Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

I am wondering what the source of the seal of Congress which we are using here on Wikipedia was. It is found in the Congress of the Philippines article (click here to see the seal). The summary page does not give a source. I know that the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives, each have their own separate seals, which are displayed on their websites. However, I cannot find this "Congress seal" on any website except here on Wikipedia. I am not even sure if Congress (the two bodies as a whole) even has a seal. I haven't seen it in any news reports or photographs either.

Can anyone confirm if this seal is actually a real seal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.123.23 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's a joint session of Congress, they'd use their own respective maces. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The seal has now been removed from the Congress of the Philippines article -- Mk32 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admins, Please delete the Template Redirects Template:Networks in the Philippines and Template:Broadcast television networks in the Philippines as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. Zollerriia63 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I have renamed the all the template internal links in Philippine TV channels to Template:Television in the Philippines. Zollerriia63 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way we can make Category:Article Feedback Pilot to Philippine Related articles? --Exec8 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a project funded by an external grant made to the WMF. I don't think we have such funds yet lest someone donates to us for that purpose. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Go. its time to edit Octuple champion. --Exec8 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone edited it already. :)) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that the Israeli bodyguards (of whom?) contributed the revolution? The article says but the source is a broken link. Not actually broken but a locked content. I tried looking for a source but the search gave me nothing. Thanks.--JL 09 ^_q?c 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's not a broken link. Already checked.--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    10:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that several editors, mostly either GMA or ABS-CBN fanboys, tend to create nav templates on every program block of a certain network. I have counted those who are existing in this category and found out that GMA has the most templates with 9, followed by ABS-CBN with 7 and TV5 with 1. I would like to ask if it is really necessary to create those templates? I mean, not only there are 2 to 3 shows listed per template but it clutters the articles, for example, 24 Oras and TV Patrol has 3 of those templates since they air on a daily basis. Can this be a basis for deletion for those templates? Just wanted you guys to have your two cents here. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You can try WP:TFD. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Already listed the questionable templates to TFD. -WayKurat (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's listed I remember seeing some U.S. TV program block templates so I dunno how this'll pan out. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. As a community first, maybe we can have a meetup/Christmas party next month. It would be nice for Wikipedians, particularly Tambayan regulars, to meet other Wikipedians, and to just have a good time in the company of other people to which you have the opportunity to meet outside of Wikipedia. Anyone interested? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in. But would you guys mind if we do this in my house? It's only a couple of miles from Manila and we have a visitor's lounge that we can hang out on. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For me, I don't mind as long as it's accessible. Where do you particularly live? --Jojit (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

General Trias, Cavite, probably half an hour or so from Manila. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok. We will consider your place. But first thing first, we have to ask the other Tambays if they are willing to attend such activity. So, if other Tambays are interested to have a meetup/xmas party for next month, please state it here in this discussion. --Jojit (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern with General Trias is that it can be quite far for some Manila-based Wikipedians, particularly those who come from northern Metro Manila (like myself, since I'm now moving to Quezon City). If will push through with Blake's suggestion, we will need someone to coordinate transportation. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really part of the group but I drop by here every now ant then. I may be in the Manila area around Xmas (probably staying near SM Molina, but not sure yet about either the trip or the location). If so, I'd be interested in meeting some fellow contributors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SM Molina? Do you mean SM Molino? Hmm, I wonder if I should make an appearance and patch up any misunderstandings for being an obstinate brick. But then I remember Eaglestorm's gracious offer and recall that I have prior engagements. Lambanog (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's it. My typo. Currently staying w relatives walking distance from there, traveling back to Boracay tomorrow (Fri 19 Nov), but probably coming back up here sometime in Dec. You and I have had wikidifferences but you've always been willing to discuss things. I can be a bit pigheaded myself at times. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I never really envisioned meetups to be apology sessions for people's actions online, but I won't be able to help it if it does occur. I do think though that this meetup, and perhaps other meetups that we can have in the future, may help in contributing to the health of the community: not only does it develop a sense of solidarity within the community, it also allows for people to get to know the more "human" face that exists outside of Wikipedia. That I think would be a good opportunity for people to network with others, which should be good for everyone at that end. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mall of Asia is a good compromise. Cavite is too far and not to speak traffic. When LRT-6 comes its a go. --Exec8 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Any place in MoA that you have in mind? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that a weekend meet is possible for me, but a little more sensitivity and time management na lang with the venue. Remember that tongue-lashing from the BK manager during Manila 5?--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a noise issue, if I remember correctly. Still, I think we have to consider that a valid point was raised: a Christmas party ought to be held in a more central venue, and particularly in a venue where we are less likely to interfere with the daily activities of other people. I'm inclined to suggest a park, but I don't think it would be prudent, lest we desire a Christmas picnic party. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For Tambays who are not too active on the Tagalog Wikipedia, I opened a discussion on the use of Baybayin over there. I'm hoping the discussion can use more input. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: New proposals have been filed for a Baybayin Tagalog Wikisource (again) and a Baybayin Tagalog Wiktionary on Meta. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like the proposal of addition of Baybayin in Tagalog Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project dealing with it, especially, like what I have said on Tagalog Wikipedia, there is no specific rule or official character support (there are so many font and script support over the web, each is unique of their own) for such script.--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    10:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Update again: Another proposal was filed for a Baybayin Tagalog Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And theres the third application for a a Baybayin Tagalog Wikipedia. Sorry there's none. I checked it.

Do we have an article for that specific racial term? And its difference from the Spanish designation of filipino? As far as I know, indio referred to indigenous people of the Philippines, and filipino for Spanish born in the Philippines followed by criollo, peninsulares and insulares later. (PS I don't know how to start such an article for that :P )--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    12:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no specific article for it. However, the word indio can't be taken as if it only operates in a Philippines-only context: the word was also used during the colonial period to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as the entire hierarchy that you describe here. In fact, the only uniquely Filipino additions to the hierarchy are the sangley and the tornatrás. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Youtube courtesy of Micro.ph
• Final minutes of the meeting

Enjoy! --Exec8 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? So far I haven't heard of any official confirmation from ABS-CBN or the actors who were supposed to appear in that "remake". Blake Gripling (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be deleted for now, as it is mostly based on rumors. Nothing is confirmed yet. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated History of the Philippines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up to it? Note that we'd need law books for these. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The US Constitution articles have their own Wikipedia article. But I guess we need to create separate articles first for the former constitutions of the Philippines.--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah those too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How notable are these articles? Have lots been written about individual Constitution articles separate from the Constitution as a whole?

It's not really the article per se but what's in them. For example the whole point of the archipelagic doctrine (there had been plenty of books written about this), is the heart and soul of Article I. The fact that Erap ran this year despite being a previous president needs to be explained in Article VII. Article III -- the Bill of Rights -- will be meaty. There's plenty of material, not just books, for the transitory provisions, preamble and even the ordinance at the end –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree to this. But you need to cite as well sensational events regarding the phrases in the Constitution, for example, is amending several phrases in there, if any, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.52.191 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of NCAA Philippines basketball champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since the Tambayan has had a comprehensive look at the state of proposed Wikimedia projects in Philippine languages, and save for the Baybayin proposals (which are already linked above), the following Wikimedia projects in Philippine languages currently have pending proposals at Meta:

• Wikipedia: Capiznon, Hiligaynon, Kinaray-a, Pandan Bikol, Rinconada Bikol, Tausug
• Wiktionary: Standard Bikol, Waray-Waray
• Wikisource: Tagalog
• Wikinews: Tagalog

Language proposals in bold indicate that the MediaWiki interface translation requirement for those projects has been fulfilled, and that the only requirement left is the presence of an active editing community. The oldest proposal in the list above is for the Kinaray-a Wikipedia (proposed April 21, 2007), while the newest one is for the Tausug Wikipedia (proposed November 24, 2010).

Please vote for these proposals, and if you know how to speak any of the required languages above, you are highly encouraged to participate in those projects. Bring as many friends as you like, because these projects can use as many editors as they can get!

