn't enough for Wikipedia standards after all we want to make this encyclopedia better as well as information to be verified and be accepted as a proper source of information that could be used in hundreds or thousands of research and studies that may further understanding of the information given or do you? — hueman1 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wiki editors who visit the talk page of Tambayan Philippines,
I am reviewing some of the Wiki entries related to Pre-Colonial Philippines and I have found out that several of them lack sufficient sources to back up their claims. In particular, I have PRoDed some of these new articles that do not meet the verifiability and notability standards:
I have written further explanations in the respective talk pages of the article in question. You are invited to participate in the discussion if you have something to contribute. I also reviewed another article (written by the same author who wrote the two articles listed above) with too many claims but with only two sources, one unreliable source and one unverifiable source with a bad citation format. I will also PRoD this article and my fellow Tambayan dwellers are welcome to participate in the talk page discussion:
Other articles that I have identified with similar problems regarding source verification and/or reliability (not to mention notability issues) are the following:
I'd like to know the opinion of others whether these pages are justified to remain in Wikipedia despite their unresolved problems regarding sources. Stricnina ( talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
[..]y dicho Lontoc se casó con la Señora de Pasig que es Calañgitan[...]
— Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, Historia de Filipinas para uso de los alumnos del Instituto Burgos y de otros colegios particulares (pg. 6)
I would like to know whether Wiki entries with only one citation like the one dedicated to Rajah Gambang is justified and merit its own Wiki page in the first place. Also, the remarkable specificity of claims (like the very name and existence of a certain Rajah Gambang, together with years of rule and name of wife) despite the overall scarcity of primary sources on pre-Hispanic Philippine history will only make more serious and fact-based editors raise their eyebrows. I personally suggest total deletion of the Wikipedia entry as per the WP:Notability standards, seeing that almost zero sources are presented, thus proving that it has not received significant coverage in scholarly circles, making the existence of the page totally unjustified.
I also would like to raise my concerns regarding the very existence of Battle of Manila (1258) and Battle of Manila (1365) for similar reasons, especially the lack of significant coverage of these events in scholarly circles besides pure minor trivial fact. Stricnina ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to inform fellow editors to kindly check Alwyn Alšarifović Abubakarov's edits, as most of it involves removing the Tagalog language from several Philippine-related articles (usually geography-related), without citing sources as needed. Thank you. — Sanglahi86 ( talk) 02:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
. Whether we like it or not, Filipino is based on Tagalog. – Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)"The racist and undemocratic imposition of Tagalog, sugarcoated as "Filipino", on the Bangsamoro region already qualifies as "good reason" for its exclusion"
Hello.
What is the general date format within this project? I thought it was mdy, due to the historic relations between the Philippines and the United States (where it is mdy), but I recently saw an article ( Eddie Garcia) tagged with {{ use dmy dates}} despite having many dates in the mdy date format.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 11:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
dmy
format. As for the article content itself, the dates still use mdy
format, so I am unsure if these should be changed to dmy
as well. –
Sanglahi86 (
talk)
14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)To the dwellers of Tambayan Philippines,
You are all invited to participate in the talk page discussion regarding the naming of the Wiki entry which is currently named as "Indian influences in early Philippine polities". The article has assumed at least three different names in its entire history and we are currently deciding on what title should the Wiki entry have in order to avoid possible continuous renaming by different editors based on their own reasons and/or preferences. If you have constructive opinions and suggestions, you are more than welcome to participate in the talk page discussion. Stricnina ( talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Good morning guys,
I recently edited the Wikipedia page, SM City Bacolod. I would like for you guys to rate it again because of this massive edit. It would mean a lot to me if you check it out soon. This is the one of the few malls I visit every time I head back to the Philippines. KCastillo11 ( talk) 16:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I notice that government officials serving posts (especially appointive posts) in an interim basis are referred to as an "Officer in Charge" or OIC which is essential an acting or interim role. I am seeking consensus on what standard shall we adopt. Shall we use OIC because it's official or "Acting" since it's can be understood by an international audience and is arguably the common term for OIC (Acting Secretary rather than OIC) Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about removing mention of such a post from Wikipedia articles at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic. So far, I have not publicised this discussion beyond that talk page and mention of it here. Please provide input there if you have information and/or concerns about this. