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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Please check Commons:Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending several images are being nominated due to vague Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Images of the Plaques/markers may be saved sinced most of them are black signs with white text with the Philippine coat of arms in it which are non-copyrighted elements some may qualify under De minimis. This is why a freedom of panorama law should be defined in the Philippines. The Torre de Manila issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning you can't upload photos of monuments due to vague freedom of panorama law or the lack of it. If the Rizal Monument is more recent then, an image of it can't be even uploaded for commons with or without the building behind it. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the "political incorrectness" / "offensive" use of the term Igorot people is up at Talk:Igorot people#"Igorot" is derogatory? if you are interested. Thanks.-- RioHondo ( talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Next month, a bunch of Asian Wikipedia communities are organizing the Wikipedia Asian Month, an online edit-a-thon to expand Wikipedia content on Asian countries. Would this be something that you guys would like to do? The Tagalog Wikipedia is running the project and I figured I should ask here if English-writing Filipino Wikipedians would be interested in joining this project as well. :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to participate to edit the page of the town of San Jose, Camarines Sur. I'm presently employed with the LGU as Web/Network Administrator and doing some historical research that I intend to publish here. Thank you. Geopoet ( talk) 07:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe COI does not apply to me because of the following reasons:
Now, if my edits will not be honored here. It's okay. I can publish it thru a blog. But I formally request to please reconsider it. I believe that Wikipedia remains an "open encyclopedia" so that anybody who has knowledge about the article can edit or even contest it. I believe Wikipedia is still FREE and OPEN. This is the basics that I know. Thanks. Geopoet ( talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Tambayan adopts Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure for its settlement articles (i.e. cities, municipalities, barangays, etc.). I have already been rearranging articles based on this guideline in the past, without objection it seems. Now it may be helpful to formally adopt this guideline as part of WP:MOSPHIL. I am not suggesting to do a massive retroactive restructuring of articles, just to start using it moving forward as a help in creating uniformity and settling potential disputes. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It all too quick for likes of me ... it was only seven days from start to finish, and these days it gets be longer to start my writing. I have a lot to add, but on the other hand, MOS does say much anyway. I think there are only four headings – History, Geography, Economy and the fourth head which could be called Society or Community. Below History there might be Etymology. Geography can be physical geography such as Land Classification, Climate, as well as Barangays, Demographic. Economy can included Commerce, Transport. Society includes any to do with people, such as Government, Education, Health, Religion, Culture, Tourism, and Twin Cities.
Above all, remember that is to be an encyclopedia, not WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not WP:IINFO.
Unbuttered parsnip ( talk) mytime= Mon 06:19, wikitime= 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the ongoing APEC Summit notable enough to warrant its own article? If we have articles for every UAAP season (like UAAP Season 68, with subarticles on several sports) why not for every APEC Summit? Some relevant pages for discussion: WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. — seav ( talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone proposed to close the the Chavacano Wikipedia. You may want to comment on the proposal page at meta. -- Jojit ( talk) 10:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
our Demented Mother, Mila del Sol, 93, (who really does have dementia, this time) told me on Christmas Day that i was demented for not allocating funds specifically for the purpose of training “ the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia.
so as to Honor Our Mother (as if we had a choice), The Mila del Sol & Eddie Romero Fund for Community Development is herewith compelled to offer unlimited nanogrants to qualifying organizations and persons (esp those in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines), for the purpose of training “the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia. Details here: http://leoromero.org/nanogrants-for-wikipedia-editors
Thank you, and
Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of traffic about that family for years, and it seems the "rehabilitation" is going fullforce, with even the talk pages in Marcos the Elder becoming forums with content no different from their various social media accounts (yeah, I'm looking at you, Get Real Philippines, Definitely Filipino, Showbiz Government, and Anti-Pinoy!). Can we lock them all down (for Notability and COI, for starters), and heavily wheelback the edits because all they want is to deodorize the family and possibly raise the chances of that fake Oxford graduate winning as Veep? Exec8 knows I raised a similar issue on this at the Wikiconference three years ago.-- Eaglestorm ( talk) 02:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So, the question would be... which sources aren't reliable enough for you. If a known Marcos loyalist who's an expert on something writes something about Marcos about his/her expertise, are we throwing that away from the window? – H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've put up a merge proposal last month which is at Talk:Philippines_men's_national_basketball_team#Merger_proposal. Unfortunately still no participants. Maybe some of you from here could have a say. Thanks. Thepantomimehorse ( talk) 13:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Was the page taken over by Islamists and nobody noticed? It reads very fringe to me. What in heaven is Kota Seludong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.132 ( talk) 06:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the references to Seludong were added on 11 February 2013 by User:Egard89, although with a note that he was restoring material already previously added to the page. So no, it wasn't me. To my knowledge, though, the Philippine-Bruneian relationship in our early historic period is rather well documented. The documentation is based on Bruneian historical records, of course, so bias isn't unlikely. But documentation exists nonetheless and has been referred to by numerous historians, including IIRC Scott and Dery. References to Selurong, I haven't actually seen any detailed sources for, but the name has turned up consistently in peripheral textual discussions in my readings. Will try to find references. Overall, I'm more concerned about recent edits to portray early historic Philippine states as "sinified kingdoms" when they really did nothing more than trade with the Song and Tang courts, and maybe offer tribute to facilitate that trade. The links to Islamic Thassalocratic Kingdoms is actually established by the documentation. (Although in adressing both claims, we have to live with the translations of the sources, unless we speak Old Kavi or whatever language was used by the Tang and Song courts.) Huh. Will try to find references for Selurong. - Alternativity ( talk) 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Heads up to fellow Tambays: we now have a PH version of the Wikipedia15 logo featuring the map of the Philippines. Credits for the idea goes to Sky Harbor. (My apologies if your favorite island was left out of the design, as I want to make this as minimalistic as possible in line with the recommended Wikipedia15 vector art style.) Feel free to use as you see fit ;) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, for some reason Patternpat1 kept on bringing back his rendition of the locator map for Gentri even though TheCoffee's version is better and more consistent with other places. Care if someone here can cover me with this issue? Blake Gripling ( talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I knew about 'overseas Filipino workers', of course, but I wanted to learn about other nations' 'overseas workers'. I was surprised to see that this term is largely restricted to the Philippines; in its stead, each nation has its own terminology, and the terms are restricted to specific conditions:
It looks like this could be a new article for the encyclopedia? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am always going on trouble with Philippine transportation-related articles, which has lots of missing information. On some Philippine road articles, there are no history sections about the road. Others, like the articles about transportation systems around Metro Manila, are too short or outdated. I am proposing to add a transportation task force to collaborate with Philippine transportation-related articles.-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This person is changing all instances of "Filipina" to "Filipino". Is there anthing wrong with the feminine form of the word? If not, his/her edits should be reverted. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we use Philippine English terms such as "presidentiables", "survey", "COMELEC" instead of perfectly acceptable Philippine English words such as "candidates", "opinion polls" or "commission"? How about "COC"? Is it certificate of candidacy or canvass? Or the mobile game? Do we title the polling section as "Surveys" or "Opinion polls" just like every election article in Wikipedia? Please do join in the discussion at Philippine presidential election, 2016#Reminder on acronyms and Filipinisims such as "presidentiables". – H T D 01:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The article of Batangas province contains several issues. It seems much of the content (especially in the History and Culture sections) was done by a single contributor in the past, since the tone of many sentences are biased. I have done several cleanup revisions in the article, but the article is still generally messy, with redundant, incomprehensible, and obviously biased sentences. Also importantly, I am not very sure if the History and Culture (such as those under Music) sections should contain specific people native to the province. Maybe they need to be listed under a new section Notable people, (which the article lacks). If anybody could kindly help clean the entire article, that would be great. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As an affiliate organization, Philippine Wikimedia Community User group (PhilWiki Community) envisions to promote and develop Wikipedia in the Philippine languages through cost-effective, creative and innovative projects and through partnership with local government units, government agencies, academe, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.
Our past activities include:
Join the discussion on the Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community. -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I call your attention once again to the early historic settlements of the Philippines, to raise a question about terminology, specifically the use of the term "Huangdom" in the case of " Huangdom of Ma-i" and " Huangdom of Pangasinan", and the vulnerability to misunderstanding arising from the use of the term "Kingdom." This has the potential to be a long discussion so I'll just let this be my kickoff.
First: the ancient states of Ma-i and Pangasinan traded with China, and paid tribute to the court of the emperor be able to do so. So now the wikis for these ancient states are being referred to as "Sinified states". The Chinese records referred to their rulers as "Huangs", so these have been labelled "Huangdoms". I submit that both are assumptions. Trade with China does not automatically mean Sinification.
Second: I am not sure whether we have reached a consensus as to whether our ancient states (including the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo, for example) should be called "kingdoms", lest they be implied to be monarchies in the western sense. If we have, can someone direct me to the conversation where the consensus was achieved please? :D Otherwise, I submit that the term is confusing and that we should probably come up with some more broader term for the Philippine ancient states. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently made a research on these and I agree that the classification of early political states in the archipelago do not qualify as a huangdom or kingdom. The rajah/datu or whatever titleholder he was is not certainly a king, technically speaking. To make the discussion short, I came to the conclusion that these states at least have the barangay system as titles and societal structures almost coincide everywhere it was practiced. Even the Sultan of Sulu had a predecessor named Rajah Baginda. However, I do not suggest that these states be given a barangay title, e.g. Barangay Tondo. I suggest that further research be made.