Good luck and Godspeed to all the Philippine-language projects, both existing and proposed! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for the harsh words, but I'm inclined to believe that hell has frozen over: WikiPilipinas hailed best reference site in web awards. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize Sky, but blech, nirereward na pala ang pag-pe-POV doon (approximation: so, putting POV is being rewarded over there). and to think that news came from the Vibal site itself...already smells of praise release. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And I thought they billed themselves as not being an academic encyclopedia. -_- --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This explains why I often regard WikiPilipinas as, frankly and harshly speaking, nothing but a bastard rip-off of this site. The very fact that they have lax rules on conflict-of-interest and notability (i.e. I can write an article about my father even though the only known mention of him in mainstream media was in a certain tabloid) made me detest that place. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

and they supposedly have 'thousands of volunteers worldwide'? Right, like in your dreams, losers. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mind if we make fun of the site even further in Pekepedia? Blake Gripling (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Be our guest. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you guys are making an off-topic discussion diverted from the vision and "use" of the Wikiproject. I thought this Wikiproject would discuss things about improvement of Philippine-related articles and templates, not grudgy things like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.52.191 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure if I can call this discussion "grudgy" and "off-topic". WikiPilipinas has been discussed in the Tambayan over the last few years, and individual editors have their own opinion of the site. At the same time, if you look back at the history of this regional notice board, the WikiProject side of it is a fairly recent addition (since 2008), and we've seen a myriad of off-topic discussions flying here and there. While the Tambayan may be WikiProject Philippines, this still is, first and foremost, the Philippine regional notice board. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And I guess it's easy for you to claim as such because you just started editing here and is so clueless about policy and other issues, hence those numerous vandalism warnings on your talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's jumping to conclusions. Anyone could have vandalized using that IP. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently we have different structures and naming conventions for the election articles:

Currently only presidential elections have separate articles. Presidential, Senate and House elections are all under "Philippine general election, <year>". I've found results for legislative elections so we can finally get rid of the "Philippine general election, <year>" and split them into three different articles. (Note that some Senate/House elections are already split.) The current general elections articles (at least those from the Third Republic onwards), all have infoboxes for the legislative elections.

We can probably retain "Philippine general election, <year>" for local elections or even a general overview of the elections for that year but I suggest renaming them from "general" to "national" elections (not the best name, if anyone can think of a better name it'll be better, but I'm OK with retaining "general" if we can't come up with anything. We can also just ditch "general" altogether and just name it as "Philippine elections, <year>".). I'd also need help on tracking down at least when special elections to Congress were held where the incumbent died or was forced out of office. Previous holder, date of the election, district contested and the winner of the special election are needed (special elections which are essentially a part of the "general" election but were delayed due to violence or by some other reason (such as the recent special election in Bulacan-1st) might be included.

Also I'm also considering placing the Batasang Pambansa elections under the House elections section, and favor omitting "Sangguniang Kabataan" in the article name unless the election was solely contested under the SK electorate (hence "Philippine barangay elections, 2010"). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This how they'll look like at the end of the day:

In addition, this is a treasure trove for all election geeks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the timeline: Elections in the Philippines#List.

I'm one-fourth done, I separated the pre-independence House articles but they're bare. If anyone has real history books we can add some events from that period there. Next are pre-independence Senate articles, then the pre-martial law Congresses, finally the post-EDSA congresses. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On many Philippines articles that are well-referenced. Can somebody handle him?--180.191.71.85 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid most of them since the prod tags were invalid anyway -- the concern field was blank. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess. It is a big page for the school's brags.--180.191.96.22 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations on the succes of the Philippine National Football team! Hopefully somebody can help me with the question I posed on Talk:Phil_Younghusband#number_of_caps_for_Phil_Younghusband, one of the star players of the team. On the article it states that he played 15 times for the Azcals. I have reason to believe it is actually 16 games. See the table on the Talk Page. Hope somebody has acces to reliable sources. Particularly for the games played in Bacolod in november 2006 against Laos and Cambodia. Magalhães (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

solved already. Apparantly, he did not play against Macau in 2010. Magalhães (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Wikipedia Day is just around the corner, and so far there are two celebrations being held in the Philippines: one will be sponsored by Wikimedia Philippines in Manila, and the other by the Mindanao Open Source Society in Zamboanga. I think we can also use more celebrations in more areas across the Philippines, as well as ideas for how to celebrate Wikipedia Day! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About 60 of the names currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Unreferenced BLPs are Filipino basketball players. If someone is looking for a project, that might be a good place to start! If anyone knows of some good sources for Filipino basketball, let me know, and I'll try to help with cleanup efforts. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...having the name XXX City, then maybe we should do some update on the templates. How about WP:MOSPHIL?--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSPHIL#Cities updated --JinJian (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the naming convention change was horribly implemented. There is a lot of inconsistency with respect to how we have named city articles, and I think we should be fixing that first before we even think of touching the templates. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Horrible" is such a strong word, don't you think? If you think that the consensus was wrong, perhaps you should consider initiating another request moves. --JinJian (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus was wrong. However, the process by which we determined which cities belonged to which name was horribly implemented. If ever, for example, component (regular and ICC) cities should ALWAYS have the province name appended after them, if we were complaining about the "City" craze. My stand on the issue of city naming notwithstanding, we could use more consistency with respect to article names, especially now that the current guidelines are even more confusing than the previous set. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think everybody will be happy with your recommendation either. If the name of the city can stand alone, there is no need to disambiguate it further like appending the province name. We should remember that the articles may also deal with geographical, cultural and other features and not necessarily on the political aspects only. Granting that the article is focused on the local government, I do not think that the article titles should emphasize its relationship with the province; and there is no requirement to do so. We should only disambiguate whenever necessary and different circumstances may require different methods of disambiguation. The consensuses which effected changes were consistent with the current guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation. --JinJian (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, unfortunately, in this case, it does. Besides, most component cities' names don't stand alone. Hence why in the media, Santa Rosa City is still sometimes referred to as "Santa Rosa, Laguna" and Dasmariñas City is still referred to as "Dasmariñas, Cavite". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My order of preference: "Dasmarinas, Cavite" > "Dasmarinas." I really do not prefer "Dasmarinas City." As for other Dasmarinases, the one in Cavite is the primary topic and go along as "Dasmarinas." The one in Makati always has "Village" appended to it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if they refer Santa Rosa City as Santa Rosa, Laguna. Santa Rosa is obviously a saint, and it is only correct that they disambiguate the city by appending the province name. Plus there are many other places in the world with that same name.

For the Manila-based media; I suspect that Dasmariñas Village is still their preferred primary topic probably because of their proximity, familiarity or target audience. But for those living in Dasmariñas, Cavite; Dasmariñas is their city. The point of view of media does not represent NPOV. Dasmariñas Village has a population of only about 10,000 while Dasmariñas, Cavite has over half a million residents. I do not think that Dasmariñas, Cavite is less important than Dasmariñas Village. Unless there is more compelling reason, Dasmariñas, Cavite should be the preferred primary topic here in Wikipedia. It deserves the article name Dasmariñas; while the other Dasmariñases should fall under DAB.--JinJian (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I do think cities in a province need to have their province names appended, I do not feel that strongly and I'm OK with the current setup. The naming conventions also apply in the "Legislative districts of City" articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, tambays! I have some questions here, and I need some help of those people who have access to offline history books.

Well, I am doing a rewrite of the Sultanate of Sulu article, because of a recent comment on the talk page who said, the map of the sultanate was inaccurate, so I took the opportunity to generate a map of the state at its greatest extent. Sad to say, apart from brief and "unclear" descriptions from W.H. Scott that the sultanate occupied all of the islands in the Sulu sea, some parts of the Borneo and some parts of the Mindanao mainland, I can't find enough details or clear description of the areas occupied by the sultanate during its greatest extent. Any help? I haven't tried browsing Blair and Robertson on Gutenberg, I'll try later. P.S. I have no offline resource today, except the very old G. Zaide book that has no worth mentions of the sultanate except during the battles of Bud Bagsak and Bud Dajo. Anyway.

Next, I am torn between these details. While reviewing several resources in the Google Books and google-ing things over the net, I left out of idea how to correct Wikipedia entries dealing about the start of the sultanate. Since nobody among us here in Tambayan are willed to counter-check details on the article, I decided to do the cleanup and rewrite (look, I don't tried to put things on its talk page, it might be left behind the very very long comments of pretenders to the sultanate throne) the whole article. So: the Wikipedia and its mirror sites article says that the date of Sulu's foundation was in the 1450, when somebody named Abu Bakr settled down and established it in 1450, and that other Muslim historians dated earlier.^{[citation needed]}. This article from the National Historical Institute agrees with the 1450, except it's unsure with "around 1450". This page tells that an earlier settlement in Buansa was established (which supported the "other Muslim historians dated earlier.." claim), and that in 1450, Abu Bakr became the sultan and start of sultanate.

