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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Hey, I need some help looking for sources in Tagalog for the article Pagpag: Siyam na Buhay. It's up for AfD, but looks to be a fairly well known movie for the most part. I've found some sourcing but I'm already running into a language barrier. I can use Google Translate for some of it, but well... there's some obvious problems with GT. I'm also somewhat unfamiliar with the news sources in the Philippines, so I'm a little afraid that I'm looking over places that could serve as RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be really nice if we had a template roadmap of Metro Manila that we could use on articles to identify their location in Metro Manila, similar to this New York map here. Currently we have a blank map with city borders, but I want one that includes major roads. I thought of taking a simple screenshot from OpenStreetMap, but it's way too cluttered with labels and minor roads. Anyone know a simple way a map like this can be done? TheCoffee ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am currently setting the P131 (is in administrative division) property of places in the Philippines in the wikidata project. For example the article for San Beda Alabang is set to the wikidata entity Q4830864 Ayala Alabang. The Q4830864 in tern is linked to the english wiki article for ayala alabang and wikivoyage article Alabang. But i recently found another en Wiki article for Alabang the municipality which currently has no wikidata set to them. Maybe we should merge the two en-Wiki for Ayala Alabang and Alabang as one? If you look at the connection of wikidata it is quite consistent.
Here is a property tree of metro manila: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=13580&rp=131&method=d3
And here is for muntinlupa: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=17176&rp=131&method=d3
-- natadecoco ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to make some factual corrections (with map links for illustration):
— seav ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Two years ago, there was a discussion on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and what we should do about it in order to challenge the law. In light of the Supreme Court now declaring most of the law constitutional, including the law's provisions on internet libel, what should we do now? -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 06:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I found two copies of the two different photograph with differing sizes. Is there a procedure to eliminate such duplicates? Should I just go ahead and delete one, merging its data into the other? Is there any rationale for having two? Here's the photos:
There is also these, but here they have different sources and different data. One is from an archive in Spain and says that it is a photo of Aguinaldo in Hong Kong and the other is from the US War Department and says it was taken circa 1900. Which to keep? Keep both?
-- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tambayan Philippines people!
Could you possibly have a look at both these articles? Peter in Australia aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! At the moment, I'm stuck with just the usual obituary articles about one of Pinoy film's original bad boy, Roldan Aquino. Apparently, I am the third person who attempted to create the article, so any help you can give will be much appreciated. Thanks :) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been prodded. Please rescue it soon, or send it to WP:AfD. Bearian ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This new stub has some issues. Please, can you take a look and fix it? Bearian ( talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I intend to add this article as a student enrolled in Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (University of Utah) and would really appreciate some thoughts on the topic and my outline. As part of the Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines) the aim is to highlight and create Philippine-related topics. Filipino Migrant Worker will specifically bring up issues surrounding the worker with a suggested outline as follows: 1. History, 2. Economic Developement (2.1 Remittances) 3. Gender equality (3.1 Labor Rights, 3.2 Women's Role as providers) 4. Migration Policy (4.1 WTO Policies, 4.2 Phillipines Domestic Policies) 5. Returnee Integration 6. Children to Migrant Parents. Please leave your feedback Yogibjorn ( talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This new stub could use some better sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please help fix this article as tagged. Bearian ( talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Theparties put a GAR template on the Philippines last March 11 without addressing any issues to delist it from good article. The user would eventually blocked due to sockpuppetry. Can someone finalize the decision? And/or delete the page? Fairy Tail Rocks 12:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ibong Adarna (mythology) should be renamed since the Ibong Adarna poem itself is not part of Philippine folklore or mythology/legend. It's fantasy fiction of the time, like Florante at Laura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.151.71 ( talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
See http://technology.inquirer.net/35717/enrile-in-masters-of-the-universe-lord-of-the-rings for vandalism of said article. It's either INQ is having a slow news day or we really need to monitor the article.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several editors who add the terms city or municipality to the infobox in the many native languages of that place, either at the official_name
parameter (i.e.
Bacolod and
Davao City) or the native_name
parameter (i.e.
Koronadal and
Borongan). I like to point out that these parameters are often misused:
Languages that are in official use are not the same as the official name of a place. Official in this context means that it is part of the legally incorporated charter of the city/municipality. So I highly doubt that this is done in more than 1 language in most cases. If a LGU really has more than 1 official name, it needs to be supported by a reference, because I really think editors are merely adding all local languages to the list.
The native_name
parameter is for when the actual name is different than the English one, for example:
Manila (English) and
Maynila (Tagalog). But in the far majority of cases, this is only used to translate the terms city or municipality. This is the English WP, so there is no need to provide translation to foreign languages; for that we have the links to other language Wikipedias.