I disagree with the notion that there were Sinified states. Rather, while they may be recorded by Chinese writers, there is still the issue of the accuracy of the reports. A gift may be interpreted as a tribute. China is not alone in this practice as the Majapahit also claimed to have had tributes from these states, but recent research argues that these claims stop as claims as it is yet to be proved. Reading the Laguna Copperplate, it would seem these doubts have to be considered. Arius1998 ( talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Arius1998 ( talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to go by whichever the WP:RS go by? Which terms do they use? Well, if they're all Chinese sources, are we supposed to be stuck with the terms that they use? Which translations are we using? – H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Just updating everyone: I have moved " Huangdom of Ma-i" to simply " Ma-i" and " Huangdom of Pangasinan" to Luyag na Kaboloan, respectively. I think simply moving Ma-i would be agreeable to most edits, so I've decided to be bold. In the case of Kaboloan/Pangasinan, the article lede identified Lubag na Kaboloan as the local name, and I moved the article to that title as preferable to the initial "Huangdom" title. I'll have to do more resarch to further understand the term "Luyag", and the relationship between the names "Kaboloan" and "Pangasinan", so I'm not excluding the possibility that some more title movement is possible based on what literature I find. (The online articles I've found all vaguely reference Scott, so I shall see if I can figure out where in the originals the relevant discussions are.) Or of course, if anyone wants to help out and do fixes to the two articles, that would be great too. Just keeping everyone looped in. Thanks - Alternativity ( talk) 23:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that the "Huangdom" issue is somewhat behind us, I would like to solicit feedback here on new names for Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan. The name format, as argued above, is an anachronism - specifically, a reference to the Westphalian system. Several editors, myself included, have raised concerns about this innacuracy. The present ledes of the pages Ma-i, Luyag na Kaboloan, Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan have newly been edited, thanks to Pare Mo, with the term "polity" replacing "kingdom", but as a piped link leading to Mandala_(Southeast_Asian_political_model). A lot of work is still needed to rid the pages of anachronisms, and in some cases, content actually belonging to fringe theories. However, a major next step is to remove the term "kingdom" from the article titles. I am thus proposing the renaming of Kingdom of Namayan simply to "Namayan" (over a redirect), and of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo to Maynila (historical polity) and Tondo(historical polity), respectively. Namayan is reasonable enough, I think. But I find "historical polity" awkward enough that I want to solicit people's thoughts on the rename rather than just being bold and doing it myself. For your information and comments, folks. - Alternativity ( talk) 08:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. With the 2016 elections ramping up soon, Wikimedia Philippines is looking to organize an election task force to help keep our articles in order. More specifically, the task force will do four things:
On the fourth point, the goal is to have Wikipedia's results reflect the COMELEC's official count in as close to real time as possible, so as people can go to us for information on the election. If this is something that we can do, we'll try to get as many people as we can from around the country so we have enough coverage, and we can train people on how to edit Wikipedia. What do you guys think? :) (I should let our resident election editors Howard the Duck, Iloilo Wanderer, Hariboneagle927 and Supergabbyshoe, as well as other editors like BhlJRama, Regrobvmagtibay and Raigeiki55, know about this development, and see if they'd be willing to help get this off the ground. :P) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. On behalf of Wikimedia Philippines, I have an announcement to make.
For a while now your chapter has maintained on a quiet back street in Makati a back office where we keep all our equipment, as well as maintain the chapter library where Wikipedians can borrow our reference materials. However, we feel that the community would benefit greatly from having a space of its own, where Wikipedians could meet one another and edit the project together, and at the same time find a quiet place to relax.
It is my great pleasure therefore to let everyone know that we are now opening our back office as a community space for the entire Filipino Wikimedia community. We have been planning this for a while now, and we hope that this space will become an integral part of building our community and bringing us ever closer together.
The space is normally open on weekends, when members of the WMPH Board of Trustees are usually present, although please let us know beforehand if you're planning to drop by. We have ample space (and facilities, including air conditioning and Wi-Fi) to host Wikipedians on a regular basis, and we're planning to host meetups in the space soon. Please consider this as an invitation to come over, and we would love for you guys to drop by sometime! :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
First, the Walang Sugat article says it was written a few years before Bayan Ko, which seems to be an addition.
The English and Spanish lyrics were formerly in the article, then someone removed them, and now I've restored the previous iteration. Source for Spanish lyrics here: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/06/01/1329687/small-correction-reveals-important-detail
There's also an English translation of the Spanish lyrics, as opposed to an English translation of the Filipino. Anyone better-versed in Spanish want to touch it up? -- 103.14.62.197 ( talk) 08:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Is our article on Ferdinand Marcos being steadily 'whitewashed' in this election year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BushelCandle ( talk • contribs) 23:39, February 28, 2016
Greetings. There seems to be some conflict in the Ferdinand Marcos article. I already laid down my opinion on the matter months ago. I wonder if it was even regarded. Please help in the resolution of their issue/s at the article's talk page. Thank you. Arius1998 ( talk) 09:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Are all radio stations notable just because they exist? Recently, I've seen several articles being created about them. But when you look them up, there are little or no information that can be found. Search results suggest social media and live streaming sites and sometimes the website of the network that owns them but I think they're not enough especially that they're primary sources; they're associated with the subject. Sixth o f March 00:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
At a 1981 exhibit of the Manunggul Jar at UCLA in Los Angeles, it was stated that jar burial (secondary burial) was a common practice at one time. Does anyone know of any connection to the Plain of Jars and the Hmong? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The same 1981 exhibit at UCLA also showed the Agusan Image, which is usually housed in the Field Museum ( The Agusan Image). There were dozens of items, including jewelry and textiles at the exhibit showing how rich and distinctive our culture is. If they should ever display the Agusan Image again, we ought to take a picture of it for an article. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Was Imelda Marcos once an unofficial president of the Philippines? See these edits [1] -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz, the article on the municipality of Banton in Romblon is now a good article! Kudos! He is now working on making the Romblon article itself into a good article. — seav ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conjugal dictatorship. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 06:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Jane Ryan is under discussion. Is Imelda Marcos the primary topic? See the discussion at talk:Jane Ryan -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement highlighted in Template:History of the Philippines as a defining historical event? It's there, wikilinked as "Return of U.S. military bases." I understand that it may be viewed as a defining historical from a post-colonial perspective, but a post-colonial perspective precisely that: a point of view. I don't deny that EDCA is important, but I'm not sure it can be universally accepted as an era-defining event - in fact, accommodating that perspective indicates a slant towards a specific way of interpreting the History of the Philippines. I think a discussion on this would be helpful? And perhaps some sort of agreement can be reached which would apply to the way our history is outlined? - Alternativity ( talk) 01:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Iloilo Wanderer. I just came from there. I'm starting to think a comprehensive review of changes to the template would be helpful. Seems to me a bunch of useful links were removed and a nationalist bias introduced. Huh. Will try and dig into this further when I can, but flagging it here in the meantime. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Imeldific ( talk · contribs) has created a new article at Conjugal dictatorship, which you may wish to evaluate -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Articles created by this user on Philippines geographical places need to be improved - in terms of content, formatting and sourcing. Regards, 103.6.159.71 ( talk) 15:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. It's come to my attention that information about the non-political engagements of vice presidential candidate Leni Robredo has been removed from the article. For comparison, look at User:RioHondo's edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Leni_Robredo&oldid=703700650 and the current article. Upon initial examination it seems the information was removed by User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!. Disclosure: I made significant contributions to the article prior to this, including some of the information removed. But I am not formally connected to the subject of the wiki article. I realize the edit I point to above isn't exactly the neatest (my edits usually aren't, in general), but it IS more comprehensive, and the removal of the information was without explanation. Not sure how to move forward as it has been a while since the edit. Any suggestions?- Alternativity ( talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to know if there are any objections if I will create a Heritage task force under WikiProject Philippines (aka, this Tambayan). The scope of this task force will be all articles related to the cultural and natural heritage of the Philippines. This includes articles on the World Heritage Sites like Vigan and Tubbataha Reef, as well as significant structures, sites, and items that fall under the National Cultural Heritage Act. We will also cover natural heritage such as National Geological Monuments declared by DENR.
Much of the task force's activities will be spearheaded by Wikimedia Philippines, but you do not need to be a member of the chapter to participate in the task force. Here's a short summary of the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. WMPH previously piloted a cultural heritage project from 2014 to 2015 and that project's output includes almost 300 new articles, around 500 improved articles, 37 DYKs and 4 Good articles ( full list here). In addition, we were able to contribute over 5,500 images to Commons. Currently, WMPH has a WikiProject in Wikidata to input into Wikidata information about the historical markers installed by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. You can see a map showing our current progress.