When I found this, it says the date was 1457. I thought that Abu Bakr arrived in Sulu on 1450, and established the sultanate in 1457, so I decided to change the date to 1457.

Now, with this independence assertion of the sultanate last month, they said that it was in 1405, exact with month name and day. It is also similar to the date of this site.

I don't know which of them says true. If we settle on the 1450 date, then it will correspond to other sources. If 1457, it will be covered by "around 1450s" claim. If it is November 17, 1405, then we have a date as supported by the Muslim researches. But I am unsure if the 1450 or 1457 dates were copied earlier from Wikipedia, so I am asking for third opinions from offline resources from you here. :)) Merry Christmas!--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I resorted to the 1457 date for the sultanate.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    06:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, since the articles in question are filipino, I'd like your opinions on the proposed merging of Tasaday controversy into Tasaday. It has actually already been suggested before but the user who did so failed to created a discussion subsection. Here's the one I made: Talk:Tasaday#MERGE PROPOSAL DISCUSSION Please participate. If no one disagrees, I will begin merging by Christmas.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge done. --A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Help is needed at De La Salle University Pops Orchestra. I have reverted one edit already of a particular editor, see: [1], only to see that subsequent edits have been made by this editor, including a complete removal of any references at all. So, I have templated the article as unreferenced. If there is someone within your project that is knowledgeable about the subject matter, their help in sorting it all out, and adding references would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea either. And it's typically very difficult to determine what is true when it comes to those universities. It's one of the three (I think?) universities with historical rivalries and students of one or the other often make insidious edits to the articles of the rival universities. But at first glance... it looks like he transformed the article from being about the extant La Salle Youth Orchestra into one of the now defunct De La Salle University Pops Orchestra.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits by Oldmedia seem to be more appropriate for Uncyclopedia, like similar edits to the Cueshé article a few years ago. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Parodies and rivalries, I should have known!! :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What the subject says. The article currently stands at a B rating and used to be a Good article but was delisted. If we can make the Wikipedia article into a Featured article way by maybe May 2011, we can have it as Today's Featured Article for June 19, 2011. Also, we can tie the article into the celebrations surrounding the 150th birthday. --seav (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On another FA drive (I don't think this RWNB had one), the articles of the potential contenders for the 2016 presidential election, Roxas, Binay and Chiz, can be made into FA status, then we can list all three on election day like what happened to Obama and McCain in 2008. It's six years from now so this one's more attainable. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that there's no article about Filipina rock singer Sampaguita on Wikipedia. How come? Magalhães (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The solution: start one! Label it a stub. That at least will get people something to start with. :P AFAIK articles on filipino celebrities are mostly underrepresented here. I guess... not a lot of us watch TV? Hehe --Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Another reason is that their fans isn't in to the internets. Another is there's too few readily-found internet sources around. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting an article about her myself, but for me, it is difficult to judge whether or not a subject is notable for wikipedia (because I am not a Filipino and the lack of proper internet sources). I was hoping my question here would trigger one of the Filipino's here to write /start the article. Perhaps using sources from a book. Magalhães (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

She is virtually a classic in filipino music by now, so of course she's notable. Sadly I am too young to be familiar with her. :( If anyone can point me to a good and reliable reference site about her I can kickstart the article. Would need someone else to expand it though.--Obsidi♠n^Soul) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I can't find anything online. Not even her real name or if Sampaguita refers to the band or just the lead singer. Should it be Sampaguita (singer) or Sampaguita (band)? I have created a disambig page for 'Sampaguita' though.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sampaguita should redirect to the flower. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One could also add the film studio to the disambiguation page but I would agree it should default to the flower. I'm not sure the sampaguita has been officially designated as the national flower of the Philippines though as is stated in the flower article. Lambanog (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Retained Sampaguita as a redirect to Jasminum sambac, created article Sampaguita (disambiguation), created article Sampaguita (singer) (needs to be expanded and formatted according to guidelines for singers badly), added disambigs to top of all three articles (might need rewording, brain is fizzling out at the moment, heh).--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Another problem... the article for Jasminum sambac is not named Sampaguita. It seems odd to have a redirect at its top for Sampaguita (disambiguation). Is it better to restore the earlier method of redirecting Sampaguita to the disambig page?--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirected Sampaguita to disambig for now pending decision. Removed disambig link at top of Jasminum sambac.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Best way forward to this is to have a hatnote at the flower article directing to the dab page. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also moved the common nameSampaguita up into the lead of the article for Jasminum sambac for it to be more visible. And yes, it is officially the national flower of the Philippines (National symbols of the Philippines) which justifies the move.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Like many of the tambays above, I've been thinking about creating an article regarding Sampaguita in the past but the lack of reliable sources seems to be the common problem. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also created the article Dolores Paterno, and linked her most prominent work Sampaguita (La Flor de Manila) to the disambig page. And yeah references for Sampaguita (singer) are sketchy, but at least she has an article now. :P --Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well said, now we can improve the article step by step. Let's hope to get the collaboration of tambays more familiar with the topic. Good work also with the Dolores Paterno page. Always remember: age is no barrier. :) -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work Obsidian!, thanks for the article. Let's hope more users will contribute to it. Magalhães (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Joaquin. And you're welcome, Magalhães. :) And yep, let's keep an eye out for citable sources online re: Sampaguita (singer). Also the article needs doublechecking. Given the scarcity of references (none of them biographies), I might have misunderstood a sentence... or two... Really, the only song by her that I'm kinda familiar with is 'Nosi Ba Lasi'. Haha--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From the Inquirer, the North Luzon Agribusiness Quadrangle and the Metro Luzon Urban Beltway have been abolished. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several articles on Filipino culture which in my opinion are far too idealized, excessively nationalistic, are not encyclopedic (are mostly opinion-based, not factual), and (to put it quite harshly) it reminds me of elementary school textbooks in Sibika at Kultura both in tone and the style of prose.

• Filipino values
• Men in the Philippines
• Women in the Philippines
• Courtship in the Philippines

This is not a criticism on the articles' original author, User:DaughterofSun, she is far more experienced (and prolific I might add) than I am when it comes to Wikipedia. :P It seems to be largely because of the sources used. But I really do believe that these articles have multiple issues that must be fixed and I'm willing to help. But first, I'm asking what your opinions and proposals are. Especially for Filipino values. --Obsidi♠n^Soul) 21:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Started basic rewrites. --Obsidi♠n^Soul) 08:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it all boils down to the fact that Filipinos take patriotism and nationalism way too deeply. But as for the articles, yes, it's fairly obvious that they are in need of TLC, as with most Philippine-related pages. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. :/ Then again, I'm probably biased, haha, being Humanist. That said, I'll try and improve what I can, time permitting. Do note that I am quite new to Wikipedia and will need follow-ups, corrections, pointers, secret recipes of your empanada... a slap or two every now and then... :P --Obsidi♠n^Soul) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret recipes for empanadas may be found in Wikibooks' Cookbook section, but noobs are very much welcome. We don't bite. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of copyvio bloating here. and the article creator's been slapped with a PROD. Please check. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, yet another case of hyperbole coming from, frankly speaking, a Sarahtard. Being that it didn't earn a significant cult status unlike a few other shows, I think this one deserves an AfD. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Has this guy been a problem before? --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging from his contributions, yes. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When scanning some pages about the history of the Philippines here in Wikipedia, I cam across a doubtful entry on the Spanish East Indies, which is about a certain entity that came sometime after the Spanish colonization. I removed the edit dubbing it as questionable. Now, I tried to Google the "Federal Republic of Visayas", but no reliable sites can give me the right answer whether such entity really did exist. However, the first Google hit is a forum from Asia's Finest .com, saying that the information about the federation was removed from history books, to cover the truth that Filipino resistance during the revolution is not united, hence there is a struggle in Luzon, in Mindanao, then in the Visayas, so that's the reason why there is the Haring Bayang Katagalugan (Sovereign Tagalog Nation) which was only referred to the Tagalog provinces (i.e., central and southern Luzon), there is the Republic of Zamboanga, the Republic of Negros, etc, and that the First Philippine Republic is only exclusive to Luzon. Though I don't know if it's true.