IMO, Manila is done right and should be the example. I like to see some consensus to make the use of these infobox parameters consistent and logical, while avoiding needless clutter. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a edit war going on at Naga, Camarines Sur, and Legazpi, Albay. Both articles are being edited by new editors who have an agenda to promote these competing cities. Both articles suffer greatly from WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues. Other issues include problematic references, such as references taken out of context and taken from unreliable or biased sources, to support biased claims. I have cleaned them up periodically but it is better if WikiProject Philippines also gets involved. So I ask experienced editors to monitor these pages and assist in upholding the WP policies and guidelines. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering why Kuta'-Maas, a big barangay in Parang municipality is not found in the list. Benj Bangahan ( talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Benj Bangahan
A very large percentage of our articles on Filipinos (even the most popular or most prominent) have a bright orange BLP sources tag at the top. Some of the same articles, as well as other articles, also need copyediting. Can we form a taskforce or have an editing drive to fix this? It won't be finished overnight, but can we at least start working on at least the most popular Philippine BLPs (and even BDPs)? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This [1] is a great photography of Taft, Osmena and Philippine Commissioners from 1907 (Taft is the most charming in the photo, followed by Smith. Forbes is very dour. Osmena, tiny as he is, holds his own). It is taken in 1907 and is part of the Burnham Collection at the Art Institute of Chicago. Is it in the public domain? I cannot find any publication information and I assume that it has never been published and might be just a private snap by Daniel Burnham. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at Askal (with an S)? Wikipedia favors the most common name and Aspin sure hasn't gained traction. Otherwise, the football team would be the Aspins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.203.232 ( talk) 03:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please confirm if the images for the sleeve insignia used in this article are legit? I do not trust User:Philipandrew's uploads, being that they are unsourced and the user has a history of uploading his own artworks and passing it off as historical artifacts and uploading copyright violations. See the archive of his sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia and his Commons talk page for reference. 舎利弗 ( talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm requesting all parties interested to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino language. I realize this is a controversial topic so I would like to get as much comment as necessary. 舎利弗 ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Related proposal: Talk:Filipino orthography#Rename to Tagalog orthography. 舎利弗 ( talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No. Tagalog is a natural language. Filipino is national and semi-artificial created by President Quezon.-- Jondel ( talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to add position held wikidata statements for notable Filipino politicians, and I noticed that some of them do not have commons image that can be seen from any other wiki. I mean, when checking out former senate presidents, which have their names used on major roads in the philippines, we do not even have a photo of them. Maybe Wikimedia Philippines should have a task force for contacting relatives of notable Filipinos relatives if they can offer photos of their ancestor for free license so we can place them in commons.
We can start with Presidents, then Vice-Presidents, even not politicians. I mean explaining to the family member that their photos would be reusable not only in English wikipedia / local wikipedia but possible uses of the photos in wikidata. I am not that new to the Philippine chapter, were you able to start such similar work task force.
I think they had a similar project to european parliament, something similar to wiki love monuments.
-- natadecoco ( talk) 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I feel I have to raise a question about this image, which supposedly represents "Lakandula's Flag." Its historicity has to be doubted, because AFAIK we have no visual reference that can serve as a source showing what a flag in 1570s Manila looked like. |Watawat.net mentions Montero y Vidal's Historia General de Filipinas, specifying vol. I p. 36, but does not quote a segment of that document which describes the flag, or even say that such a descriptive passage exists. (I don't have a copy myself.) It only asserts that "The red flag or red banner was the typical symbol of the Kingdom of Rajah Lakandula (Lacandola for the spaniards), this color follows the traditional colors adopted by the ancient rulers of the islamic kingdoms of the filipino area." Even if a description of a banner of this shape and color exists within the Montero y Vidal text, there's the question of whether the text actually specifies that the banner was indeed "a flag." It could have been just some sort of decorative element - we can't actually tell unless we have the text in front of us, and THEN (this is my most immediate beef with this image), by the rules of historical rigor we would have to ask whether the original record could have been affected by the European-skewed perspective of the author. If this image should be on wikipedia at all, I believe at the very least it should always be accompanied by text explaining the historical caveats. But perhaps I am being overzealous? There is, after all, a source that attests that the image is historical. Or perhaps I am being far too much a wiki inclusionist? At any rate, I do not feel up to the task of doing anything about the image myself. Like I said, I feel there's a chance I am being overzealous and I feel there are many other things which deserve my...er...zeal. Still, this bothers me. So I'm bringing it up for the Tambayan's consideration. Alternativity ( talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Tambays,
The Board of Trustees is pleased to announce that it will be offering one (1) scholarship to attend Wikimania 2014 in London. The scholarship includes (among others) roundrip plane fare to London, shared accommodation, and visa application processing fees.
If you're interested, you can find the complete details on this page at the WMPH official website.
Thanks! :) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 17:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
New article Jusay Ancestral House was recently nominated for deletion because it seemed possibly not to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Relative to most historic sites articles in English wikipedia, this article is unusual for being sourced to audio and video interviews. (It also lacked basic identification of the site, like its address and/or coordinates, but I could find those and added them.) I believe, but am not sure, that the house is officially a National Heritage House. The AFD discussion was closed for now, but raised questions about documentation of Philippine historic sites, including use of primary sources. Wikipedia policy on primary sources, wp:PRIMARY, is that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". It seems to me that the audio and video files are published, because they are in wikimedia. But I think there are easy ways to smooth the introduction of more Filippino historic sites to be included in Wikipedia.
To start, I wonder, is there a complete, official list of National Heritage Houses available? The wikipedia article Lists of Cultural Properties of the Philippines links to various sublists by region, but has only a redlink currently to List of National Heritage Houses in the Philippines. The regional sublists seem not to cover National Heritage Houses, or at least List of Cultural Properties of the Philippines in Metro Manila fails to include the Jusay one. I understand that maybe any house over 50 years old would be eligible to be listed, but does a list exist? I assume it would be public domain, as such lists elsewhere are generally held to be. If it does exist, then I'd like to get a copy and/or work with others to build out those lists in Wikipedia.
And, for the Jusay house, is there any written documentation available? What library or historic registry department keeps files on Philippine historic sites? It would help the Jusay article if a registration document could be included as a source, either if it is on-line and can be linked or if it is only available off-line. I wonder, was a written report created by the 3 Wikimedia volunteers (Hanah Dalawangbayan, Jun Pasa and Jeffy John Tomarong), who interviewed Mrs. Jusay?
In the U.S., where I am from, most local historic registries keep files of nomination documents. Some but not all U.S. states have their state-level nomination documents on-line. And the official registration of a site is usually accomplished by a local government office's declaration that the site meets the registry's criteria and is hereby officially listed, and that declaration can then be cited in a Wikipedia article about the site. It would be great if Wikimedia volunteers did write reports and these were "published" by a central registry receiving and filing them. And it would be super if these reports were specifically licensed as CC or public domain so that long quotes could be used in Wikipedia articles. Note in the U.S. some historic site nomination documents are in the public domain because they were created by U.S. government staff, but most are written by private parties or state government staff and are not automatically in the public domain (so these can be used as sources, but only short quotes are allowable by copyright law).