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, there's a AfD on Ariel Abadilla at the moment (Mr Abadilla was the first Philippines ambassador to Ireland and seems to have also been an Undersecretary in the Dept of Foreign Affairs). I was wondering if any Philippines-based editors could vouch for his notability (or not, whatever is the case). I've suggested keep but happy to be guided otherwise. The debate seems to be currently dominated by foreign editors who may not be aware of local sources. The AfD is here. Thanks in advance. Bookscale ( talk) 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an IP editor constantly adding duplicate, redundant, unnecessary, and poor grammar info to LGU articles in Bataan and other places in Luzon. (S)he continues to add distances to San Fernando, Pampanga, to a variety of places, many of which are not even in the same region (hence not their regional center) and many of which are utterly wrong distance. See contributions here, here, here, and here. Because this is an IP editor, I may miss similar edits. Please help me to keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I started an incident report, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent IP editor adding wrong info. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the disruptive IP editor is back, see 107.215.191.154 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Help me to keep an eye on the articles that he edits and roll them back. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
User:MegaCebu2050 keeps on adding info and links about Mega Cebu at Cebu and Cebu City. But the draft article on Mega Cebu has been declined because there is not significant coverage. There is indeed nothing at this draft that explains what ties all 3 Visayan regions together in one megalopolis; it is nothing but a list of transportation and infrastructure projects without context. It seems therefore that this user is actively trying to promote a fringe idea, concept, or speculation, that has not found acceptance in general (all of which is contrary to WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SPECULATION). Are there some knowledgeable Cebuanos or Visayans that can look into this? I doubt Mega Cebu is a real concept (at this time), but maybe other editors know if there is any validity to this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am delighted to officially announce to you that the 16th iteration of Wikimania, Wikimedia's international confrence will be coming to Southeast Asia for the first time and the location is Bangkok, Thailand! Though travel grant (also known as scholarships) are available, we encourage you to attend this event even you were not able to get the scholarship. We aim to finalise the exact conference dates as soon as possible. It is between July - August. -- Exec8 ( talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Win Gatchalian.
Hi all! I would like to invite you to discuss the article Win Gatchalian. I appreciate your inputs as it will help me learn on the manual of style and editing for articles related to government officials!
What is the current position on the inclusion of a list of bills passed, authored, co-authored in articles? I have observed that some articles of Philippine senators have a long list of bills passed while others do not (example: Bongbong Marcos, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Manuel Villar, Cynthia Villar do not have a list of bills in their articles while Teofisto Guingona III, Win Gatchalian, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Ralph Recto, Sonny Angara have).
Thanks! Markoolio97 ( talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Good day (or night), I just want to inform you that this new editor (Sofiasean560 wiki) has been replacing some political maps on Philippine provinces with his/hers "slightly modified" versions without adding an edit summary. He/she also had engaged an edit war with me (I guess?) when I reverted his/her edits (last week or so?). Any thoughts my fellow Wikipedians? hueman1 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a new user named Xiang09 (most likely the same 120.28.57.166 judging from both the user's obsession to the Philippine Mythology page and to the related ones) who is probably struggling with following the basic Wikipedia guidelines, trying to undermine my inline tags like "verification needed", spamming the same citations from the same website (notably "The Aswang Project" and the "Myths of the Philippines; Gaverza", just look at the footnotes on how many times those two sources are cited, especially the Gaverza one), and removing the templates like "Original Research" without giving proper justification. Although I have yet to verify this, I am afraid that he might also be copy-and-pasting some of the contents of those sources in the Wiki article. I suggest someone control it.
When asked for references regarding specific passages in Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, the same user Xiang09 also spammed the same "Kasaysayan: The History of the Filipino People" several times (in most likely a copy-and-paste fashion, as you can clearly see here) while removing the inline tags that I have put in place in order for someone else to add the proper citations with the QUOTES from the relevant pages of the sources. This user is apparently undermining all of my inline tags and I am tired of re-checking his newer edits, like the ones about "colonially-imposed toxic masculinity" on the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines. Stricnina ( talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
More specific complaints:
Stricnina ( talk) 10:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings!!! Below are the revised version of Philippine name template which I'd been edited as it follows:
Kindly try to review my revised work before you judge it!!!! RenRen070193 ( talk) 06:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, application forms for various legal documents define the first name as the "Christian name(s)," the middle name as the "mother's maiden surname" (this becomes the basis for the middle initial), and the surname as the "father's surname."