So: apart from the Negros and Zamboanga republics and their own self-proclamation against Spanish rule, I found this several books:

• The war against the Americans: resistance and collaboration in Cebu, 1899-1906 (page 9) says that there existed a federal state in the Visayas, supposed to be a confederation of Visayan islands, established on December 17, 1898 in Iloilo but was dissolved in April 27, 1899 because of little Visayan support, pure Ilonggo.
• The encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American War (page 682) - well, this book says that at least, the Republic of Negros was a federal state.
• The struggle against the Spainards and the Americans in the western Western Visayas: (pages 60 & 71) snippet views give us the idea that there existed a state like that having the name.
• The Philippine Revolution (pages 229 & 285)
• Ananias N. Diokno (NHI) or this - "who felt that they should be leaders of the organized revolutionary government and that orders must come from President Roque Lopez of the Republic of the Visayas."
• The battle of Guintabuan – 2 "As the Panay force consolidated in Guintabuan, Roque Lopez, President of the Estado Federal de Visayas, issued a proclamation to the people of Negros."
• UP CIDS journal
• and many more.

However, other sources listed below seems to contradict the issue. First, it is said that it is only a federal council for the Visayas, so to represent the Visayan people to the Congress. Second, other sources below said that the formation of the federal republic was authorized by Aguinaldo. For the first case, it does recognizes Aguinaldo as the president of the Philippines, on the second, not. Seems contradicting.

I want to hear your part on this issue. And I am willing to start an article for this.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You are at UP correct? Why don't you go to the History department and request an interview with the director or a teacher there. While you are at it, you might as well inquire what they as presumably one of the premier centers of learning about Philippine history are doing to promote understanding and knowledge about the subject and if they have any plans on using 21st century tools like Wikipedia to do so. Lambanog (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In the National Historical Institute's book The Laws of the First Philippine Republic ISBN 971-538-055-7, it listed a "Decree providing that, in order that the parish funds and cash belonging to churches be secured from danger of loss due to hazards of war, they be invested in the national loan." It quoted that this decree was addressed to the governors of Southern Luzon, and the provinces of Bataan, Zambales, Tayabas, Laguna, Infanta, Cavite, Batangas, Mindoro, Romblon, Albay, Ambos Camarines, Sorsogon, Masbate, Marinduque, Leyte, Samar, Bohol, Capiz, Iloilo, Antique, Panay and Cebu, which indicates the extent of the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Government at the time. The decrees in the listing were arrange chronologically this one though had no specific date, but it was between the decree dated August 9, 1899 and the decrees of August 29, 1899. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Guevara, Sulpico, ed. (2005), "II. List of Other Laws and decrees", The laws of the first Philippine Republic (the laws of Malolos) 1898-1899., Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library (published 1972), p. 182 (see item 101), {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) (English translation by Sulpicio Guevara). It should be understood that these are laws and decrees issued by the proclaimed government of the insurgent First Philippine Republic, mostly issued during the period of the Philippine-American War, and that the authority issuing these instruments had neither international recognition as a national government nor undisputed control over the geographical territory in which the laws and decrees were meant to apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The year was 1899, it was at a time that Americans had not pacified the entire archipelago and as a matter of fact they were initially quartered only in Manila and its environs before the Philippine-American War broke out, thus it will not be accurate to refer to the First Philippine Republic as an insurgent government.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 12:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion which has played out many times on the talk pages of various WP articles related to the Philippines. The Insurgency article says, "An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority". As far as authority being "constituted", internationally recognized sovereignty over the Philippines was passed from Spain to the U.S. by the Treaty of Paris (1898). A rebellion against that sovereign authority would be an insurgency. What is needed here is identification of the point at which sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago came into serious question, e.g., in a legitimate belligerency over the question of sovereignty.

My understanding is as put forth in the Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty article. AFAICS, the question is, "What point in the timeline of the various nascent governments under Aguinaldo (the Dictatorial Government, then the Revolutionary Government, then the Malolos Constitution government--see relevant parts of the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article for background) should WP choose to regard as the point at which one of those nascent governments moved from being an insurgency to being a belligerent in a legitimate contest for Philippine sovereignty?" The aforementioned timeline article identifies that point as the date on which the Malolos Constitution government (which fought the Philippine-American War) declared war on the United States. That seems to me to be a reasonable demarcation date. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I gave you a bum steer sending you to the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article for info on Aguinaldo's various nascent governments; I thought that info was in there, but I don't see it. I do see it in the Philippine Revolution article, so take a look there (search for "May 24" and read on from there). I am a bit surprised to find no mention of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in that article -- which is very incomplete without some info on that. Perhaps I'll try to find the time to go back through those articles and fill in some of the blanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This has recently grabbed my attention. Are there any herpetologists/biologists here who can point out what species of snake dahong palay actually is? Or if it's even real? I know we all grew up to the stories about how deadly it is and all that, but is there actually any scientific evidence of its existence?

This is a response to the mention of the snake (identified as being 'lethal', despite pointing to a relatively harmless vine snake, the Oriental Whipsnake Ahaetulla prasina) in the article about the filipino weapon Dahong Palay. No one can dispute, of course, the reputation of the snake as being extremely deadly, but when you really do try to find evidence for it, there is none.

Current discussion is in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Dahong Palay

Input is appreciated as to whether to treat it as a real snake or as folklore derived from exaggerated or misattributed stories about it.--Obsidi♠n^Soul) 14:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From all of us at Wikimedia Philippines, we would like to wish all Filipino Wikipedians a happy 10th Wikipedia Day! If you can, please drop by Paco Park for Wikipedia Takes Manila and the 12th Filipino Wikipedians' Meetup. Let's go out there in full force! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the participants of this event who diligently take pictures throughout Manila and patiently waited for the results and partied at Shakey's. Thanks to all volunteers who helped us throughout the event. Congratulations to Wikimedia Philippines. Thanks to Sky Harbor who really worked hard to organize this event. Thanks to Scorpion prinz who bought the Wikipedia 10 cake and brought the paraphernalia for the event. Thanks to seav who gave a powerful short keynote speech and tallied the winners. Thanks to Exec8, co-chair for the event, who distributed button pins to participants, video streamed the event and in-charge of marketing. Thanks to Cloudhand who is in-charge of medicines and was able to help us at the party. Thanks to Juned, chairman of the event, who also helped during the party. Thanks to Billie, who helped us on the interview on GMANews.TV, hosted the event, and helped in auditing the pictures. Special thanks goes to Wikipedians, Bluemask, Nickrds09, Chitetskoy who helped us in tallying the scores of the participants, auditing the pictures and distribution of T-shirts and pins. For those people that I forgot to mention, thank you very much.  :-) Again, Happy Wikipedia Day! --Jojit (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

{{RP province and territory navigation box}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. There is already the {{Luzon lateral}}, {{Visayas lateral}}, and {{Mindanao lateral}} templates used in its place.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a separate template. For example, if there's a politics of Ilocos Norte, geography of Ilocos Norte, economy of Ilocos Norte, etc. articles it can be added there. So far I don't know which provinces and cities have one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

When doing New Article Patrol, I was looking at the article Northern Cebu. It is an almost exact copy of part of the existing article Cebu. I do not see any reference in the latter to a province called Northern Cebu, but I am entirely unfamiliar with the Philippines so it may exist. I have tagged the new article with Notability|date=January 2011 as I don't believe the subject is notable (because it is not a province) and because the information is only a duplicate of the other article. Please remove or change the tag if I am wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a proposed Cebu del Norte as part of the Sugbuak (Cebu-split movement), but it never came to fruition. If ever, this would be a hoax at worst, and a duplicate at best. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Question for UP people: what's the license of iskWiki!? If it uses a free license, maybe we can use some content to enrich the Wikipedia articles on the UP System. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to retain individual copyright for all material. Speaking of their content, I nominate Leonard L. Co for a wiki article (this wiki, not there), heh.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This article was placed at "Malacañang Palace" because it was thought that the palace was more commonly called by this name than by Malacañan Palace (without the -g), which is it's official name.

However, a quick search on Google showed that "Malacañang Palace" was actually less common than "Malacañang Palace". However, the most commonly mentioned name seems to simply be "Malacañang" (without "Palace").

Google search on the name:

• Malacañang - About 975,000 results
• Malacanang - About 494,000 results
• Malacañan Palace - About 146,000 results
• Malacanan - About 111,000 results
• Malacañang Palace - About 106,000 results (Current article name)
• Malacanan Palace - About 60,000 results
• Malacanang Palace - About 60,000 results
• Malacañan - About 43,400 results

If no one opposes, I would like to move the article to either "Malacañang" or "Malacañan Palace" because they are more common names.