I visit by invitation of Sky Harbor at this discussion at WikiProject Historic sites, who also mentioned Namayan, Joelaldor and Seav. Looking forward to any response. :) -- do ncr am 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I created some independent pages for the yearly ceremony of GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards recently. However, one of the editors redirected those pages to the parent page since (s)he argued that the "...article fails to establish why it's independently notable". Nevertheless, I still believe that each award ceremony, which happens annually, is notable enough to have an independent page. Thus, I talked to the editor as seen here. S/he, then, encourages me to come here and forward this concern. Concerning my appeal, I would want to discuss with you why the pages are notable enough. Here are my concerns:
I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions, and special thanks 舎利弗 for your comments regarding this matter. :) 001Jrm ( talk) 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems this thread is not gathering the amount of participation necessary to build consensus. I would just like to inform the dear user, should he still wish to pursue making separate pages for each year of the award, that there are other avenues (e.g., WP:RfC) by which non-involved editors can be invited to give their opinion on the matter. 舎利弗 ( talk) 17:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Asia may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:The Philippine Tabo. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
... please keep an eye on Template:Aquino Cabinet? An IP has been making some disruptive edits to this template, but has also been making some edits that appear to be genuinely useful. As I'm not familiar with Philippines politics, it would be useful if some more knowledgeable editors could take a look. Thanks, -- NSH002 ( talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Fort Andres Bonifacio to determine what should be the primary topic, the military or the district? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Heads up! Malacanang named six new National Artists. I have already updated the main article and the template. Only two of the new NAs have articles:
Francisco Coching and
Cirilo F. Bautista, so now's a good time to create new articles for the other new National Artists (Alice Reyes, Ramon Santos, Francisco Feliciano(done!) and Jose Maria Zaragosa). ---
Tito Pao (
talk) 17:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
ABC has its seat at the Ambahayan Counpounds in Poblacion Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay. It broadcasts videos and music online .-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
an original Filipino music using traditional instruments and found object. First album came out in 1994 released by Backdoor Records of Mr. Gary Granada recorded and produced by Ato Mariano from Mindanao. The album was recorded at the Aroin Studios in Sta. Mesa Manila by Mio Aroin as technician in 4 tracks system.-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why exactly does the Nereus Acosta article have a Neutrality tag? Looks like a pretty run of the mill summary of achievements and positions to me. Do you folks think it deserves the tag? I know too little about Acosta to be able to determine for myself what exactly is and isn't there. - Alternativity ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Just had an idea: wouldn't it be nice if we had a template for ongoing and proposed Philippine PPP projects? There's a template for Philippine Highways, but if my research interest is in the financing and policy aspect of these projects, it would be much more helpful to have a template that links me to nonhighway projects as well, such as dams, power plants, etc. I could try and make one, and will do so maybe in two months if nobody else wants to do it, but I thought I'd bring it up to the group so that anyone here who is faster at making templates and wants to do it can do so. (I would have to do a lot of trial and error, and don't have much free time, thus this request.) - Alternativity ( talk) 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a list at http://ppp.gov.ph/?page_id=5663 , which I can only assume is relatively complete, if not necessarily entirely up-to-date. - Alternativity ( talk) 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:Not everything needs a navbox! -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made this edit to the Public–private partnership article, adding sections there for the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Improve or modify as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since this phrasing of the Navbox idea is very different from the PPP one, I thought I'd mention it as a subsection to the previous proposal, to make conversation easier. :D = Alternativity ( talk) 09:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Carnalito/Don Benito Alvarez Toral. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I found these articles on former provinces in the Spanish Wikipedia that have no corresponding English articles yet: Amburayan, Apayaos, El Príncipe, La Infanta and Lepanto. Not sure what the rules are for translating articles though. Is it alright to Google translate their whole content and copy their sources? -- RioHondo ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is discussion in Commons for the deletion of photos of SM Mall of Asia. -- Bluemask ( talk) 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'd just like to get the opinion of other people here to see whether it would be wise to have a PDAF scam navbox. I'm expecting there will be more articles on the particulars of the scam (we have Napoles, the Revilla speech, the scams proper, the PDAF itself, and I'm expecting the court cases and the DAP will have articles as well), so it would be wise to put all of them in one place. What do you think? :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to review our local government structure found in Administrative divisions of the Philippines and I realized that provinces not regions are supposed to be the primary or first-level divisions of the country. Local government in the Philippines says the same thing, with the exception of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which is a separate case and which should be treated as a territory like Puerto Rico is to the U.S. or Tibet to China. Our first-level divisions should be the Provinces of the Philippines and other Province-level divisions namely independent cities and independent municipality as presented in the List of primary local government units of the Philippines. As for the 16 administrative regions, i'm not sure they belong to any of those administrative levels. Component cities and Municipalities should be second-level divisions; Barangays should be third; and Sitios and puroks, fourth-level.