So, yeah, the task force is meant to provide a framework for monitoring the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. But again, you do not need to be a member of the chapter to help out in the proposed task force. :-) — seav ( talk) 11:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Recently,I upload the seal of Municipality of Silago. I discovered that I am the only one yet to upload this (I cannot found another seal in the Internet), since i know this town a lot. Can anyone know how my work (seal) to be licensed under the Government of the Philippines? Thanks in Advance and God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersabre 18 ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone should create a taskforce to remove the categories like [[Category: ABS-CBN Corporation]] and [[Category: GMA Network]] on the actor's or actress's biography page. Clean up on the filmography tables, WP:POV check, and general edits on the biographies. Strict implementation of 'No Network column on the filmography tables,' these network, if not network wars, are not very neutral. Plus, remove non-free images on biography pages claimed by fan uploaders as their work. 112.201.223.226 ( talk) 05:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz and with the help of Sanglahi86, the article on Romblon is now a good article! — seav ( talk) 01:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been bugging me for a while but a handful of LGUS displays a newer seal and an older version of the flag. Such as in Romblon and Maguindanao. From what I know almost all Philippine LGU flags are just the LGU seal on a plain background. It's okay if its the same seal rendered by a different graphic artist like in the case of Bulacan. I proposed removing the flags if the seal's inconsistent with the one on the flag beside it until sources say otherwise that they keep using the older flag with an older seal. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've opened up a new discusion at Talk:Leni Robredo because the headings "Government Work" and "Civil Society Involvement" were mashed together into the (IMHO vague) heading "Activism." Seeking the community's inputs on the aforementioned talk page. - Alternativity ( talk) 09:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
When I clicked on her page, I noticed the infobox with her photograph is not there, what happened ? ( 725edwards) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (CST)
User:Philipandrew is back and is causing WP:disruption in the Philippines article. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 00:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The Philippine Statistics Authority has finally released the 2015 census report. Time to start updating Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items. — seav ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
To update Wikidata, DO NOT REMOVE THE OLD CENSUS DATA, but add click "+add". Once the new census data is added, click the little symbol to the left of the new population number (see image below) and set it to "Preferred rank" (so that only this value is imported to WP). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Spanish Filipinos, etc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sugbuano language is a new article about a "mixture" of Waray-Waray and Cebuano, probably similar to how Taglish is a mixture of Tagalog and English. This may be a valid article or not, but I can't tell. Googling "Sugbuano", which is the Cebuano term for Cebuano, obviously turns up nothing that I can see. — seav ( talk) 13:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys! It's been a long time. I just want you to know that Nerhoestebat is creating another hoax station again, implying to DWBB. Although I knew that you don't have any idea about our radio stations here in the Philippines, but to be honest, I never heard from GMA Network that they already launched an AM station in Baguio City. But when I found out that they didn't announce anything, I suspected it already that this is only invented by a user. Curently, I proposed a speedy deletion of it. I just want you to know for the fact of this. Thanks and regards. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 01:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Let me start by saying I'm confused by the use of "Departments" in the headings referring to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches within the Government of the Philippines article. I'm not sure how this influences the article coverage of the Judicial and Legislative branches, but it certainly creates a problem in the coverage of the "Executive Department" (which IMHO should be "Executive Branch"). To be specific: the article effectively reduces the executive branch to only the 19 Executive_departments_of_the_Philippines. There are thus no mentions of the three Constitutional Commissions, or of the various (non-department) Offices attached to the office of the President (say, OPAPP, or the MMDA, or the CCP, or the NCCA), which I believe all fall under the Executive Branch and are significant enough to merit mention in the article. (I'm uncertain if the control of Government-owned and controlled corporations also falls under the executive branch. At any rate, I feel GOCCs should at least be mentioned in a sentence in the article.) In light of these issues and others which might arise, may I request a broad discussion of issues regarding the organization of articles falling under the purview of the Government of the Philippines? Thanks. - Alternativity ( talk) 02:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Surprisingly there is no edits in favor of the Philippines. The article is mostly edited by a Chinese editor.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Filmography tables could use a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.89.125 ( talk) 17:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, all. Can somebody please explain why Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 are not violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE number 3? If no reasonable argument is given, these lists should be merged into the respective election articles. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 06:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It really angered and saddened me a lot that the WikiPilipinas.org of Vibal Publishing is now like a Falls of Hinulugang Taktak, there are too much garbage (or rather should I say vandalism and hoax litters) contain on that site. I hope that they will fix it soon enough. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 04:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MCA Records#Splitting MCA PH, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. (Almost, because of some section.) JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys again! I've just noticing another contributor here in English Wikipedia, his/her name is Appable. No offense, but I'm also observing this guy. The way he/she talks/expresses his/her feelings to a contributor name Kazaro, I felt like I'm making a big mistake here (which is obviously I'am, but I'm only thinking and doing what is the right thing to do and what is not). I felt like he/she's pursuing that editor about Kazaro's contribution. I checked the mentioned user and founding out that he is also making a false edits over and over. I couldn't help it! It seems that he's accepting more of his contributions, even if some of them are not true. What should I do guys? Am I really did a bad thing though I know to myself that sometimes I did, but most of all doing the right thing and just only assuming good faith? Need your comments to this guys, I'm going to retire at editing here on English Wikipedia soon and somehow, focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 01:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Any members of the History of the Philippines Task Force here to review all the edits made by Philipandrew2? The user is insisting on the pre-1521 "Classical period" as the formation or establishment of the Philippines with the different "classical states" as the origin of the Philippines. This is pure revisionism and goes against the consensus on following mainstream historiography as established in the last discussion here. See also his other propaganda now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Philippines.-- RioHondo ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
About my edits , As a member/Editor of wikipedia, i read a lot of Statements in this particular page Philippine-related articles, As i'm observing the Philippines article i found some flaws specially in Philippines ,
(the following are in tagalog for the balace of speech)
Nakita ko yung Infobox na talagang me mali (flaws yung naka staement), Kaya wala halos Konti ang nalalaman ng kabataan sa panahon ngayon dahil sa kakulangan ng impormasyon . (sorry for my Grammar) Our history is Perfectly Incomplete Because some of the Users insist and intensified the Facts about Colonialism matters that they forgot the History of origin. Even theirs a Various Kingdoms and polity its been a part of the Philippine History.
Our history is completely flawed as i read the Philippines article!
And i put some Footnotes based on the article itself but some users tries to revert it because of (sterotype) form of history (under the name Common).
Giving example
It means because of various City states was had their own kingdoms in the past So it means they should not be part of burma history because its not burma (myanmar)formed yet?
Some of our neighbors had a proud heritage because they know their origins and they know their glorious ancient past , Im proud of freedom agaist colonialist too but i want in complete form (Where an asian country not just like our neighbors in pacific islands that freed by us - britain itself). we have a colorful past.
Why we are not including the complete form of history we present here? We only intensified the U.S. favored history which we just granted freedom by Colonizers instead? And when you read your articles it started in Pre colonial that have various kingdoms (which is Classical kingdoms and City states ) which is true we have sources , I have references on my statement , My point if you get was Pleas Complete the History timeline, For the sake of Kids who reading wikipedia .. and Schools in the present day are now focusing on the Pre-Colonial coverage of History So they know the proper views of knowing the origin of Philippine Archipelago. Be open now on change i dont vandalized , wiki i dont do revisions for nothing or meaning less. ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
Their no philippines yet but i trying to analize If you mean there are a Foreigners in the Philippines archipelago ? or u tried to mean that their nor civilized and no nations exist in realty (sorry on my term) By the way ... Its a neutral pint of view im not bias thats why im try to correct this article ... i got a pont ihope its not ended to be in the list o lamest edit wars, I have sources to not be bias it has a sources . ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)) ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk))
I think its now time to change , As the textbook changes in the Philippines and i only based it in my research we must follow the Changes and new evidences Sources Like the books published in the Local schools which now extended the coverage of that era the point , To know the Importance of that era . and it is also stated in the header of the Article itself and the other various Statements in the History of the philippines itself it will be meaning less if we not going to include this in article to be more accurate and Reliable. i hope you all know what im trying to say, Thank you! ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
Good day, new user here. I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this question so feel free remove this if necessary. I would like to soon contribute to the local pages but my initial thought would be by translating the articles from the English Wikipedia. Are there any guidelines in doing so? My primary concern would be the reuse of images and (re)citation of sources. For the sources, is it possible to cite the same sources as in the English article? Would the validity of content be questionable if the source and the article (the translated one) are in different languages? Rmdelacruz ( talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's time to update our articles concerning this issue of marine entitlement for the Philippines and nullification of the 9-Dash Line/China's historical claim.-- RioHondo ( talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just want to clarify this issue regarding the photo of Leni Robredo. Someone keeps on uploading this photo, which came from Robredo's Facebook page ( source). The uploader ( User:RepublicaNegrense) specified that the photo is not subject to copyright since it was made by a government official. But as per my understanding of WP:COPYRIGHT, the said photo is still subject to copyright, since it was uploaded in Facebook. Can someone help me to clarify this? An anon already reverted my edit and reinstated the Facebook photo. Thanks. - WayKurat ( talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Guys, what's the process for creating a page that collates tambayan decisions on certain topics into a single policy/decision list? I'm sort of tired of arguing in circles, particularly for pre-colonial history. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely remember a show called Pintados from my childhood, but I can't, for the life of me remember whether it was from GMA or ABS-CBN. It doesn't seem like there's a page on it, but I think there should since other local shows have their own pages.