(If anyone needs background on the spelling differences, see the bottom of the article at the Official Gazette at www.gov.ph - http://www.gov.ph/2011/01/17/briefer-on-the-new-malacanang-briefing-room-signage/ - according to it Malacañan Palace refers to the building itself while Malacañang is shorthand for the Office of the President (subordinates, staff, etc.)) Mk32 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Considering "Malacañang Palace" is already considered informal, much more can be said to "Malacañang." Remember, Malacañang is also a subdistrict of San Miguel, Manila, and is also the word to refer to the executive branch (when people say the "White House," they're not usually referring to the building but to the executive branch of the U.S. government), so the proper Google search is "'Malacañang Palace' Malacañang" just to be sure the we're referring to the palace. For Google searches with two words, I suggest using quotation marks to make it sure that Google lists the pages the two words are listed together.

As for "n" and "ñ," as per laziness, and that keyboards don't have the letter "ñ," we should probably omit those.

All things considered, "Malacañang Palace" does emerge to be the most commonly used name. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Article is about the building. As HTD said, when people refer to 'Malacañang' they are usually referring to the executive branch (i.e. not the actual building but the people in it). The proper name 'Malacañan Palace', on the other hand, is obscure enough not to justify a move. The lead text already explains the usage.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, "Malacañan Palace" is so obscure, to say it's even a "common name" is stretching it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OT: I have to say that the glowy thing going on in the Arroyo-era version of the logo is horrid. LOL.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the responses everyone. I won't continue to ask to move the article. Mk32 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 pages for Alakdana (Alakdana (Philippine TV show), Alakdana and Alakdana (TV series), and a certain user has redirected them all to Alakdana (Philippine TV show) which isn't the proper format for the title. There are no known TV series called Alakdana, so Alakdana (TV series) is more suitable than Alakdana (Philippine TV show). However the page Alakdana is vacant as well, so shouldn't it be just Alakdana? Many thanks --ISWAK3 (talk) 17.58, 22 January 2011 (GMT)

There's some rule for history merging -- you can ask an admin to merge page histories to Alakdana. The title character's article may not satisfy WP:N so it's a safe bet that Alakdana should be the target article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's invited to join and/or help organize the Philippines' and Southeast Asia's first Wikipedia Takes the City-style photo scavenger hunt! This will also serve as the twelfth meetup for Manila Wikipedians. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In my facebook account, a photographer-friend raised the question on permits since the places in the list are commercial and government establishments. He said that the number 1 enemy of photographers are the security guards. Are the permits included in the contest kit? --Bluemask (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not, and as far as I know no other WTTC contest has done with asking permission to take pictures beforehand. However, I think we can add a friendly letter asking for permission to take a picture of the building for the sake of the contest in the kit. With all WTTC events though, this rule applies: if security guards tell you not to take pictures, then don't. Also, you can take any photograph as long as you are standing on public property. But perhaps we can write letters, expecting responses before the 15th. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deadline of online registration changed without notice? Sayang, members of my team had only just confirmed their participation. --Bluemask (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We posted notice of the deadline on Facebook days ago. We may reopen registration though, provided that we don't get too big. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It was posted on the event page pala. Comments on event pages does not show on users' walls unless the user responded to the event kasi. My bad. --Bluemask (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, several teams are pleading to be allowed to register. I'd never think a Wikipedia Takes the City event would be this popular. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos will be uploaded to Commons starting tonight. As a test batch, I'm uploading GameOPS.net's photos first, to see how well Commons can respond to it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone knows of a list that we can make into an FL? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on the list of airports in the Philippines, but work got stalled. I can always use more hands. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm proposing the merger of San Fernando City railway station, created a few months ago, to San Fernando railway station (Pampanga), which has been here for around the last 2-4 years. Please discuss the merits of the merger on the talk page. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started construction of a List of mountains in the Philippines article today. It is still in its formative stages, and talk page discussion about it is welcome. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why has the service been down since Sunday morning. All contact telephone are unobtainable and their web site is not available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.157.48 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We are sorry for your inconvenience, but this is not the right place to post such questions. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To the Filipino admins: I recommend that we issue an {{editnotice}} on the articles about Filipino actors and actresses. For uniformity, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers created project style recommendations. You may have notice the editors, especially those from the Philippines, are replacing the the Notes column to a Network column. I believe it should not be included in the filmography table. Wikipedia should be free from the on-going network wars in the Philippines. Doing so we will be able to accomplish the aim of both WP:Tambayan Philippines and the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.Carl Francis (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd agree w/ you. I do find the network column pretty useful. How about for films where the last column is the "Film studio"? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Replace the Film studio column with the Notes column.

While I agree w/ you, there should be some sort of discussion first involving those who frequently edit Filipino entertainment articles if this should be implemented, so that anons won't have to revert when they see their favorite columns gone.

I agree but where do we put the discussion? We can't put this in a single talk page. The topic covers a number of articles.Carl Francis (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with you guys. Isn't this already a discussion of the matter? 112.198.243.134 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was a discussion involving users who frequently edit such articles (not just you and me), some place else. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good first step here might be formation of a Philippines cinema task force along the lines of currently active task forces listed at WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture#Films; e.g., the American cinema task force, Indian cinema task force, etc.; details to be worked out by the task force as it evolves. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A little help on this page, please? Especially on the architectural styles and architects. Thanks. — P H I L T R O (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's nothing here about him as the most-hated Governor-General of the Philippines during the American period. (such as the Wood-Forbes mission, which concluded that the country was not yet ready for independence and the case of El Renacimiento and Rafael Palma on Aves de Rapina (which purportedly attacked Dean C. Worcester). - Windows72106 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm working up some Philippine history articles during the American period I'll see what I can do. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. Everyone is invited to attend the thirteenth meetup of Wikipedians in Metro Manila. If you're going, don't forget to sign up! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Since all elections articles have been added with info such as votes and seats won already already, the next step is to edit all legislative district articles to make them better looking and to incorporate as much information as possible. Currently, only the years of service, Congress and name are included at the tables -- see Legislative district of Abra (see Legislative districts of Camarines Norte on provinces/cities that were redistricted.) on how they should look like. You can see party affiliations for 8th Congress [2], while party standings during all 21st century Congresses are accounted for (see maps from Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2001 to the present).

Also with the recent move of the city articles, affected legislative districts articles would have to be renamed to match the respective mother articles w/out the disambiguation (It's a fair bet PH is the only one that uses the "Legislative district(s) of Foo" as its standard. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As for party-lists, there should be at least two sections in each article: "electoral performance" for number of votes received and seats won, and the representatives who sat. See the Bayan Muna article for an example. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Scorpion prinz has reverted the changes. Why? What's wrong? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh... I do need a third opinion on this on how legislative district articles can be improved. The current articles are such in a sorry state. We could also use the municipalities w/ borders map to standardize maps, and even an infobox.. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for help to remove people not from/born in the city of Manila -- note that "born in Manila" has become a generic phrase for anyone born in the Metro if anyone has sources we can correct categorization of people. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see over 200 articles in that category. A quick look at a very small sample found no support in the few articles I checked. Perhaps run through the articles checking for support and posting a notice of intent to remove the category placement (per WP:BURDEN) on the talk page ({{cn}} isn't usable for category placements) if support isn't provided. As I happens, I saw a similar case (a category placement being questioned and supported) here yesterday.

Perhaps the special case of category placement deserves specific mention in WP:V, with attention given to methodology of indicating support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried verifying the 1st 10 articles, and while some links I saw referenced Manila, it's too unreliable. The only one I removed the cat was Freddie Aguilar who was born at Isabela. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was at clark last weekend. Please let me know if any of the photos here can be uploaded?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rookiecamaclang/sets/72157626044434264/with/5444008178/

If so, let me know what email to send them to, I will send photos without the watermark.

Thanks. --TitanOne (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is Philippine International Hot Air Balloon Fiesta. You can create a gallery there --Exec8 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can, but if your pictures are on Flickr, you can upload them directly to Commons via an upload tool. Just make sure the images are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA before uploading, and they are in the original size. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The photos uploaded on Flickr have watermarks on them. --TitanOne (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is being nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Patrol Tacloban. Considering it is under our scope, please share your thoughts to the matter.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When will this end..16 nullified cities are cities again [3]--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 10:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! --seav (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone has to create an article about this –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck to the creator, it's a long story to write! :) -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone check the Filipino pronunciations at magboo and Sagñay, Camarines Sur? Not sure about the vowels. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks correct to me, although I'm not a native of Camarines so I don't know for sure.