Need to know your opinion before I make any changes. Thanks!-- RioHondo ( talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Just recently, this project was labeled inactive. However, I believe I would need help to revive this, especially since August, our national history month, is fast coming. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philippine_History Arius1998 ( talk) 05:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have requested the following municipality articles to be moved according to their true common and/or official spellings showing evidences of their official seal, official website, and images of municipal halls or welcome sign from those municipalities carrying their real spelling:
Also, the following municipalities need to have their maps replaced to reflect their new names:
The following recently created municipalities in Maguindanao have no maps yet:
Anyone here knows how to create/edit LGU maps?-- RioHondo ( talk) 18:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RioHondo: Another thing: in order to make locator maps for the new places in Maguindanao, we need an authoritative/official map or source to base it on. I have not been able to find this. Do you know where we can find this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed there has recently been a surge in new articles about the Philippines, especially on the architectural front. Many appear to be the work of new editors, several of whom have been producing high-quality work. Over the past few days, among others I have for example seen
Church of the Risen Lord created by @
Fmgverzon:,
Church of La Milagrosa by @
Karkossa:,
National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes by @
MIKELAAGAN:,
Holy Rosary Minor Seminary by @
Jun pasa:,
Church of Panay by @
Iannekleina:,
Santiago Apostol Church, Plaridel by @
JJ Carpio:,
Santo Domingo Church by @
Joannerfabregas: and
San Juan de Dios Church by @
JJ Carpio:. (I have included all of these in the New articles section of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture (where the more recent additions can be seen on the main project page and an extended list at
Portal:Architecture/New article announcements.) I think it would be useful if your project page could also highlight this work, especially as we appear to have acquired many excellent new editors. If it is the result of a local initiative, it would be useful to know how it has been set up and who is responsible.--
Ipigott (
talk) 09:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
San Juan de Dios Church - @ JJ Carpio: @ Ipigott: I'd like to nominate this one at DYK. Before I can do so, a reference has to be added to each non-lead paragraph. I was unable to find a citation for the Architecture section but perhaps you have access to some other sources. Also, the image gallery appears bloated; perhaps it can be curated to just a handful of images? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Santo Domingo Church - @ Joannerfabregas: @ Ipigott: I'm moving discussion about this article to the article talkpage, Talk:Santo Domingo Church. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Last Saturday, June 28, we had a meeting ( raw minutes) with the volunteers who are creating and improving these articles on built heritage. Before July ends, the project leads will be deliberating and then assigning them to cover nearby towns and cities to do research and take photographs of all declared (by NHCP or NM) built heritage in their assigned places. Thus, we are expecting an even larger surge of new articles. Before that happens, I hope that we can do a peer review of the articles that they have created thus far. You can find a list of articles created or improved per volunteer at the WMPH website. The idea is to provide them feedback so that they can improve their existing articles and so that the articles they will be creating in the future will have less newbie-related problems. An example of review feedback is the one I left at Talk:St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines). Pinging Ipigott, Rosiestep, Sky Harbor, Titopao, RioHondo, Namayan, Bluemask, Lenticel, joelaldor. — seav ( talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Similar to the History task force suggested in a separate thread, I would like to propose to create a Cultural Heritage Task Force. This task force will be a natural complement to the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project currently being undertaken by Wikimedia Philippines. Does anybody object to this idea? — seav ( talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Finally managed to get online. Are you guys okay? -- Lenticel ( talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Pleas add information about this country to this articles-- Kaiyr ( talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Just calling everyone's attention to the fact that Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration has been moved to PAGASA. I am uncertain how I feel about this, and so I ask the group for their thoughts. (I'm not at all inclined to protest, actually. But... exactly what rules apply here?) - Alternativity ( talk) 14:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's time to resolve this issue of conflicting names for the Philippine capital city, the Philippine capital administrative region and the metropolitan area in the Philippines. As of now, these three entities overlap each other in almost all articles here in WP. As someone who does a lot of organizing and maintaining Manila-related articles including their categories and templates, I am starting to grow impatient with the lack of unified naming guidelines with regards to our city, region and metropolis. And im sure many editors especially contributors from other nationalities who authored many of these articles are just as confused as I am.
Take these articles on Manila for example:
As much as I would love to create these topics for our metropolitan area and/or region (I'm a Manileño from outside the City) , i can't as they are already covered in those articles.
And many of those Category:People from Manila are not actually from the city but from other areas in Metro Manila.
I think it's safe to say that Manila is the commonname for the metropolitan area, for both foreigners and locals, like me.
The National Capital Region (Philippines) Many of the government-related articles on the region are named NCR:
Perhaps when it comes to administrative matters, the commonname for the administrative region is National Capital Region (Philippines).
How about the City of Manila? It is not uncommon to see this entry in many of the articles as a form of disambiguation from Manila that almost always refers to the metro as a whole. And Manila has never been exclusive to the city alone and is used as the generic name for the metro area:
I have been meaning to move History of Manila to History of Metro Manila; Timeline of Manila to Timeline of Metro Manila; Geography of Manila to Geography of Metro Manila and all those categories like Category:Organizations based in Manila where the Asian Development Bank is under, and Category:Diplomatic missions in Manila that has the Embassy of Israel. But that would leave Manila bare or empty and I do understand Manila is the common international name for the city AND metro area, as how their authors intended them.