Hi! I need your thoughts on this one. Please feel free to discuss it here. Thanks! — Emperork ( talk) 11:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
US Banknote Contest | ||
---|---|---|
November-December 2019 | ||
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here |
Sent by ZLEA at 23:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)
Good day Sir/Madam! The national language of the Philippines is “Filipino” and not “Tagalog”. It is supported by Commission on Filipino Language (Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino). These are the links:
1.) http://booksphilippines.gov.ph/archives/5172 2.) https://learningfilipino.com/blog/difference-between-tagalog-and-filipino/ 3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_language 4.) https://theculturetrip.com/asia/philippines/articles/tagalog-or-filipino-explaining-the-philippine-language/ Jsnueva1022 (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Jsnueva1022 ( talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I am in the process of revising the article "Delano grape strike," so it can accurately capture the involvement and contributions of Filipino farm workers during this event. I would appreciate any and all feedback you have to offer. Please feel free to look at my current revisions in my sandbox (linked on my user page) and discuss on the article's talk page. Salamat! AMRara ( talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:DXAP-TV, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I have proposed a page move that is related to this WikiProject. Input welcome! – Austronesier ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
With the recent plebiscite held last December 7, 2019 on changing Compostela Valley's name to Davao de Oro lapsed, I'd like to have the consensus of the community if we can move now the page to its new name. I can't find any link with the results of the plebiscite for now though but I saw this one: 1 — Emperork ( talk) 15:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add your opinions as to whether lechon should be called a "national dish" here: Talk:Lechon#National Dish -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 00:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters. — Marchjuly ( talk) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at
Adamson Soaring Falcons and some of the other similar team articles listed in
Category:University Athletic Association of the Philippines? There seems to be quite a bit of unsourced content (including some
WP:FANCRUFT) and well as some other pretty detailed information which might need to be re-assessed. I can understand outhow it's beneficial to readers to list some general information about a school's athletic teams and their accomplishments, but I don't think listing team rosters (including player heights and other personal information) are really helpful to the reader. Perhaps such information would make sense in an article about a particular team for a particular season, but not really in a general article about a university's sports teams as a whole. Wikipedia notable players can be mentioned as part of the prose or in a list of notable athletes, but not every player who was a member of one of the school's teams needs to be mentioned. It seems that a lot of this content is being added by IPs or
WP:SPAs who probably mean well, but are really just
WP:Namechecking people who don't really warrant being mentioned. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike error. — 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)]
FYI - There is an ongoing page move discussion Talk:Visayans#Requested move 27 December 2019. The article is rated "High" in the importance scale for this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate feedback on my latest article, Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel. (I previously got constructive feedback from here on Tagalog profanity.) This subject was very difficult to write about, with many twists and turns. Psiĥedelisto ( talk) 09:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
From this poiny on I'll refer Philippine highway network as PHN. Sorry if I'll be havinv typos due to lack of time.
@ RioHondo: @ HueMan1: @ Sky Harbor: @ Jojit fb: Paki-tag po ng iba pang users para sa diskusyon na ito. Salamuch! :-)
Recently I contacted HueMan1 through Messenger and we discussed some issue in PHN. It appears that Pulilan Regional Road is not wholly under PHN. The segment east of the Academia de Pulilan (shown in the pic) appears to be unnumbered. What I though before of "mistaken installation" of N115 sign at the road leading to AH26 from Academia junction (pasing through Longos) is actually CORRECT. Not only that, one thing we mentioned is that E4 only encompasses Subic Freeport Expressway (I presume its the official name of STE now the SFEX).
I don't know if DPWH has updated their road atlases or what. What appears to be stable highway system is unpredictable in reality. I understand its still in the beginning stages since more hiways are being integrated ij the system. But further clarification is much needed. The websites seem not to load properly. Also the dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is not loading well on my browser.
A thorough discussion should help. Maraming salamat po! JWilz12345 ( talk) 11:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to add tge pic. I added it now. JWilz12345 ( talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Dagdag lang po, if DPWH is correct in their designation, Pulilan Regional Road veers southward after Academia de Pulilan intersection. The remainder, based on dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is "Pulilan Railroad Station Road." Sus kailangan ko pong irequest renaming of my files on Commons having this case - 2 files I guess including the one above? JWilz12345 ( talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Addition lang po: Whenever I go to Robinson's Townville with my mom by riding on a jeepney, I can notice the route past Academia de Pulilan. The road goes to the south with good quality asphalt road, while going straight towards Palengke/Robinson's area the road becomes a bit of inferior quality, with good portions only in the immediate area of the mall and the junction area. This is per experience. Also, heavy vehicles are now prohibited from going past Academia and are urged to turn south towards Longos. But again, this might be WP:Original research so I don't want to include yet in the article. JWilz12345 ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Inviting contributors to participate in Wikiproject Asia's 10,000 Challenge. You could create, expand, substantially improve any Asia-related articles. Please refer to the campaign's page for more details. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 15:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Can't seem to change it. And who the heck uses "Aspin"? Asado ( talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
|name=
still reverts it to Aspin (dog) though. -
SUB
WAY