Since gñ is an archaic alternative spelling of the modern [ŋ] (other variants include n͠g. ng̃, and ñg), it seems reasonable to assume that it's pronounced the same way as the Tagalog sangay ('branch'). The tilde was once used to differentiate it from archaic ng (no tilde) for [ŋˈg]. In modern Filipino the former is now usually spelled ng (Tagalog sungay - horn, pangil - fang, tanga - stupid), while the latter is spelled ngg (Tagalog mangga - mango, baranggay - village/district, Bisaya dunggo - to dock).--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation for Sagñay is already in the article. But Magboo is spelled as it sounds with a short 'o' so it's pronounced 'Magbo-o'. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict Hm... as for the vowels, wouldn't magboo be more like [magˈbu.o]? The [məgˈbu.o] pronunciation seems more suited to the verb 'will create' rather than the noun 'creator'.

Also in addition to what Sky Harbor said, I think [magˈbɵ.o] or [magˈbə.o] would be more correct than either [magˈbu.o] or [magˈbo.o]. But I dunno, not a native Tagalog speaker here, and vowel pronunciation in filipino languages vary a lot.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody made another article just for the fun of it, and the content's not even about TD. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it contained non-notable fancruft. It's the same user who created the Minsan Lang Kita Iibigin page. Let's see what he/she does in the future. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_Filipino_Americans#Tim_Tebow. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

A certain newbie editor's been deleting pictures of the funeral and asserting that she was never elected. Probably some Marcos-style revisionism at work. Can anybody protect this? Given it's the EDSA anniversary, people are bound to mangle this. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why wasn't there a repition of election in 1986? --Bone1234 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing about the 1986 election was, that it was such a fraud that neither candidate could claim s/he won. I don't know if you can get my point. --Bone1234 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And you must also see, that she came to power through an uprising but never had an election conducted again later that year. In the 1986 election itself, she couldn't really claim being elected. Fraud election would normally be repeated again, but in this case it was not. And Aquino didn't dare to stand in election. --Bone1234 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who expanded Philippine presidential election, Bone1234 has a point -- we don't really know who won in 1986. It'll be better to say that "she assumed power after Marcos fled" or something to that effect. Marcos was still a pretty popular person even in 1992 when Danding and Imelda won some 28% of the vote.

It may even be valid to state she assumed the Presidency by national acclaim. That requires moral authority, which historical circumstance handed her, as she certainly would not have sought the office had she been given the choice of office or husband. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well sure, this can go, if cited. The whole gist of her ascension to power was via revolutionary means as she did not use the constitution (which was on the most part "in operation" via unconstitutional means). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The results of the February 1986 elections became moot in March 1986 when a new government was installed through "a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines."[4]. Some might dispute "the Filipino people" there. Perhaps "some Filipino people" would be more correct, but that's not what the official source I linked says. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hence, that doesn't nullify the fact that she has never been elected through elections. --Bone1234 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say I agree with Bone, the article can't simply say that she was 'elected'. TheCoffee (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about 'selected, rather than elected (as the constitution had been abrogated). As the political process stabilized, it became possible to return to constitutional norms in elections going forward.' --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The "became president after claiming victory in the 1986 election, after the People Power Revolution, and when Marcos fled from power" is the easiest way forward. People Power wasn't in the constitution and being "selected" is vague. Selected by who? From what power? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It can be disputed if Corazon Aquino was properly elected, but it would also be wrong to dismiss the relevance of the snap elections of 1986. She became president because people felt she was robbed in the election indicated by things such as the NAMFREL count and the walkout of COMELEC canvassers. If Corazon Aquino had a claim to leadership of the country it stemmed from the legitimacy she drew from the contested elections. None of the other actors involved were able to usurp her position because of it. Lambanog (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC) At least it is recognized that she is not the first elected female (formally) head of state - elected in classical sense. (The real first power woman of Asia was Indira Gandhi from the South Asian subcontinent - and for some time in the 1970s she even ruled in dictatorial manner! --Bone1234 (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi wasn't head of state -- she was head of government (incidentally, she was elected by the Lok Sabha and not by the Indian people directly). With that said, the best solution is to say that Aquino assumed power after the People Power Revolution that overthrew Marcos from power. See List of Presidents of the Philippines#Notes for a rather good-enough explanation. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Aquino might be the first female president in Asia, but to claim she was first female head of state in Asia is a bit adventurous when you think about the long history of Asia. --Bone1234 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see List of elected or appointed female heads of state. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that, already Sükhbaataryn Yanjmaa beats Aquino. So, you don't even have to look back that far. --Bone1234 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

But she was an acting head of state. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(misplaced above) So what's the point of this discussion again? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was supposedly no problem describing how Aquino ascended into power. Unless I'm missing/missed something. I dunno why how we got into this discussion. Originally it was about the 1986 election, then it came to the first elected head of state anywhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

as stated above, it was about boner's assertions that she was never elected in the first place, then it spiraled to being "who's the first Asian woman to be head of state?" But then again, this could be one of my wikinemeses - bilang na yan sa isang kamay lang (I could count them with one hand)- studying my contributions and trying to butt in.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the supposedly bad article on where these statements are stated? 03:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

People, it would be better to have this discussion directly related to article content on the talk page of the article, and not on this sidebar talk page. A Filipino Wikipedia Cabal (or several of them, crosspurposed) would be a Bad Thing&#153; Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that just because we're talking about an article here necessarily presupposes the existence of a Filipino Wikipedia cabal. After all, this noticeboard exists as a discussion space to improve articles on the Philippines. I'd like to see a resolution to this problem though: while I'm of the opinion that perhaps Corazon Aquino was "elected", I think we will need to come to a consensus on this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a great suggestion: "She was chosen by God, the Almighty Father/Mother." (uni-gender mode) Since the Filipino people are said to be faithful ones, that can go. --Bone1234 (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) BTW: What does "tambayan" mean? (Just curious) --Bone1234 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Being chosen by God? that's what her eldest daughter Ballsy said. try again. and since you're not Filipino by even asking the meaning of tambayan, I suggest you get on out of here and stop trying to muddle subjects you don't even know about. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

of course, Filipino people want development aid but shout at the money givers when they say things they don't like to hear for whatever reason. No wonder why Filipino people remain poor: craving for money but doing nothing. that is typical Filipino. --Bone1234 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bone1234 the answer to your question is on the project page. You are currently viewing the discussion page. Lambanog (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"and since you're not Filipino by even asking the meaning of tambayan, I suggest you get on out of here and stop trying to muddle subjects you don't even know about. " I don't have to be told by you, what I have to do, Eaglestorm. --Bone1234 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to be told what to do? Meh, your arrogance doesn't work either. You think you can just waltz in here and try to railroad what you want in the article, thinking you know better than we do? Nobody wants such types clouding the project, and unfortunately, you're one of them. Hah, no wonder you got a user warning. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And you think, non-Filipinos don't have the right to know anything about the Philippines? --Bone1234 (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well of course you do, but you're barging your way into controversial territory without even knowing the full story behind it and being excessively confrontational about 'facts' that seem to have an underlying motivation. Because frankly, the tone of your posts and the changes you want to make all do sound like you're a Marcos supporter. It would have been okay if you were Filipino (my parents are Marcos supporters, I'm apolitical) because then at least you'd know a little more about what actually happened here, but you're not. Please remember that we grew up with all this, having someone tell us that 'this happened not that' is like having a neighbor butt into a family matter. The not being elected point is a valid argument but 'Chosen by God' is unencyclopedic and only highlights your lack of knowledge of our country, Wikipedia, and the cultural significance of the events surrounding the 1986 revolution. And I don't have to tell you that this:

"of course, Filipino people want development aid but shout at the money givers when they say things they don't like to hear for whatever reason. No wonder why Filipino people remain poor: craving for money but doing nothing. that is typical Filipino."