Unless anyone can offer an alternative solution to this mess, i propose that:
Anyone's got any thoughts on this? Or is everyone comfortable with the current mess? :) But definitely a National Capital Region (Philippines) article has to be made as there are already a growing number of references to it, and that's what all the government portals call the region.-- RioHondo ( talk) 14:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rio for trying to clean up duplication and redundancies. I think the article title for Manila should stay as is (the discussion about whether or not to add "city" has been beaten to death and we don't want to set another precedent for other cities). It should just be made very clear that the article is limited to the city itself, and info about greater Manila be removed (unless it is intrinsically relevant). And I thought like HTD that by definition Metro Manila is the same as the National Capital Region. If so, then there is no need to create the National Capital Region article, but the info can just be merged. As for institutions that carry the name "Manila" but are located outside Manila city limits, well, that's not our problem if they want to be misleading. We just need to properly identify their location in the article (which we already do). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a question up at Talk:Lucrecia_Roces_Kasilag regarding the article title for the National Artist. Comments on the talk page are welcome? :D - Alternativity ( talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Hey, I need some help looking for sources in Tagalog for the article Pagpag: Siyam na Buhay. It's up for AfD, but looks to be a fairly well known movie for the most part. I've found some sourcing but I'm already running into a language barrier. I can use Google Translate for some of it, but well... there's some obvious problems with GT. I'm also somewhat unfamiliar with the news sources in the Philippines, so I'm a little afraid that I'm looking over places that could serve as RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be really nice if we had a template roadmap of Metro Manila that we could use on articles to identify their location in Metro Manila, similar to this New York map here. Currently we have a blank map with city borders, but I want one that includes major roads. I thought of taking a simple screenshot from OpenStreetMap, but it's way too cluttered with labels and minor roads. Anyone know a simple way a map like this can be done? TheCoffee ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am currently setting the P131 (is in administrative division) property of places in the Philippines in the wikidata project. For example the article for San Beda Alabang is set to the wikidata entity Q4830864 Ayala Alabang. The Q4830864 in tern is linked to the english wiki article for ayala alabang and wikivoyage article Alabang. But i recently found another en Wiki article for Alabang the municipality which currently has no wikidata set to them. Maybe we should merge the two en-Wiki for Ayala Alabang and Alabang as one? If you look at the connection of wikidata it is quite consistent.
Here is a property tree of metro manila: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=13580&rp=131&method=d3
And here is for muntinlupa: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=17176&rp=131&method=d3
-- natadecoco ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to make some factual corrections (with map links for illustration):
— seav ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Two years ago, there was a discussion on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and what we should do about it in order to challenge the law. In light of the Supreme Court now declaring most of the law constitutional, including the law's provisions on internet libel, what should we do now? -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 06:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I found two copies of the two different photograph with differing sizes. Is there a procedure to eliminate such duplicates? Should I just go ahead and delete one, merging its data into the other? Is there any rationale for having two? Here's the photos:
There is also these, but here they have different sources and different data. One is from an archive in Spain and says that it is a photo of Aguinaldo in Hong Kong and the other is from the US War Department and says it was taken circa 1900. Which to keep? Keep both?
-- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tambayan Philippines people!
Could you possibly have a look at both these articles? Peter in Australia aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! At the moment, I'm stuck with just the usual obituary articles about one of Pinoy film's original bad boy, Roldan Aquino. Apparently, I am the third person who attempted to create the article, so any help you can give will be much appreciated. Thanks :) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been prodded. Please rescue it soon, or send it to WP:AfD. Bearian ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This new stub has some issues. Please, can you take a look and fix it? Bearian ( talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I intend to add this article as a student enrolled in Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (University of Utah) and would really appreciate some thoughts on the topic and my outline. As part of the Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines) the aim is to highlight and create Philippine-related topics. Filipino Migrant Worker will specifically bring up issues surrounding the worker with a suggested outline as follows: 1. History, 2. Economic Developement (2.1 Remittances) 3. Gender equality (3.1 Labor Rights, 3.2 Women's Role as providers) 4. Migration Policy (4.1 WTO Policies, 4.2 Phillipines Domestic Policies) 5. Returnee Integration 6. Children to Migrant Parents. Please leave your feedback Yogibjorn ( talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This new stub could use some better sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please help fix this article as tagged. Bearian ( talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey! Theparties put a GAR template on the Philippines last March 11 without addressing any issues to delist it from good article. The user would eventually blocked due to sockpuppetry. Can someone finalize the decision? And/or delete the page? Fairy Tail Rocks 12:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ibong Adarna (mythology) should be renamed since the Ibong Adarna poem itself is not part of Philippine folklore or mythology/legend. It's fantasy fiction of the time, like Florante at Laura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.151.71 ( talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
See http://technology.inquirer.net/35717/enrile-in-masters-of-the-universe-lord-of-the-rings for vandalism of said article. It's either INQ is having a slow news day or we really need to monitor the article.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several editors who add the terms city or municipality to the infobox in the many native languages of that place, either at the official_name
parameter (i.e.
Bacolod and
Davao City) or the native_name
parameter (i.e.
Koronadal and
Borongan). I like to point out that these parameters are often misused:
Languages that are in official use are not the same as the official name of a place. Official in this context means that it is part of the legally incorporated charter of the city/municipality. So I highly doubt that this is done in more than 1 language in most cases. If a LGU really has more than 1 official name, it needs to be supported by a reference, because I really think editors are merely adding all local languages to the list.
The native_name
parameter is for when the actual name is different than the English one, for example:
Manila (English) and
Maynila (Tagalog). But in the far majority of cases, this is only used to translate the terms city or municipality. This is the English WP, so there is no need to provide translation to foreign languages; for that we have the links to other language Wikipedias.