Edit: For that matter, can we also have a List of Filipino Superheroes page? 210.5.70.76 ( talk) 04:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Oh there is one now. 210.5.70.76 ( talk) 05:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it time to update Philippine political party colors? -- Namayan ( talk) 05:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I raised concern about this user, Yaysmay15, because of editing behavior on "XXXX in the Philippines" articles. The user last targeted the 2013 in the Philippines, 2014 in the Philippines, and 2016 in the Philippines, and his edits involved re-adding of removed non-notable events, for the reason of national coverage. I warned him of edit-warring, because he have been re-adding non-notable events in "XXXX in the Philippines" articles once removed, and filed a report on WP:AN3, but he would still don't stop on editing.-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 07:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jrtacbobo.123456 recently removed information from the Philippines page under Religion section. He stresses it is "biass and too outdated":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=733388600
He also removed an image of the INC Central temple, which prompted me to check his contributions. It appears he concentrates on changing the percentage figures of Islam/Muslim/Moro people/religion. He stresses that 11% of the Philippines are Muslim/are religiously affiliated with Islam using this source:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2014&dlid=238326#wrapper
which states:
"A more recent estimate, made in 2012 by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), an office within the Office of the President, indicates that approximately 11 percent of the total population is Muslim."
As stated in the quote above, it is an "estimate" and by the "National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF)" which invites suspicion on its accuracy.
The National Statistics Office on the other hand, in this 2010 Census results file: http://web0.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf (under Demographics section) shows 5,127,084 people under Islam, which when calculated for the percentage of the total population at that time (92,097,978) yields 5.57% (far from the 11% "estimate" of the other source).
I would trust the NSO census rather than the NCMF's estimation. It seems Jrtacbobo.123456 uses the same estimation source in other articles relating to Islam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=706099804
-- Sanglahi86 ( talk) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please help me watch this page. It seems that an anon really wants it deleted -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan said in 2006 that about 11% of the population are Atheist or Agnostic, but this is not reflected in the tables for /info/en/?search=Philippines#Religion and /info/en/?search=Irreligion_in_the_Philippines.
In fact, if you add together the Other, Unspecified and None, it doesn't even reach 5%. Why the large disparity? 116.93.23.41 ( talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Dunno how to fix it
/info/en/?search=Manila_Film_Center 116.93.23.41 ( talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've lately been working with table content and supporting cites in some articles and, following on that, I've raised the issue of nonstandard table styles vs. WP:MOS#Appearance on an article talk page here. I have the impression that articles on Philippine-related topics quite often use table styles which I take as having been crafted to have more visual impact than the standard wikitable style, and I'm questioning that here. See also this closed RFC which I read as saying that it is generally appropriate to follow the guidance in the MOS. Comments? Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Cabinets of the Philippines#Table style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that there are some somewhat standardized table styling tweak templates documented at Template:Table-experimental. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I hope we can come up with a stable and neutral naming convention for all our historical polities to put an end to all these constant RMs back and forth.
This instability came after some of our editors began to question the use of the Eurocentric term "Kingdom" for our polities despite its common usage in English RS and history books. While I agree that the issue with WP:NEUTRALITY may be valid, I do think we also need to make them recognizable, and more importantly, stable. Therefore I propose that we revisit the definition of Barangay (pre-colonial) and see if we can apply it to all these polities.-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Heads up, Tambays. Apparently, Pak Ganern was speedy-deleted twice and is now having its second AfD. Do share your views on the issue. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ambica International Corporation is a pharmaceutical company based in the Philippines. It specializes in the importation, distribution, marketing and selling of branded generic medicines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.134 ( talk) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The article written about the Good Senator Risa Hontiveros is under attack, she is a victim of vandalism and hate campaign and it reflects well in some of the most recent edits, how can we protect the article from such attacks?
The article was littered with such catchphrases as PANOT, daang matuwad and "Yellow Catholicism" which may be funny to some but DEFINITELY not encyclopedic.
Thanks! —-— .:nimbosa:. ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a question: is there any rule out there about the names presented in the Philippine presidential infobox? Most of the early presidents have "Sr" there, but I can't recall if they were known for being "Sr", for example, Jose Laurel and Manuel L. Quezon.— JL 09 talk contribs 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:First Spouse of the Philippines#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, if anybody would be interested in doing a 10,000 article improvement challenge for the Philippines and Southeast Asia and national contests for Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines etc please comment at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering here , As I observing the history Templates of the Philippines and other Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, They prefer the word Kingdom to their early history which is the Pre-colonial era on our template, and why they using it since it was a Euro-centric terms?
But Since users here are not prefering to the word "Kingdom" Because it is a "Euro-Centric", I had an idea of what should we call these Matter :
Shall we call these Early States rather than Early Kingdoms , Because of the following , The Philippines before the Spaniards arrived on the Shores Had Many Kingdoms and States, In luzon they had Lakanate of tondo and Huangdoms (The Mai and Luyag na kaboloan/Pangasinan) and the Cheifdom of the Igorot Society , In Visayas their are the Kedatuan or Kadatuan of Madja-as and the Rajahnate of Cebu and in Mindanao their are another Rajanate of Butban (butuan) and the three sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu and Lanao And other Cheifdoms in remote islands In Short, they are Divided.
So Why dont we Consider the word States for a Reason :
This is just an Suggestion / Proposed terms for the well and proper way of terms in the timelines.
So Any Suggestions or Comments and here from you guys what do you think ? Thank you! ( JournalmanManila ( talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC))
Hi. Just want to inform you guys that an anonymous IP editor 180.190.114.163 (later created his own user account User:Thetruth16) has been editing articles involving Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino Jr. and from the looks of his edits, he is tilting the neutrality of the articles to favor Marcos and vilify Ninoy Aquino. I tried to revert all of his revisions but he reverted it back because according to him I have a "negative bias" against the Marcoses. Can someone please check this out for me? Thanks. - WayKurat ( talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The contributions made point to reliable sources (Rappler, Businessmirror, government agencies, foreign press). Why don't you put both sides of the argument on the wikipedia artile and let the readers decide? You can place counter-rebuttals or alternative views right after the contributions I made, but then it has to be sourced properly rather than just biased opinions. You don't want articles to be one-sided. Also, Ninoy's father pic showing he was arrested by the Americans for collaborating with the Japanese is undeniable, why do you want to hide it as a fact? /info/en/?search=Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg
Also, do you think that Ninoy's association with the NPAs as pointed out by Rappler is just an unreliable heresay? http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/36660-ninoy-aquino-communist-links
Parts of my contribution pertaining to sources you consider unreliable such as https://thewalkingencyclopedia.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/who-really-won-in-the-1986-philippine-snap-elections/ have been deleted - happy?
But please, don't just delete properly-sourced contributions that differ from your viewpoint. Thank you. User:Thetruth16 ( talk)
Hello all. Thank you for your feedback. Regarding using MovePH, there are equally reliable alternative sources that can be used to back my contribution such as http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included and even scholarly publications http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Case-Studies-Claudio.pdf. Also, this article can be used as an alternate source: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/
Anyway, the current article on Ferdinand Marcos, tells only one side of the history. I have attempted to bring some balance in the article but my contributions were removed by contributors who are apparently not open to other views, even if they are supported by reputable sources. Instead of raising counterarguments to rebut the points I made, my entire contribution was deleted and I was name called.
Admittedly, some of the sources I initially cited aren't the most reliable, which was used as a justification to remove my entire contribution. However, after removing the unreliable sources, and portions of my contribution attributable to these, you'll see that the rest (and majority) of my contribution is backed by reputable local and international media sources, like Business Mirror, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Rapper, NBC News and New York Times, as well as other articles within Wikipedia like Philippine constitutional plebiscite, 1973 that were contributed by others.
The producer of this video, which shows the NPA led by Corpuz raiding the PMA armory prior to Martial Law, is actually GMA News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlJoXfAH3c. Any suggestions on how this can be used as a proper source? The credentials of the production team is actually at the end of the video. — Preceding unsigned
Regarding the issue on neutrality, you can see that the opening of my contribution is "Marcos' supporters argue", which is actually aligned with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:DUE specifically section 2.3 Due and Undue Weight.
Anyway, I'm proposing that the following be added to the article just so it won't present a too one-sided view of the history. I'd be happy to see any point-by-point rebuttals rather than just name-calling me and branding me as biased just because the facts I presented is different from the view of some contributors here.