is incredibly condescending, self-righteous, insulting, and does nothing to argue your point. Please don't filter our culture, values, history etc. through yours. Here's a hint, the 'aid' you people always brag about giving to third world countries always come at great cost. I mean sheesh, we're talking about Marcos here! LOL. A dictator installed by whom again? Oh, you get the point, just please don't troll this board. And for what it's worth, tambayan can be roughly translated to "loitering place", it is the equivalent of the informal noun "hang-out". --Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I LOLed the "chosen by God" thing anyway, but since apparently that was said by Ballsy, so... whatever. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think she meant Noynoy being president 25 years after the EDSA revolution. And frankly, I think that's a rather literal translation of it. Because I know when my parents say plano ng Diyos it would really have the equivalent implied weight of when westerners say 'It was fate/destiny' and not the vaguely messianic literal translation of 'God's plan'. I really should watch TV again. But meh, couldn't care less about our politics and the trapos nowadays. And yeah transplanting this discussion into the article's talkpage would be far better to attract more neutral (not necessarily Filipino) viewpoints on how she came into power.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not taint this noticeboard with my political views vis-à-vis the current President, but there will be cases that plano ng Diyos can be translated as "God's plan". It depends on context. In the context of Ballsy saying that her brother's ascent to power ay plano ng Diyos, I'm more inclined to believe that her use of the phrase straddles both interpretations. If you look at how Noynoy supporters claim how their president ascended to power, they claim that it was both his destiny and God's plan that he be in power to supposedly rid the Philippines of the "evil" that was his predecessor. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone claiming the divine right of kings mayhap? Lambanog (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. As I said - trapos. :P Just to clarify though, when I say 'trapos'* I mean all of the crazies: pro- and anti- <insert Noynoy/Erap/Marcos/Gloria/FPJ/Brother Mike/whatever-they're-bickering-about-nowadays here>, not just the ones in power now. Bleurgh.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC) *(for Bone1234: derogatory term, both from the Spanish trapo meaning 'rag' and an acronym for 'traditional politician')

From my side: EOD. --Bone1234 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Some editors here are not Filipino, of multiple ethnicity, or nationality, FYI. Everything was fine, until you started name-calling. So yeah, EOD.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian, what's EOD? the noob editor's naivete and crass comments about the Philippines is no different from other Filipino-bashers...and his edit summaries? If he thinks it's not worth talking to Filipinos (probably never saw or met one in his entire life, wherever in the world he may be), ba't nandito ka pa, gunggong (why are you still here, idiot)? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC-ed) End of discussion, I believe. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Eaglestorm, EOD is geek-speak for "End of Discussion". I for one, would welcome the "End of Text" so that we can give this thread a decent secondary burial in the archives of this talk page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Just read the whole discussion, I think we're just being trolled. Shrumster (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone recap the discussion? This could be submitted at BJOADN's current state, wherever that is. The outburst came out of nowhere, unless there a discussion took place some place else that incited him/her to do that. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from this bickering, everyone's efforts should transfer on how to make the People Power Revolution article go into OTD a few hours before the day ends in UTC (around 8am tomorrow). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post such a request. --Bone1234 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, this is the right place to look for help. Read and understand WP:RWNB. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Today being International Women's Day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_7#Category:Filipina_poets concerning the naming of categories for people from the Philippines. Input welcome, --JN466 03:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This morning I added a talk page comment at Talk:Emilio Aguinaldo#Descendants about the descendants list there. Now, I see that number of articles on political figures in the Philippines have had descendants lists added to them (See this) and that some of those descendants lists have begun to accumulate names which are not notable and/or which are not political figures. I'll probably add talk page comments to all articles with descendants lists saying that such lists must comply with WP:DUE, and that in the absence of a wikilinked WP article on a mentioned person, the entry for that person should be supported by a cited reliable source establishing sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. I thought that I'd mention that here before I jump in and do it for the affected articles (currently, I count six articles). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and actually agree with you. Over the last few months, many IP users have started to add Gen. Aguinaldo's descendants. In addition to what you said, we don't know if they really exist and in case of a red link a RS would be very useful. I'll try to find some refs if I have free time. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arnold Zamora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Zamora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Message from zscout in my talk page Pinay (talk•email) 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was browsing through the Tagalog Wikipedia one day when I saw a request in the Embassy, asking for input about smaller Wikipedias being aware of the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) requirements that the Wikimedia Foundation has imposed back in 2007 to allow for the regulation of the use of non-free images on all Wikimedia projects. There is currently a lot of talk on Commons about what do with the situation, and I certainly don't want the Philippine Wikipedias to be subject to mass image and file deletions because the policy has to be implemented.

Again (for the first time in over two years), I would like to request the community's input in order to see the passage of an EDP for the Tagalog Wikipedia, and perhaps the other Philippine Wikipedias as well. For a background on this issue, please refer to the archives. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Philippine-related_articles)#Usage of the adjective "Philippine" – only for inanimate objects, or for people as well? --seav (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Filipino and Filipina role portrayal in TV/movie/film/media in the U.S. I'm wondering what are everybody's comments regarding this new article? Zollerriia63 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but I don't think essays work in WP.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... breaks WP:NPOV and then breaks it some more. Some incidents are at least notable nationally (the American Housewives incident, the Manny Pacquiao taunting, etc.), but the tone of the article is simply too loaded. It doesn't quite cover everything even. Alec Mapa, for example, isn't mentioned, and he does skits portraying his Filipino heritage as well (humorously but still in a positive light). Gene Cajayon's opinions in the documentary The Slanted Screen, etc. Or the fact that Filipino extras (often asked to portray some backwater stereotypical Asian dude) always seem to get away with cursing onscreen with the American audience none the wiser to it. Remember The Rock? That was friggin hilarious. Another one I can't remember offhand was a Filipino extra portraying a Chinese soldier who said straight-faced onscreen: "Pagod na pagod na ako. Kanina pa kami dito" (I'm very tired. We've been here [shooting this scene] for hours) in place of a supposedly Chinese dialogue. There are historical portrayals as well, dating back to when America was still grappling with suddenly finding itself the colonial ruler of the Philippines. Most notably The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling and opposition to his portrayal of Filipinos and imperialism in general by Mark Twain and Henry James. Anyway I'm drifting, but yeah, article is one-sided, incomplete, and too POV. It's a rant basically.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we should have that specific article deleted? If you ask me that question, I'll say yes, since it sounds like a loaded essay rant, takes up precious webspace, and it's not very helpful at all. Zollerriia63 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can the article be rewritten regarding Filipinos in American media, with the WP:NPOV and WP:OR, removed? If so this article, with a renaming maybe manageable to be saved. If not, then the article can be PROD'd, and failing that sent up for an afd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article, but with good enough sourcing and removal of POV stuff it can be a good standalone article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised we don't have a similar article on this already. I'm pretty sure I read one ages ago before I actually registered. Might have been deleted or something. I don't know enough of the subject to actually offer help in writing a more comprehensive article. But yes, rewording in the meantime should be enough.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tambayan Philippines/Archive 27! An article in the remit of your project may need the expertise of your members. It has been tagged for a very long time as being in need of attention. To avoid deletion now of unsourced sections according to Wikipedia policies, if you have a moment, please see talk:Philippine English and address these issues if you can help in any way. --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andi Eigenmann#Nationality. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Its now official. Philippines has been stripped hosting the 2014 Asian Beach Games in favor of Thailand. News website --Exec8 (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sophists vandalised the article Metro Manila saying it is simply called Manila. Where are the source articles for this "true fact"? Any comments or opinions on this? Zollerriia63 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call it vandalism. You could invite the editors in question for a discussion. Maybe people there really do refer to NCR as simply 'Manila'? I don't really know though as I'm not from the region. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside Metro Manila, the region is often simply called "Manila". But legally, the region is still called "Metro Manila". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems so. See section 2 of RA6636. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There will be an exclusive meeting of Wikipedians, volunteers and members of Wikimedia Philippines on April 2, 2011 (Saturday) beginning at 10:00 am at the office of Wikimedia Philippines at Benchmark Corporate Center, G/F Gervacia Bldg, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. We will discuss projects for 2011 and issues that surrounds our community. Map to the place can be seen here. --Exec8 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if this is off-topic. I can't contact the webmaster of Project Gutenberg of the Philippines via email since year 2009. How come there is no Iloko translation of the homepage of Project Gutenberg Philippines website? And I'm wondering why there is a Dutch language webpage there in the homepage of Project Gutenberg Philippines website? Did anyone else notice that, too? Zollerriia63 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe referring to Philippine, Netherlands? Lambanog (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Project Gutenberg Philippines even still active? There are a lot of open-source and free initiatives in this country which have fallen by the wayside, such as Creative Commons Philippines and the Philippine Linux Users' Group (which proposed the first Tagalog translation of the GFDL). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how active they are. They have a website at http://www.gutenberg.ph/ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked the ProjectGutenberg.org main website, among Philippine languages, there are more Tagalog (first obviously), and Iloko (second) books there, while Cebuano only has only one book there. Perhaps the PG-Philippines webmaster could post an Iloko translation of its homepage since there are currently more public domain books in Iloko than Cebuano at the ProjectGutenberg.org main website. I really don't know how to contact the PG-Philippines webmaster. I tried to contact the ProjectGutenberg.org webmaster via email and their reply was PG-Philippines website is not run nor owned by ProjectGutenberg.org. I'm sorry for bothering everyone in Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan Philippines. Zollerriia63 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