IMO, Manila is done right and should be the example. I like to see some consensus to make the use of these infobox parameters consistent and logical, while avoiding needless clutter. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a edit war going on at Naga, Camarines Sur, and Legazpi, Albay. Both articles are being edited by new editors who have an agenda to promote these competing cities. Both articles suffer greatly from WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues. Other issues include problematic references, such as references taken out of context and taken from unreliable or biased sources, to support biased claims. I have cleaned them up periodically but it is better if WikiProject Philippines also gets involved. So I ask experienced editors to monitor these pages and assist in upholding the WP policies and guidelines. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering why Kuta'-Maas, a big barangay in Parang municipality is not found in the list. Benj Bangahan ( talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Benj Bangahan
A very large percentage of our articles on Filipinos (even the most popular or most prominent) have a bright orange BLP sources tag at the top. Some of the same articles, as well as other articles, also need copyediting. Can we form a taskforce or have an editing drive to fix this? It won't be finished overnight, but can we at least start working on at least the most popular Philippine BLPs (and even BDPs)? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This [1] is a great photography of Taft, Osmena and Philippine Commissioners from 1907 (Taft is the most charming in the photo, followed by Smith. Forbes is very dour. Osmena, tiny as he is, holds his own). It is taken in 1907 and is part of the Burnham Collection at the Art Institute of Chicago. Is it in the public domain? I cannot find any publication information and I assume that it has never been published and might be just a private snap by Daniel Burnham. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at Askal (with an S)? Wikipedia favors the most common name and Aspin sure hasn't gained traction. Otherwise, the football team would be the Aspins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.203.232 ( talk) 03:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please confirm if the images for the sleeve insignia used in this article are legit? I do not trust User:Philipandrew's uploads, being that they are unsourced and the user has a history of uploading his own artworks and passing it off as historical artifacts and uploading copyright violations. See the archive of his sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia and his Commons talk page for reference. 舎利弗 ( talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm requesting all parties interested to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino language. I realize this is a controversial topic so I would like to get as much comment as necessary. 舎利弗 ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Related proposal: Talk:Filipino orthography#Rename to Tagalog orthography. 舎利弗 ( talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No. Tagalog is a natural language. Filipino is national and semi-artificial created by President Quezon.-- Jondel ( talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to add position held wikidata statements for notable Filipino politicians, and I noticed that some of them do not have commons image that can be seen from any other wiki. I mean, when checking out former senate presidents, which have their names used on major roads in the philippines, we do not even have a photo of them. Maybe Wikimedia Philippines should have a task force for contacting relatives of notable Filipinos relatives if they can offer photos of their ancestor for free license so we can place them in commons.
We can start with Presidents, then Vice-Presidents, even not politicians. I mean explaining to the family member that their photos would be reusable not only in English wikipedia / local wikipedia but possible uses of the photos in wikidata. I am not that new to the Philippine chapter, were you able to start such similar work task force.
I think they had a similar project to european parliament, something similar to wiki love monuments.
-- natadecoco ( talk) 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I feel I have to raise a question about this image, which supposedly represents "Lakandula's Flag." Its historicity has to be doubted, because AFAIK we have no visual reference that can serve as a source showing what a flag in 1570s Manila looked like. |Watawat.net mentions Montero y Vidal's Historia General de Filipinas, specifying vol. I p. 36, but does not quote a segment of that document which describes the flag, or even say that such a descriptive passage exists. (I don't have a copy myself.) It only asserts that "The red flag or red banner was the typical symbol of the Kingdom of Rajah Lakandula (Lacandola for the spaniards), this color follows the traditional colors adopted by the ancient rulers of the islamic kingdoms of the filipino area." Even if a description of a banner of this shape and color exists within the Montero y Vidal text, there's the question of whether the text actually specifies that the banner was indeed "a flag." It could have been just some sort of decorative element - we can't actually tell unless we have the text in front of us, and THEN (this is my most immediate beef with this image), by the rules of historical rigor we would have to ask whether the original record could have been affected by the European-skewed perspective of the author. If this image should be on wikipedia at all, I believe at the very least it should always be accompanied by text explaining the historical caveats. But perhaps I am being overzealous? There is, after all, a source that attests that the image is historical. Or perhaps I am being far too much a wiki inclusionist? At any rate, I do not feel up to the task of doing anything about the image myself. Like I said, I feel there's a chance I am being overzealous and I feel there are many other things which deserve my...er...zeal. Still, this bothers me. So I'm bringing it up for the Tambayan's consideration. Alternativity ( talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Tambays,
The Board of Trustees is pleased to announce that it will be offering one (1) scholarship to attend Wikimania 2014 in London. The scholarship includes (among others) roundrip plane fare to London, shared accommodation, and visa application processing fees.
If you're interested, you can find the complete details on this page at the WMPH official website.
Thanks! :) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 17:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
New article Jusay Ancestral House was recently nominated for deletion because it seemed possibly not to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Relative to most historic sites articles in English wikipedia, this article is unusual for being sourced to audio and video interviews. (It also lacked basic identification of the site, like its address and/or coordinates, but I could find those and added them.) I believe, but am not sure, that the house is officially a National Heritage House. The AFD discussion was closed for now, but raised questions about documentation of Philippine historic sites, including use of primary sources. Wikipedia policy on primary sources, wp:PRIMARY, is that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". It seems to me that the audio and video files are published, because they are in wikimedia. But I think there are easy ways to smooth the introduction of more Filippino historic sites to be included in Wikipedia.
To start, I wonder, is there a complete, official list of National Heritage Houses available? The wikipedia article Lists of Cultural Properties of the Philippines links to various sublists by region, but has only a redlink currently to List of National Heritage Houses in the Philippines. The regional sublists seem not to cover National Heritage Houses, or at least List of Cultural Properties of the Philippines in Metro Manila fails to include the Jusay one. I understand that maybe any house over 50 years old would be eligible to be listed, but does a list exist? I assume it would be public domain, as such lists elsewhere are generally held to be. If it does exist, then I'd like to get a copy and/or work with others to build out those lists in Wikipedia.
And, for the Jusay house, is there any written documentation available? What library or historic registry department keeps files on Philippine historic sites? It would help the Jusay article if a registration document could be included as a source, either if it is on-line and can be linked or if it is only available off-line. I wonder, was a written report created by the 3 Wikimedia volunteers (Hanah Dalawangbayan, Jun Pasa and Jeffy John Tomarong), who interviewed Mrs. Jusay?
In the U.S., where I am from, most local historic registries keep files of nomination documents. Some but not all U.S. states have their state-level nomination documents on-line. And the official registration of a site is usually accomplished by a local government office's declaration that the site meets the registry's criteria and is hereby officially listed, and that declaration can then be cited in a Wikipedia article about the site. It would be great if Wikimedia volunteers did write reports and these were "published" by a central registry receiving and filing them. And it would be super if these reports were specifically licensed as CC or public domain so that long quotes could be used in Wikipedia articles. Note in the U.S. some historic site nomination documents are in the public domain because they were created by U.S. government staff, but most are written by private parties or state government staff and are not automatically in the public domain (so these can be used as sources, but only short quotes are allowable by copyright law).