Proposal at Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts
@Arius1998 Thanks. Would you great if you could join the discussion here and provide additional feedback. Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts. Thetruth16 ( talk) 10:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Input is needed at Talk: Basilan#Area. I am proposing to significantly change the land area values for the LGU's of Basilan. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 16 September 2016 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Please check Commons:Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending several images are being nominated due to vague Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Images of the Plaques/markers may be saved sinced most of them are black signs with white text with the Philippine coat of arms in it which are non-copyrighted elements some may qualify under De minimis. This is why a freedom of panorama law should be defined in the Philippines. The Torre de Manila issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning you can't upload photos of monuments due to vague freedom of panorama law or the lack of it. If the Rizal Monument is more recent then, an image of it can't be even uploaded for commons with or without the building behind it. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the "political incorrectness" / "offensive" use of the term Igorot people is up at Talk:Igorot people#"Igorot" is derogatory? if you are interested. Thanks.-- RioHondo ( talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Next month, a bunch of Asian Wikipedia communities are organizing the Wikipedia Asian Month, an online edit-a-thon to expand Wikipedia content on Asian countries. Would this be something that you guys would like to do? The Tagalog Wikipedia is running the project and I figured I should ask here if English-writing Filipino Wikipedians would be interested in joining this project as well. :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to participate to edit the page of the town of San Jose, Camarines Sur. I'm presently employed with the LGU as Web/Network Administrator and doing some historical research that I intend to publish here. Thank you. Geopoet ( talk) 07:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe COI does not apply to me because of the following reasons:
Now, if my edits will not be honored here. It's okay. I can publish it thru a blog. But I formally request to please reconsider it. I believe that Wikipedia remains an "open encyclopedia" so that anybody who has knowledge about the article can edit or even contest it. I believe Wikipedia is still FREE and OPEN. This is the basics that I know. Thanks. Geopoet ( talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Tambayan adopts Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure for its settlement articles (i.e. cities, municipalities, barangays, etc.). I have already been rearranging articles based on this guideline in the past, without objection it seems. Now it may be helpful to formally adopt this guideline as part of WP:MOSPHIL. I am not suggesting to do a massive retroactive restructuring of articles, just to start using it moving forward as a help in creating uniformity and settling potential disputes. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It all too quick for likes of me ... it was only seven days from start to finish, and these days it gets be longer to start my writing. I have a lot to add, but on the other hand, MOS does say much anyway. I think there are only four headings – History, Geography, Economy and the fourth head which could be called Society or Community. Below History there might be Etymology. Geography can be physical geography such as Land Classification, Climate, as well as Barangays, Demographic. Economy can included Commerce, Transport. Society includes any to do with people, such as Government, Education, Health, Religion, Culture, Tourism, and Twin Cities.
Above all, remember that is to be an encyclopedia, not WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not WP:IINFO.
Unbuttered parsnip ( talk) mytime= Mon 06:19, wikitime= 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the ongoing APEC Summit notable enough to warrant its own article? If we have articles for every UAAP season (like UAAP Season 68, with subarticles on several sports) why not for every APEC Summit? Some relevant pages for discussion: WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. — seav ( talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone proposed to close the the Chavacano Wikipedia. You may want to comment on the proposal page at meta. -- Jojit ( talk) 10:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
our Demented Mother, Mila del Sol, 93, (who really does have dementia, this time) told me on Christmas Day that i was demented for not allocating funds specifically for the purpose of training “ the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia.
so as to Honor Our Mother (as if we had a choice), The Mila del Sol & Eddie Romero Fund for Community Development is herewith compelled to offer unlimited nanogrants to qualifying organizations and persons (esp those in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines), for the purpose of training “the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia. Details here: http://leoromero.org/nanogrants-for-wikipedia-editors
Thank you, and
Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of traffic about that family for years, and it seems the "rehabilitation" is going fullforce, with even the talk pages in Marcos the Elder becoming forums with content no different from their various social media accounts (yeah, I'm looking at you, Get Real Philippines, Definitely Filipino, Showbiz Government, and Anti-Pinoy!). Can we lock them all down (for Notability and COI, for starters), and heavily wheelback the edits because all they want is to deodorize the family and possibly raise the chances of that fake Oxford graduate winning as Veep? Exec8 knows I raised a similar issue on this at the Wikiconference three years ago.-- Eaglestorm ( talk) 02:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So, the question would be... which sources aren't reliable enough for you. If a known Marcos loyalist who's an expert on something writes something about Marcos about his/her expertise, are we throwing that away from the window? – H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've put up a merge proposal last month which is at Talk:Philippines_men's_national_basketball_team#Merger_proposal. Unfortunately still no participants. Maybe some of you from here could have a say. Thanks. Thepantomimehorse ( talk) 13:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Was the page taken over by Islamists and nobody noticed? It reads very fringe to me. What in heaven is Kota Seludong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.132 ( talk) 06:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the references to Seludong were added on 11 February 2013 by User:Egard89, although with a note that he was restoring material already previously added to the page. So no, it wasn't me. To my knowledge, though, the Philippine-Bruneian relationship in our early historic period is rather well documented. The documentation is based on Bruneian historical records, of course, so bias isn't unlikely. But documentation exists nonetheless and has been referred to by numerous historians, including IIRC Scott and Dery. References to Selurong, I haven't actually seen any detailed sources for, but the name has turned up consistently in peripheral textual discussions in my readings. Will try to find references. Overall, I'm more concerned about recent edits to portray early historic Philippine states as "sinified kingdoms" when they really did nothing more than trade with the Song and Tang courts, and maybe offer tribute to facilitate that trade. The links to Islamic Thassalocratic Kingdoms is actually established by the documentation. (Although in adressing both claims, we have to live with the translations of the sources, unless we speak Old Kavi or whatever language was used by the Tang and Song courts.) Huh. Will try to find references for Selurong. - Alternativity ( talk) 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Heads up to fellow Tambays: we now have a PH version of the Wikipedia15 logo featuring the map of the Philippines. Credits for the idea goes to Sky Harbor. (My apologies if your favorite island was left out of the design, as I want to make this as minimalistic as possible in line with the recommended Wikipedia15 vector art style.) Feel free to use as you see fit ;) --- Tito Pao ( talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, for some reason Patternpat1 kept on bringing back his rendition of the locator map for Gentri even though TheCoffee's version is better and more consistent with other places. Care if someone here can cover me with this issue? Blake Gripling ( talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I knew about 'overseas Filipino workers', of course, but I wanted to learn about other nations' 'overseas workers'. I was surprised to see that this term is largely restricted to the Philippines; in its stead, each nation has its own terminology, and the terms are restricted to specific conditions:
It looks like this could be a new article for the encyclopedia? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am always going on trouble with Philippine transportation-related articles, which has lots of missing information. On some Philippine road articles, there are no history sections about the road. Others, like the articles about transportation systems around Metro Manila, are too short or outdated. I am proposing to add a transportation task force to collaborate with Philippine transportation-related articles.-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This person is changing all instances of "Filipina" to "Filipino". Is there anthing wrong with the feminine form of the word? If not, his/her edits should be reverted. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we use Philippine English terms such as "presidentiables", "survey", "COMELEC" instead of perfectly acceptable Philippine English words such as "candidates", "opinion polls" or "commission"? How about "COC"? Is it certificate of candidacy or canvass? Or the mobile game? Do we title the polling section as "Surveys" or "Opinion polls" just like every election article in Wikipedia? Please do join in the discussion at Philippine presidential election, 2016#Reminder on acronyms and Filipinisims such as "presidentiables". – H T D 01:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The article of Batangas province contains several issues. It seems much of the content (especially in the History and Culture sections) was done by a single contributor in the past, since the tone of many sentences are biased. I have done several cleanup revisions in the article, but the article is still generally messy, with redundant, incomprehensible, and obviously biased sentences. Also importantly, I am not very sure if the History and Culture (such as those under Music) sections should contain specific people native to the province. Maybe they need to be listed under a new section Notable people, (which the article lacks). If anybody could kindly help clean the entire article, that would be great. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As an affiliate organization, Philippine Wikimedia Community User group (PhilWiki Community) envisions to promote and develop Wikipedia in the Philippine languages through cost-effective, creative and innovative projects and through partnership with local government units, government agencies, academe, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.
Our past activities include:
Join the discussion on the Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community. -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I call your attention once again to the early historic settlements of the Philippines, to raise a question about terminology, specifically the use of the term "Huangdom" in the case of " Huangdom of Ma-i" and " Huangdom of Pangasinan", and the vulnerability to misunderstanding arising from the use of the term "Kingdom." This has the potential to be a long discussion so I'll just let this be my kickoff.
First: the ancient states of Ma-i and Pangasinan traded with China, and paid tribute to the court of the emperor be able to do so. So now the wikis for these ancient states are being referred to as "Sinified states". The Chinese records referred to their rulers as "Huangs", so these have been labelled "Huangdoms". I submit that both are assumptions. Trade with China does not automatically mean Sinification.
Second: I am not sure whether we have reached a consensus as to whether our ancient states (including the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo, for example) should be called "kingdoms", lest they be implied to be monarchies in the western sense. If we have, can someone direct me to the conversation where the consensus was achieved please? :D Otherwise, I submit that the term is confusing and that we should probably come up with some more broader term for the Philippine ancient states. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently made a research on these and I agree that the classification of early political states in the archipelago do not qualify as a huangdom or kingdom. The rajah/datu or whatever titleholder he was is not certainly a king, technically speaking. To make the discussion short, I came to the conclusion that these states at least have the barangay system as titles and societal structures almost coincide everywhere it was practiced. Even the Sultan of Sulu had a predecessor named Rajah Baginda. However, I do not suggest that these states be given a barangay title, e.g. Barangay Tondo. I suggest that further research be made.