15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)This is a heads up that this page is being heavily edited because of Suarez' recent death. Be aware that some of the recent edits are heavily POV. (In particular, some edits try to remove properly-cited information that are perceived to be negative.) I'll try my best to clean up this article, but feel free to help. Thanks! --- Tito Pao ( talk) 01:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't wanna cross the 3RR boundary here. Can someone please have a look at Red Rose 13's edits? That user returned their edits that I removed which, even though it was directly taken from the cited reference, makes the article look like a subtle promotion of Suarez. Thanks! --- Tito Pao ( talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The description of the Laban sign is confusing and probably inaccurate; see Talk:Laban sign#shape of sign?. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I did a quick glance at the Wikipedia article with the title Art of the Philippines but the content confused me. Apparently no scholarly criteria has been used to define what can be included in that page as "art" or not, no wonder almost any aspect of Philippine culture and history can be included there, from archeological artifacts like the Agusan image and the numerous lingling-o, to martial arts like arnis, and even to Filipino cuisine itself. Everything goes there, while the cited sources apparently don't even define them as "art". So what constitutes art according to the reliable sources available? Can all aspects of Philippine culture be considered as "art"? Should I also add OPM, the numerous Iglesia ni Cristo architectural buildings, the San Juanico Bridge, the pre-colonial burial sites as "art" too? What do the sources say? Stricnina ( talk) 00:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In the same vein as Law 3037/2002, does Marcos's ban on arcade games and pinball deserve a separate article? There's plenty of sources that back it up, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling ( talk) 05:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
: But then again, the official gazette uses the operative words "and other prohibited and gambling devises" when it mentioned video game machines as with the PD and LOI. As with the other links you posted, I cant access their full versions so i have nothing to read there hehe! So again we go back to the issue of interpretation and legislative intent. What was the intent of PD519? Ban all video games? Or video game machines that are used as gambling devices? Because if your interpretation is the former, then you need a whole lot of RS that shares this interpretation. If it's the latter, then you know why they made those horse racing video games illegal. They are video games, but those video kareras are being targetted by anti-illegal gambling operations up to now hehe. Their basis? Marcos's PD 1602 that cites this earlier PD519 provision.-- RioHondo ( talk) 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
I invite anyone here interested to participate in the ongoing voting regarding the name change of the Wikipedia article Tondo (historical polity). I wish a discussion was carried out first before proposing the voting immediately, but alas the voting has begun. Feel free to drop your two cents regarding the issue there. Stricnina ( talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently the infobox of all LGU's has 3 maps. IMO a bit overkill and it makes the infobox so excessively long (they are already some of the longest infoboxes I have seen). I am proposing to hide the OpenStreetMap in a collapsible box, similar to {{ Infobox Italian comune}}. The extra code would be:
{{hidden | header = OpenStreetMap | headercss=height:5px; | content = <div class="center" style="margin-top:1em">{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}</div>}}
See the example here for Aborlan, Palawan:
|
All the advantages of the OpenStreetMap are still there, still available, but just collapsed, reducing the infobox to a bit more manageable size and appearing a little less cluttered.
Please provide your feedback and/or approval if we should adopt this approach. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Because when I searched for other cities in Asia, and some parts of Europe and the United States, I didn't see anything like this. Is this a problem? Because I don't think the OpenStreetMap feature is the clutter here, it's the locator map, but the problem with the OpenStreetMap map is that, it doesn't provide complete boundaries for LGUs, especially for rural areas. This is a problem for OSM contributors anyways, but in a way, it affects this feature a lot. What do you think? -- hueman1 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I found a simple solution for the mobile view: to use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} instead of {{hidden}}. The OSM is now visible in the mobile version but collapsed in the desktop version. See the life example at
Agutaya. Now the code is: {{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | titlestyle=height:5px | ta1=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}}
What do you think? --
P 1 9 9
✉
16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
P199's suggestion is great. We can also use a shorter code:
{{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | ta1=center | class=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}}
Side note: The collapsible list of councilors in
Pasig infobox had an unneeded CSS attribute display:none
. Removing it displays the list in plain list form in mobile view.
Sanglahi86 (
talk)
12:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a regular here and just stumbled on this discussion. I don't have anything to contribute to the ongoing discussion above re details, but please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Places and WP:Settlement. Perhaps some adjustment is in order either here or there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I see that there are no other comments/objections and there seems to be more support than not, so I'll add the code above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Draft:John Paul Gomez and am almost ready to move it to the mainspace. Pretty much all of the sources I've been able to find (even Philippine media sources) spell his last name a "Gomez" without an accent mark over the "o"; however, while lookiing for sources I came across a source that spells his name as "Gómez" with an accent mark over the "o". WP:COMMONNAME seems overwhelmingly in favor of no accent mark for him; so, I'm wondering if it's something commonly dropped in English language publications for the sake of convenience, but is more frequently used in non-English sources or when precision is a priority. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the appropriate page to which Philippine Independence should point at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_17#Philippine independence. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 06:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)