I visit by invitation of Sky Harbor at this discussion at WikiProject Historic sites, who also mentioned Namayan, Joelaldor and Seav. Looking forward to any response. :) -- do ncr am 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I created some independent pages for the yearly ceremony of GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards recently. However, one of the editors redirected those pages to the parent page since (s)he argued that the "...article fails to establish why it's independently notable". Nevertheless, I still believe that each award ceremony, which happens annually, is notable enough to have an independent page. Thus, I talked to the editor as seen here. S/he, then, encourages me to come here and forward this concern. Concerning my appeal, I would want to discuss with you why the pages are notable enough. Here are my concerns:
I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions, and special thanks 舎利弗 for your comments regarding this matter. :) 001Jrm ( talk) 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems this thread is not gathering the amount of participation necessary to build consensus. I would just like to inform the dear user, should he still wish to pursue making separate pages for each year of the award, that there are other avenues (e.g., WP:RfC) by which non-involved editors can be invited to give their opinion on the matter. 舎利弗 ( talk) 17:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Asia may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:The Philippine Tabo. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
... please keep an eye on Template:Aquino Cabinet? An IP has been making some disruptive edits to this template, but has also been making some edits that appear to be genuinely useful. As I'm not familiar with Philippines politics, it would be useful if some more knowledgeable editors could take a look. Thanks, -- NSH002 ( talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Fort Andres Bonifacio to determine what should be the primary topic, the military or the district? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Heads up! Malacanang named six new National Artists. I have already updated the main article and the template. Only two of the new NAs have articles:
Francisco Coching and
Cirilo F. Bautista, so now's a good time to create new articles for the other new National Artists (Alice Reyes, Ramon Santos, Francisco Feliciano(done!) and Jose Maria Zaragosa). ---
Tito Pao (
talk) 17:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
ABC has its seat at the Ambahayan Counpounds in Poblacion Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay. It broadcasts videos and music online .-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
an original Filipino music using traditional instruments and found object. First album came out in 1994 released by Backdoor Records of Mr. Gary Granada recorded and produced by Ato Mariano from Mindanao. The album was recorded at the Aroin Studios in Sta. Mesa Manila by Mio Aroin as technician in 4 tracks system.-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why exactly does the Nereus Acosta article have a Neutrality tag? Looks like a pretty run of the mill summary of achievements and positions to me. Do you folks think it deserves the tag? I know too little about Acosta to be able to determine for myself what exactly is and isn't there. - Alternativity ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Just had an idea: wouldn't it be nice if we had a template for ongoing and proposed Philippine PPP projects? There's a template for Philippine Highways, but if my research interest is in the financing and policy aspect of these projects, it would be much more helpful to have a template that links me to nonhighway projects as well, such as dams, power plants, etc. I could try and make one, and will do so maybe in two months if nobody else wants to do it, but I thought I'd bring it up to the group so that anyone here who is faster at making templates and wants to do it can do so. (I would have to do a lot of trial and error, and don't have much free time, thus this request.) - Alternativity ( talk) 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a list at http://ppp.gov.ph/?page_id=5663 , which I can only assume is relatively complete, if not necessarily entirely up-to-date. - Alternativity ( talk) 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:Not everything needs a navbox! -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made this edit to the Public–private partnership article, adding sections there for the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Improve or modify as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since this phrasing of the Navbox idea is very different from the PPP one, I thought I'd mention it as a subsection to the previous proposal, to make conversation easier. :D = Alternativity ( talk) 09:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Carnalito/Don Benito Alvarez Toral. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I found these articles on former provinces in the Spanish Wikipedia that have no corresponding English articles yet: Amburayan, Apayaos, El Príncipe, La Infanta and Lepanto. Not sure what the rules are for translating articles though. Is it alright to Google translate their whole content and copy their sources? -- RioHondo ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is discussion in Commons for the deletion of photos of SM Mall of Asia. -- Bluemask ( talk) 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'd just like to get the opinion of other people here to see whether it would be wise to have a PDAF scam navbox. I'm expecting there will be more articles on the particulars of the scam (we have Napoles, the Revilla speech, the scams proper, the PDAF itself, and I'm expecting the court cases and the DAP will have articles as well), so it would be wise to put all of them in one place. What do you think? :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to review our local government structure found in Administrative divisions of the Philippines and I realized that provinces not regions are supposed to be the primary or first-level divisions of the country. Local government in the Philippines says the same thing, with the exception of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which is a separate case and which should be treated as a territory like Puerto Rico is to the U.S. or Tibet to China. Our first-level divisions should be the Provinces of the Philippines and other Province-level divisions namely independent cities and independent municipality as presented in the List of primary local government units of the Philippines. As for the 16 administrative regions, i'm not sure they belong to any of those administrative levels. Component cities and Municipalities should be second-level divisions; Barangays should be third; and Sitios and puroks, fourth-level.