I disagree with the notion that there were Sinified states. Rather, while they may be recorded by Chinese writers, there is still the issue of the accuracy of the reports. A gift may be interpreted as a tribute. China is not alone in this practice as the Majapahit also claimed to have had tributes from these states, but recent research argues that these claims stop as claims as it is yet to be proved. Reading the Laguna Copperplate, it would seem these doubts have to be considered. Arius1998 ( talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Arius1998 ( talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to go by whichever the WP:RS go by? Which terms do they use? Well, if they're all Chinese sources, are we supposed to be stuck with the terms that they use? Which translations are we using? – H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Just updating everyone: I have moved " Huangdom of Ma-i" to simply " Ma-i" and " Huangdom of Pangasinan" to Luyag na Kaboloan, respectively. I think simply moving Ma-i would be agreeable to most edits, so I've decided to be bold. In the case of Kaboloan/Pangasinan, the article lede identified Lubag na Kaboloan as the local name, and I moved the article to that title as preferable to the initial "Huangdom" title. I'll have to do more resarch to further understand the term "Luyag", and the relationship between the names "Kaboloan" and "Pangasinan", so I'm not excluding the possibility that some more title movement is possible based on what literature I find. (The online articles I've found all vaguely reference Scott, so I shall see if I can figure out where in the originals the relevant discussions are.) Or of course, if anyone wants to help out and do fixes to the two articles, that would be great too. Just keeping everyone looped in. Thanks - Alternativity ( talk) 23:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that the "Huangdom" issue is somewhat behind us, I would like to solicit feedback here on new names for Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan. The name format, as argued above, is an anachronism - specifically, a reference to the Westphalian system. Several editors, myself included, have raised concerns about this innacuracy. The present ledes of the pages Ma-i, Luyag na Kaboloan, Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan have newly been edited, thanks to Pare Mo, with the term "polity" replacing "kingdom", but as a piped link leading to Mandala_(Southeast_Asian_political_model). A lot of work is still needed to rid the pages of anachronisms, and in some cases, content actually belonging to fringe theories. However, a major next step is to remove the term "kingdom" from the article titles. I am thus proposing the renaming of Kingdom of Namayan simply to "Namayan" (over a redirect), and of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo to Maynila (historical polity) and Tondo(historical polity), respectively. Namayan is reasonable enough, I think. But I find "historical polity" awkward enough that I want to solicit people's thoughts on the rename rather than just being bold and doing it myself. For your information and comments, folks. - Alternativity ( talk) 08:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. With the 2016 elections ramping up soon, Wikimedia Philippines is looking to organize an election task force to help keep our articles in order. More specifically, the task force will do four things:
On the fourth point, the goal is to have Wikipedia's results reflect the COMELEC's official count in as close to real time as possible, so as people can go to us for information on the election. If this is something that we can do, we'll try to get as many people as we can from around the country so we have enough coverage, and we can train people on how to edit Wikipedia. What do you guys think? :) (I should let our resident election editors Howard the Duck, Iloilo Wanderer, Hariboneagle927 and Supergabbyshoe, as well as other editors like BhlJRama, Regrobvmagtibay and Raigeiki55, know about this development, and see if they'd be willing to help get this off the ground. :P) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. On behalf of Wikimedia Philippines, I have an announcement to make.
For a while now your chapter has maintained on a quiet back street in Makati a back office where we keep all our equipment, as well as maintain the chapter library where Wikipedians can borrow our reference materials. However, we feel that the community would benefit greatly from having a space of its own, where Wikipedians could meet one another and edit the project together, and at the same time find a quiet place to relax.
It is my great pleasure therefore to let everyone know that we are now opening our back office as a community space for the entire Filipino Wikimedia community. We have been planning this for a while now, and we hope that this space will become an integral part of building our community and bringing us ever closer together.
The space is normally open on weekends, when members of the WMPH Board of Trustees are usually present, although please let us know beforehand if you're planning to drop by. We have ample space (and facilities, including air conditioning and Wi-Fi) to host Wikipedians on a regular basis, and we're planning to host meetups in the space soon. Please consider this as an invitation to come over, and we would love for you guys to drop by sometime! :) -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
First, the Walang Sugat article says it was written a few years before Bayan Ko, which seems to be an addition.
The English and Spanish lyrics were formerly in the article, then someone removed them, and now I've restored the previous iteration. Source for Spanish lyrics here: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/06/01/1329687/small-correction-reveals-important-detail
There's also an English translation of the Spanish lyrics, as opposed to an English translation of the Filipino. Anyone better-versed in Spanish want to touch it up? -- 103.14.62.197 ( talk) 08:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Is our article on Ferdinand Marcos being steadily 'whitewashed' in this election year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BushelCandle ( talk • contribs) 23:39, February 28, 2016
Greetings. There seems to be some conflict in the Ferdinand Marcos article. I already laid down my opinion on the matter months ago. I wonder if it was even regarded. Please help in the resolution of their issue/s at the article's talk page. Thank you. Arius1998 ( talk) 09:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Are all radio stations notable just because they exist? Recently, I've seen several articles being created about them. But when you look them up, there are little or no information that can be found. Search results suggest social media and live streaming sites and sometimes the website of the network that owns them but I think they're not enough especially that they're primary sources; they're associated with the subject. Sixth o f March 00:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
At a 1981 exhibit of the Manunggul Jar at UCLA in Los Angeles, it was stated that jar burial (secondary burial) was a common practice at one time. Does anyone know of any connection to the Plain of Jars and the Hmong? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The same 1981 exhibit at UCLA also showed the Agusan Image, which is usually housed in the Field Museum ( The Agusan Image). There were dozens of items, including jewelry and textiles at the exhibit showing how rich and distinctive our culture is. If they should ever display the Agusan Image again, we ought to take a picture of it for an article. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Was Imelda Marcos once an unofficial president of the Philippines? See these edits [1] -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz, the article on the municipality of Banton in Romblon is now a good article! Kudos! He is now working on making the Romblon article itself into a good article. — seav ( talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conjugal dictatorship. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 06:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Jane Ryan is under discussion. Is Imelda Marcos the primary topic? See the discussion at talk:Jane Ryan -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement highlighted in Template:History of the Philippines as a defining historical event? It's there, wikilinked as "Return of U.S. military bases." I understand that it may be viewed as a defining historical from a post-colonial perspective, but a post-colonial perspective precisely that: a point of view. I don't deny that EDCA is important, but I'm not sure it can be universally accepted as an era-defining event - in fact, accommodating that perspective indicates a slant towards a specific way of interpreting the History of the Philippines. I think a discussion on this would be helpful? And perhaps some sort of agreement can be reached which would apply to the way our history is outlined? - Alternativity ( talk) 01:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Iloilo Wanderer. I just came from there. I'm starting to think a comprehensive review of changes to the template would be helpful. Seems to me a bunch of useful links were removed and a nationalist bias introduced. Huh. Will try and dig into this further when I can, but flagging it here in the meantime. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Imeldific ( talk · contribs) has created a new article at Conjugal dictatorship, which you may wish to evaluate -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Articles created by this user on Philippines geographical places need to be improved - in terms of content, formatting and sourcing. Regards, 103.6.159.71 ( talk) 15:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. It's come to my attention that information about the non-political engagements of vice presidential candidate Leni Robredo has been removed from the article. For comparison, look at User:RioHondo's edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Leni_Robredo&oldid=703700650 and the current article. Upon initial examination it seems the information was removed by User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!. Disclosure: I made significant contributions to the article prior to this, including some of the information removed. But I am not formally connected to the subject of the wiki article. I realize the edit I point to above isn't exactly the neatest (my edits usually aren't, in general), but it IS more comprehensive, and the removal of the information was without explanation. Not sure how to move forward as it has been a while since the edit. Any suggestions?- Alternativity ( talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to know if there are any objections if I will create a Heritage task force under WikiProject Philippines (aka, this Tambayan). The scope of this task force will be all articles related to the cultural and natural heritage of the Philippines. This includes articles on the World Heritage Sites like Vigan and Tubbataha Reef, as well as significant structures, sites, and items that fall under the National Cultural Heritage Act. We will also cover natural heritage such as National Geological Monuments declared by DENR.
Much of the task force's activities will be spearheaded by Wikimedia Philippines, but you do not need to be a member of the chapter to participate in the task force. Here's a short summary of the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. WMPH previously piloted a cultural heritage project from 2014 to 2015 and that project's output includes almost 300 new articles, around 500 improved articles, 37 DYKs and 4 Good articles ( full list here). In addition, we were able to contribute over 5,500 images to Commons. Currently, WMPH has a WikiProject in Wikidata to input into Wikidata information about the historical markers installed by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. You can see a map showing our current progress.