Need to know your opinion before I make any changes. Thanks!-- RioHondo ( talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Just recently, this project was labeled inactive. However, I believe I would need help to revive this, especially since August, our national history month, is fast coming. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philippine_History Arius1998 ( talk) 05:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have requested the following municipality articles to be moved according to their true common and/or official spellings showing evidences of their official seal, official website, and images of municipal halls or welcome sign from those municipalities carrying their real spelling:
Also, the following municipalities need to have their maps replaced to reflect their new names:
The following recently created municipalities in Maguindanao have no maps yet:
Anyone here knows how to create/edit LGU maps?-- RioHondo ( talk) 18:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RioHondo: Another thing: in order to make locator maps for the new places in Maguindanao, we need an authoritative/official map or source to base it on. I have not been able to find this. Do you know where we can find this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed there has recently been a surge in new articles about the Philippines, especially on the architectural front. Many appear to be the work of new editors, several of whom have been producing high-quality work. Over the past few days, among others I have for example seen
Church of the Risen Lord created by @
Fmgverzon:,
Church of La Milagrosa by @
Karkossa:,
National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes by @
MIKELAAGAN:,
Holy Rosary Minor Seminary by @
Jun pasa:,
Church of Panay by @
Iannekleina:,
Santiago Apostol Church, Plaridel by @
JJ Carpio:,
Santo Domingo Church by @
Joannerfabregas: and
San Juan de Dios Church by @
JJ Carpio:. (I have included all of these in the New articles section of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture (where the more recent additions can be seen on the main project page and an extended list at
Portal:Architecture/New article announcements.) I think it would be useful if your project page could also highlight this work, especially as we appear to have acquired many excellent new editors. If it is the result of a local initiative, it would be useful to know how it has been set up and who is responsible.--
Ipigott (
talk) 09:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
San Juan de Dios Church - @ JJ Carpio: @ Ipigott: I'd like to nominate this one at DYK. Before I can do so, a reference has to be added to each non-lead paragraph. I was unable to find a citation for the Architecture section but perhaps you have access to some other sources. Also, the image gallery appears bloated; perhaps it can be curated to just a handful of images? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Santo Domingo Church - @ Joannerfabregas: @ Ipigott: I'm moving discussion about this article to the article talkpage, Talk:Santo Domingo Church. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Last Saturday, June 28, we had a meeting ( raw minutes) with the volunteers who are creating and improving these articles on built heritage. Before July ends, the project leads will be deliberating and then assigning them to cover nearby towns and cities to do research and take photographs of all declared (by NHCP or NM) built heritage in their assigned places. Thus, we are expecting an even larger surge of new articles. Before that happens, I hope that we can do a peer review of the articles that they have created thus far. You can find a list of articles created or improved per volunteer at the WMPH website. The idea is to provide them feedback so that they can improve their existing articles and so that the articles they will be creating in the future will have less newbie-related problems. An example of review feedback is the one I left at Talk:St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines). Pinging Ipigott, Rosiestep, Sky Harbor, Titopao, RioHondo, Namayan, Bluemask, Lenticel, joelaldor. — seav ( talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Similar to the History task force suggested in a separate thread, I would like to propose to create a Cultural Heritage Task Force. This task force will be a natural complement to the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project currently being undertaken by Wikimedia Philippines. Does anybody object to this idea? — seav ( talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Finally managed to get online. Are you guys okay? -- Lenticel ( talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Pleas add information about this country to this articles-- Kaiyr ( talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Just calling everyone's attention to the fact that Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration has been moved to PAGASA. I am uncertain how I feel about this, and so I ask the group for their thoughts. (I'm not at all inclined to protest, actually. But... exactly what rules apply here?) - Alternativity ( talk) 14:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's time to resolve this issue of conflicting names for the Philippine capital city, the Philippine capital administrative region and the metropolitan area in the Philippines. As of now, these three entities overlap each other in almost all articles here in WP. As someone who does a lot of organizing and maintaining Manila-related articles including their categories and templates, I am starting to grow impatient with the lack of unified naming guidelines with regards to our city, region and metropolis. And im sure many editors especially contributors from other nationalities who authored many of these articles are just as confused as I am.
Take these articles on Manila for example:
As much as I would love to create these topics for our metropolitan area and/or region (I'm a Manileño from outside the City) , i can't as they are already covered in those articles.
And many of those Category:People from Manila are not actually from the city but from other areas in Metro Manila.
I think it's safe to say that Manila is the commonname for the metropolitan area, for both foreigners and locals, like me.
The National Capital Region (Philippines) Many of the government-related articles on the region are named NCR:
Perhaps when it comes to administrative matters, the commonname for the administrative region is National Capital Region (Philippines).
How about the City of Manila? It is not uncommon to see this entry in many of the articles as a form of disambiguation from Manila that almost always refers to the metro as a whole. And Manila has never been exclusive to the city alone and is used as the generic name for the metro area:
I have been meaning to move History of Manila to History of Metro Manila; Timeline of Manila to Timeline of Metro Manila; Geography of Manila to Geography of Metro Manila and all those categories like Category:Organizations based in Manila where the Asian Development Bank is under, and Category:Diplomatic missions in Manila that has the Embassy of Israel. But that would leave Manila bare or empty and I do understand Manila is the common international name for the city AND metro area, as how their authors intended them.
Unless anyone can offer an alternative solution to this mess, i propose that:
Anyone's got any thoughts on this? Or is everyone comfortable with the current mess? :) But definitely a National Capital Region (Philippines) article has to be made as there are already a growing number of references to it, and that's what all the government portals call the region.-- RioHondo ( talk) 14:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rio for trying to clean up duplication and redundancies. I think the article title for Manila should stay as is (the discussion about whether or not to add "city" has been beaten to death and we don't want to set another precedent for other cities). It should just be made very clear that the article is limited to the city itself, and info about greater Manila be removed (unless it is intrinsically relevant). And I thought like HTD that by definition Metro Manila is the same as the National Capital Region. If so, then there is no need to create the National Capital Region article, but the info can just be merged. As for institutions that carry the name "Manila" but are located outside Manila city limits, well, that's not our problem if they want to be misleading. We just need to properly identify their location in the article (which we already do). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a question up at Talk:Lucrecia_Roces_Kasilag regarding the article title for the National Artist. Comments on the talk page are welcome? :D - Alternativity ( talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)