So, yeah, the task force is meant to provide a framework for monitoring the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. But again, you do not need to be a member of the chapter to help out in the proposed task force. :-) — seav ( talk) 11:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Recently,I upload the seal of Municipality of Silago. I discovered that I am the only one yet to upload this (I cannot found another seal in the Internet), since i know this town a lot. Can anyone know how my work (seal) to be licensed under the Government of the Philippines? Thanks in Advance and God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersabre 18 ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone should create a taskforce to remove the categories like [[Category: ABS-CBN Corporation]] and [[Category: GMA Network]] on the actor's or actress's biography page. Clean up on the filmography tables, WP:POV check, and general edits on the biographies. Strict implementation of 'No Network column on the filmography tables,' these network, if not network wars, are not very neutral. Plus, remove non-free images on biography pages claimed by fan uploaders as their work. 112.201.223.226 ( talk) 05:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz and with the help of Sanglahi86, the article on Romblon is now a good article! — seav ( talk) 01:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been bugging me for a while but a handful of LGUS displays a newer seal and an older version of the flag. Such as in Romblon and Maguindanao. From what I know almost all Philippine LGU flags are just the LGU seal on a plain background. It's okay if its the same seal rendered by a different graphic artist like in the case of Bulacan. I proposed removing the flags if the seal's inconsistent with the one on the flag beside it until sources say otherwise that they keep using the older flag with an older seal. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've opened up a new discusion at Talk:Leni Robredo because the headings "Government Work" and "Civil Society Involvement" were mashed together into the (IMHO vague) heading "Activism." Seeking the community's inputs on the aforementioned talk page. - Alternativity ( talk) 09:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
When I clicked on her page, I noticed the infobox with her photograph is not there, what happened ? ( 725edwards) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (CST)
User:Philipandrew is back and is causing WP:disruption in the Philippines article. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 00:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The Philippine Statistics Authority has finally released the 2015 census report. Time to start updating Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items. — seav ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
To update Wikidata, DO NOT REMOVE THE OLD CENSUS DATA, but add click "+add". Once the new census data is added, click the little symbol to the left of the new population number (see image below) and set it to "Preferred rank" (so that only this value is imported to WP). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Spanish Filipinos, etc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sugbuano language is a new article about a "mixture" of Waray-Waray and Cebuano, probably similar to how Taglish is a mixture of Tagalog and English. This may be a valid article or not, but I can't tell. Googling "Sugbuano", which is the Cebuano term for Cebuano, obviously turns up nothing that I can see. — seav ( talk) 13:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys! It's been a long time. I just want you to know that Nerhoestebat is creating another hoax station again, implying to DWBB. Although I knew that you don't have any idea about our radio stations here in the Philippines, but to be honest, I never heard from GMA Network that they already launched an AM station in Baguio City. But when I found out that they didn't announce anything, I suspected it already that this is only invented by a user. Curently, I proposed a speedy deletion of it. I just want you to know for the fact of this. Thanks and regards. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 01:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Let me start by saying I'm confused by the use of "Departments" in the headings referring to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches within the Government of the Philippines article. I'm not sure how this influences the article coverage of the Judicial and Legislative branches, but it certainly creates a problem in the coverage of the "Executive Department" (which IMHO should be "Executive Branch"). To be specific: the article effectively reduces the executive branch to only the 19 Executive_departments_of_the_Philippines. There are thus no mentions of the three Constitutional Commissions, or of the various (non-department) Offices attached to the office of the President (say, OPAPP, or the MMDA, or the CCP, or the NCCA), which I believe all fall under the Executive Branch and are significant enough to merit mention in the article. (I'm uncertain if the control of Government-owned and controlled corporations also falls under the executive branch. At any rate, I feel GOCCs should at least be mentioned in a sentence in the article.) In light of these issues and others which might arise, may I request a broad discussion of issues regarding the organization of articles falling under the purview of the Government of the Philippines? Thanks. - Alternativity ( talk) 02:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Surprisingly there is no edits in favor of the Philippines. The article is mostly edited by a Chinese editor.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Filmography tables could use a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.89.125 ( talk) 17:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, all. Can somebody please explain why Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 are not violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE number 3? If no reasonable argument is given, these lists should be merged into the respective election articles. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 06:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It really angered and saddened me a lot that the WikiPilipinas.org of Vibal Publishing is now like a Falls of Hinulugang Taktak, there are too much garbage (or rather should I say vandalism and hoax litters) contain on that site. I hope that they will fix it soon enough. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 04:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MCA Records#Splitting MCA PH, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. (Almost, because of some section.) JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys again! I've just noticing another contributor here in English Wikipedia, his/her name is Appable. No offense, but I'm also observing this guy. The way he/she talks/expresses his/her feelings to a contributor name Kazaro, I felt like I'm making a big mistake here (which is obviously I'am, but I'm only thinking and doing what is the right thing to do and what is not). I felt like he/she's pursuing that editor about Kazaro's contribution. I checked the mentioned user and founding out that he is also making a false edits over and over. I couldn't help it! It seems that he's accepting more of his contributions, even if some of them are not true. What should I do guys? Am I really did a bad thing though I know to myself that sometimes I did, but most of all doing the right thing and just only assuming good faith? Need your comments to this guys, I'm going to retire at editing here on English Wikipedia soon and somehow, focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 01:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Any members of the History of the Philippines Task Force here to review all the edits made by Philipandrew2? The user is insisting on the pre-1521 "Classical period" as the formation or establishment of the Philippines with the different "classical states" as the origin of the Philippines. This is pure revisionism and goes against the consensus on following mainstream historiography as established in the last discussion here. See also his other propaganda now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Philippines.-- RioHondo ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
About my edits , As a member/Editor of wikipedia, i read a lot of Statements in this particular page Philippine-related articles, As i'm observing the Philippines article i found some flaws specially in Philippines ,
(the following are in tagalog for the balace of speech)
Nakita ko yung Infobox na talagang me mali (flaws yung naka staement), Kaya wala halos Konti ang nalalaman ng kabataan sa panahon ngayon dahil sa kakulangan ng impormasyon . (sorry for my Grammar) Our history is Perfectly Incomplete Because some of the Users insist and intensified the Facts about Colonialism matters that they forgot the History of origin. Even theirs a Various Kingdoms and polity its been a part of the Philippine History.
Our history is completely flawed as i read the Philippines article!
And i put some Footnotes based on the article itself but some users tries to revert it because of (sterotype) form of history (under the name Common).
Giving example
It means because of various City states was had their own kingdoms in the past So it means they should not be part of burma history because its not burma (myanmar)formed yet?
Some of our neighbors had a proud heritage because they know their origins and they know their glorious ancient past , Im proud of freedom agaist colonialist too but i want in complete form (Where an asian country not just like our neighbors in pacific islands that freed by us - britain itself). we have a colorful past.
Why we are not including the complete form of history we present here? We only intensified the U.S. favored history which we just granted freedom by Colonizers instead? And when you read your articles it started in Pre colonial that have various kingdoms (which is Classical kingdoms and City states ) which is true we have sources , I have references on my statement , My point if you get was Pleas Complete the History timeline, For the sake of Kids who reading wikipedia .. and Schools in the present day are now focusing on the Pre-Colonial coverage of History So they know the proper views of knowing the origin of Philippine Archipelago. Be open now on change i dont vandalized , wiki i dont do revisions for nothing or meaning less. ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
Their no philippines yet but i trying to analize If you mean there are a Foreigners in the Philippines archipelago ? or u tried to mean that their nor civilized and no nations exist in realty (sorry on my term) By the way ... Its a neutral pint of view im not bias thats why im try to correct this article ... i got a pont ihope its not ended to be in the list o lamest edit wars, I have sources to not be bias it has a sources . ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)) ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk))
I think its now time to change , As the textbook changes in the Philippines and i only based it in my research we must follow the Changes and new evidences Sources Like the books published in the Local schools which now extended the coverage of that era the point , To know the Importance of that era . and it is also stated in the header of the Article itself and the other various Statements in the History of the philippines itself it will be meaning less if we not going to include this in article to be more accurate and Reliable. i hope you all know what im trying to say, Thank you! ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
Good day, new user here. I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this question so feel free remove this if necessary. I would like to soon contribute to the local pages but my initial thought would be by translating the articles from the English Wikipedia. Are there any guidelines in doing so? My primary concern would be the reuse of images and (re)citation of sources. For the sources, is it possible to cite the same sources as in the English article? Would the validity of content be questionable if the source and the article (the translated one) are in different languages? Rmdelacruz ( talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's time to update our articles concerning this issue of marine entitlement for the Philippines and nullification of the 9-Dash Line/China's historical claim.-- RioHondo ( talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just want to clarify this issue regarding the photo of Leni Robredo. Someone keeps on uploading this photo, which came from Robredo's Facebook page ( source). The uploader ( User:RepublicaNegrense) specified that the photo is not subject to copyright since it was made by a government official. But as per my understanding of WP:COPYRIGHT, the said photo is still subject to copyright, since it was uploaded in Facebook. Can someone help me to clarify this? An anon already reverted my edit and reinstated the Facebook photo. Thanks. - WayKurat ( talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Guys, what's the process for creating a page that collates tambayan decisions on certain topics into a single policy/decision list? I'm sort of tired of arguing in circles, particularly for pre-colonial history. - Alternativity ( talk) 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely remember a show called Pintados from my childhood, but I can't, for the life of me remember whether it was from GMA or ABS-CBN. It doesn't seem like there's a page on it, but I think there should since other local shows have their own pages.
Edit: For that matter, can we also have a List of Filipino Superheroes page? 210.5.70.76 ( talk) 04:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Oh there is one now. 210.5.70.76 ( talk) 05:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it time to update Philippine political party colors? -- Namayan ( talk) 05:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I raised concern about this user, Yaysmay15, because of editing behavior on "XXXX in the Philippines" articles. The user last targeted the 2013 in the Philippines, 2014 in the Philippines, and 2016 in the Philippines, and his edits involved re-adding of removed non-notable events, for the reason of national coverage. I warned him of edit-warring, because he have been re-adding non-notable events in "XXXX in the Philippines" articles once removed, and filed a report on WP:AN3, but he would still don't stop on editing.-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 07:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jrtacbobo.123456 recently removed information from the Philippines page under Religion section. He stresses it is "biass and too outdated":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=733388600
He also removed an image of the INC Central temple, which prompted me to check his contributions. It appears he concentrates on changing the percentage figures of Islam/Muslim/Moro people/religion. He stresses that 11% of the Philippines are Muslim/are religiously affiliated with Islam using this source:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2014&dlid=238326#wrapper
which states:
"A more recent estimate, made in 2012 by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), an office within the Office of the President, indicates that approximately 11 percent of the total population is Muslim."
As stated in the quote above, it is an "estimate" and by the "National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF)" which invites suspicion on its accuracy.
The National Statistics Office on the other hand, in this 2010 Census results file: http://web0.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf (under Demographics section) shows 5,127,084 people under Islam, which when calculated for the percentage of the total population at that time (92,097,978) yields 5.57% (far from the 11% "estimate" of the other source).
I would trust the NSO census rather than the NCMF's estimation. It seems Jrtacbobo.123456 uses the same estimation source in other articles relating to Islam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=706099804
-- Sanglahi86 ( talk) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please help me watch this page. It seems that an anon really wants it deleted -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan said in 2006 that about 11% of the population are Atheist or Agnostic, but this is not reflected in the tables for /info/en/?search=Philippines#Religion and /info/en/?search=Irreligion_in_the_Philippines.
In fact, if you add together the Other, Unspecified and None, it doesn't even reach 5%. Why the large disparity? 116.93.23.41 ( talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Dunno how to fix it
/info/en/?search=Manila_Film_Center 116.93.23.41 ( talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've lately been working with table content and supporting cites in some articles and, following on that, I've raised the issue of nonstandard table styles vs. WP:MOS#Appearance on an article talk page here. I have the impression that articles on Philippine-related topics quite often use table styles which I take as having been crafted to have more visual impact than the standard wikitable style, and I'm questioning that here. See also this closed RFC which I read as saying that it is generally appropriate to follow the guidance in the MOS. Comments? Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Cabinets of the Philippines#Table style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that there are some somewhat standardized table styling tweak templates documented at Template:Table-experimental. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I hope we can come up with a stable and neutral naming convention for all our historical polities to put an end to all these constant RMs back and forth.
This instability came after some of our editors began to question the use of the Eurocentric term "Kingdom" for our polities despite its common usage in English RS and history books. While I agree that the issue with WP:NEUTRALITY may be valid, I do think we also need to make them recognizable, and more importantly, stable. Therefore I propose that we revisit the definition of Barangay (pre-colonial) and see if we can apply it to all these polities.-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Heads up, Tambays. Apparently, Pak Ganern was speedy-deleted twice and is now having its second AfD. Do share your views on the issue. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ambica International Corporation is a pharmaceutical company based in the Philippines. It specializes in the importation, distribution, marketing and selling of branded generic medicines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.134 ( talk) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The article written about the Good Senator Risa Hontiveros is under attack, she is a victim of vandalism and hate campaign and it reflects well in some of the most recent edits, how can we protect the article from such attacks?
The article was littered with such catchphrases as PANOT, daang matuwad and "Yellow Catholicism" which may be funny to some but DEFINITELY not encyclopedic.
Thanks! —-— .:nimbosa:. ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a question: is there any rule out there about the names presented in the Philippine presidential infobox? Most of the early presidents have "Sr" there, but I can't recall if they were known for being "Sr", for example, Jose Laurel and Manuel L. Quezon.— JL 09 talk contribs 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:First Spouse of the Philippines#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, if anybody would be interested in doing a 10,000 article improvement challenge for the Philippines and Southeast Asia and national contests for Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines etc please comment at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering here , As I observing the history Templates of the Philippines and other Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, They prefer the word Kingdom to their early history which is the Pre-colonial era on our template, and why they using it since it was a Euro-centric terms?
But Since users here are not prefering to the word "Kingdom" Because it is a "Euro-Centric", I had an idea of what should we call these Matter :
Shall we call these Early States rather than Early Kingdoms , Because of the following , The Philippines before the Spaniards arrived on the Shores Had Many Kingdoms and States, In luzon they had Lakanate of tondo and Huangdoms (The Mai and Luyag na kaboloan/Pangasinan) and the Cheifdom of the Igorot Society , In Visayas their are the Kedatuan or Kadatuan of Madja-as and the Rajahnate of Cebu and in Mindanao their are another Rajanate of Butban (butuan) and the three sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu and Lanao And other Cheifdoms in remote islands In Short, they are Divided.
So Why dont we Consider the word States for a Reason :
This is just an Suggestion / Proposed terms for the well and proper way of terms in the timelines.
So Any Suggestions or Comments and here from you guys what do you think ? Thank you! ( JournalmanManila ( talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC))
Hi. Just want to inform you guys that an anonymous IP editor 180.190.114.163 (later created his own user account User:Thetruth16) has been editing articles involving Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino Jr. and from the looks of his edits, he is tilting the neutrality of the articles to favor Marcos and vilify Ninoy Aquino. I tried to revert all of his revisions but he reverted it back because according to him I have a "negative bias" against the Marcoses. Can someone please check this out for me? Thanks. - WayKurat ( talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The contributions made point to reliable sources (Rappler, Businessmirror, government agencies, foreign press). Why don't you put both sides of the argument on the wikipedia artile and let the readers decide? You can place counter-rebuttals or alternative views right after the contributions I made, but then it has to be sourced properly rather than just biased opinions. You don't want articles to be one-sided. Also, Ninoy's father pic showing he was arrested by the Americans for collaborating with the Japanese is undeniable, why do you want to hide it as a fact? /info/en/?search=Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg
Also, do you think that Ninoy's association with the NPAs as pointed out by Rappler is just an unreliable heresay? http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/36660-ninoy-aquino-communist-links
Parts of my contribution pertaining to sources you consider unreliable such as https://thewalkingencyclopedia.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/who-really-won-in-the-1986-philippine-snap-elections/ have been deleted - happy?
But please, don't just delete properly-sourced contributions that differ from your viewpoint. Thank you. User:Thetruth16 ( talk)
Hello all. Thank you for your feedback. Regarding using MovePH, there are equally reliable alternative sources that can be used to back my contribution such as http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included and even scholarly publications http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Case-Studies-Claudio.pdf. Also, this article can be used as an alternate source: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/
Anyway, the current article on Ferdinand Marcos, tells only one side of the history. I have attempted to bring some balance in the article but my contributions were removed by contributors who are apparently not open to other views, even if they are supported by reputable sources. Instead of raising counterarguments to rebut the points I made, my entire contribution was deleted and I was name called.
Admittedly, some of the sources I initially cited aren't the most reliable, which was used as a justification to remove my entire contribution. However, after removing the unreliable sources, and portions of my contribution attributable to these, you'll see that the rest (and majority) of my contribution is backed by reputable local and international media sources, like Business Mirror, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Rapper, NBC News and New York Times, as well as other articles within Wikipedia like Philippine constitutional plebiscite, 1973 that were contributed by others.
The producer of this video, which shows the NPA led by Corpuz raiding the PMA armory prior to Martial Law, is actually GMA News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlJoXfAH3c. Any suggestions on how this can be used as a proper source? The credentials of the production team is actually at the end of the video. — Preceding unsigned
Regarding the issue on neutrality, you can see that the opening of my contribution is "Marcos' supporters argue", which is actually aligned with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:DUE specifically section 2.3 Due and Undue Weight.
Anyway, I'm proposing that the following be added to the article just so it won't present a too one-sided view of the history. I'd be happy to see any point-by-point rebuttals rather than just name-calling me and branding me as biased just because the facts I presented is different from the view of some contributors here.
Proposal at Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts
@Arius1998 Thanks. Would you great if you could join the discussion here and provide additional feedback. Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts. Thetruth16 ( talk) 10:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Input is needed at Talk: Basilan#Area. I am proposing to significantly change the land area values for the LGU's of Basilan. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)