This is the site of our Tambayan group in Facebook. --Exec8 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I invite everyone in the discussion (Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños#Campus size). Moray An Par (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Changes have been made on Panfilo Lacson page,and we may want to watch it for POV. - Alternativity (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, now that he's back from the shadows. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this article. It has largely been edited by one on IP editer and one registered editor. The references appear to be from reliable sources, however there was an attempt earlier to copy paste the entire lead introduction into the Filipino American article, as well as elsewhere. Therefore, it appears to be suspicious, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed further attempts of cut and paste of intro into other articles at Securities fraud (cut/paste, removal), Bank fraud (cut/paste, removal). There maybe other similar cases at Crime against international law, & Shell corporation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for wikification. I am not familiar with this topic. At first I thought it was a hoax. Well, regardless, I am going to request a check user on User:PDdd and User:MineWatcher (the one uploading all the images). I have doubts on the authenticity of the photos or whether he actually owns the photo. Moray An Par (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaaaah. Nvm. He's not using it for sockpuppeting anyway. Moray An Par (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we may have to take this to WP:AN/I. I see no way of fixing this easily. I'm trying to WP:AGF but seeing his other edits... *shrugs*--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments on your private talk pages. I was using an anonymous IP because I discovered that the August 2010 federal judgment and conviction for Pearlasia Gamboa and David Korem were actually two different successful prosecutions, one in federal criminal court, the other in federal civil court, so Gamboa is still on the loose (after 20 years of continuous similar conduct), and the alleged associations with violence led to using an anonymous IP at a shared IP in a heavliy attended business. I discussed this several days ago at another editor's talk page, who saw red flags the same as editors here are pointing out, but what I just said is why the red flags correctly indicated one editor/two names (IP and editor name), but not for the normal reasons of trying to create a WP:Sock. I do not think it is anyone's intent to out me. In fact, if I saw my edits as you and others did, without knowing the context of an switching to an IP for anonymity, I would likely have written exactly the same comments as you. I agree with you regarding massive detailed info in peripheral articles being WP:UDUE. My method of editing is either quick masive deletion for nonRS, then looking up each deletion I do and trying to put it back in with RS, or speedy insertion by cut and paste, then coming back and paring things down, then rewording it to fit the specific article it is going into, and then looking up more RS for that specific artilce. That's why some of the cut and paste was severly modified, and others were not, since I had just created the additional material, and had not come back to reword and pare back. For example, according to SEC filings and newspapers, she is the queen of aliases and fictitious business names, she is the queen of securities fraud via use of corporate shells by using multiple very similarly named companies, and the same profit and loss statements of one seingle real company, she is the queen of bank fraud by her multiple impersonations of being a bank, and an interesting case of international criminal law as using a micronation as cover. All of these should go in the relevant articles, but not with the cut and past additional baggage I put in. I just didn't have time to pare it down yet. If the articles were already in good shape, with inline citations, I would not have massively inserted, but excercised more care over time. But the articles were, for the most part (not the Filipino-related articles, which were in good shape) massively lacking in structure and RS citations. Perhaps someone can helpt with this, or I will do it over time. I noticed that in articles where I completed the paring down and rewording for the spe3cific article, like Private residences in Beverly Hills, editors have left the content alone, but where I did not, entire edits were block deleted. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE (I myself included). Just reminding everyone. Moray An Par (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Why was image of Pearlasia Gamboa removed?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

SC reverses itself again and made Dinagat Islands the Philippines' Province #80--Exec8 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Before anyone starts moving pages, let's wait for the MOR to be ruled upon, if they do submit one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of redirecting the articles of the constituent colleges of the university to the UPLB page. I doubt that these can be written as full articles given the lack of resources needed to do so. The articles also aren't really that notable in their own right (except perhaps for the UPLB College of Agriculture). This is quite a drastic move so I'm consulting you guys first. What do you think? Moray An Par (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Case to case. IMHO, if the college in question has achieved a certain level of national significance, or significance within its specialized field, then it should certainly be retained. - Alternativity (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think someone can argue in favor of the significance/relevance of these articles. But I think I'll let others make that argument, rather than making it myself. Hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely case to case. If an individual college passes notability standards set forth by WP:GNG, then it is fit to have its own article. Otherwise, we should follow WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, CA and Forestry has reached some degree of notability, given their age and contributions. And their articles can be sufficiently written from sources. However with the other colleges, the case is different, like SESAM and CPAf. I doubt that any usable material can be written from sources other than those published by the colleges themselves. I propose on keeping CA, CFNR and DevCom, while redirecting the rest. Moray An Par (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

With DevCom being the first in the country to offer a communication course, and the first in the world to offer an academic degree in DevCom, I'm glad you list it as notable. :D hehe. But I'd be biased, I suppose, since I was the one who first created the page. - Alternativity (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I was part of the few UPLB wikipedians who initiated the expansion of UPLB related articles, I would have to argue in favor of the retention. [Oh this is gonna be lengthy...]

First of all (and the main argument for separating college articles is that) the UPLB article has grown significantly that having the college articles within the UPLB article itself would've cluttered it so much. That's why another wikipedian condensed the college section and just linked up the articles. Second, most colleges has had significant contributions from the national to international level despite these not being comprehensively documented online, but usually in print (I have a copy of the three centennial books of UPLB), thus we wikipedians would have a hard time to cite references in their respective articles. Thus, I think the argument would not be much about notability but about how much information has been gathered and written here at wikipedia. Hence, research and citation is the problem.

But still looking at notability, CA, CFNR, CDC, CVM no need to argue with that.

For CEAT: spearheading Philippines biofuels research, a center of excellence in AgEng, home of AMTEC, contributions in farm mechanization, helping in the green revolution, a center for Philippine Sugar Technology (until BS SUTC was abolished, replaced with BS ChE), first bioethanol fuel vehicle testing in the Philippines in 1912 (if I remembered the year right?)

For CAS: home of three National Centers of Excellence by Presidential Decree (different from CHED COE/COD), and CHED COEs and CODs, home of NAST Academicians & National Scientists... (+ the breakthroughs by these people)

For CHE: first Human Ecology institute/school in the Philippines and Asia, pioneered BIDANI, which was eventually cited and included in the Philippine Plan of Action for Nutrition.

But then there's CEM, CPAf, SESAM... for which notability may or may not have been established but we do not have much available resources to cite here in wikipedia

SESAM, one of the earliest in PHL to offer EnvSci (1977), as fas as I know is usually involved in EIA's. Its also the lead college/point of contact for the Botolan relocation project. Its also involved in multidisciplinary undertakings by UPLB re: major environmental science studies, hence seldom cited alone. Though EnvSci is identified by UPLB as one of its 'distinctive excellence' niches.

CEM... I know they've had a buch of summas (maybe 5? the concentration of summas there is amazing, since the last time I checked curving is still rarely practiced in UPLB), but kidding aside, they've had partnerships with some foreign universities on Agricultural Prod'n and Marketing studies. They're known for their 'UPLB Green Book' which was largely used by the then Pres. Marcos' Ministry of Agriculture in their policies.

CPAf... I admit I don't know much about this college..

GS... Still no Wiki article despite being/having been host to countless ASEAN students, some of which have occupied top government positions in their home countries and have helped a lot with boosting their economies while we here in PHL remain lagging behind.... Also, I do remember GS involved in the issues surrounding the autonomy of UPLB (prior to the reorganization into the UP System) regarding the graduate faculty code. It was submitted to the central UP admin (Diliman) for approval but was rejected on the ground that there should only be one graduate faculty code for UP. Yet, until then, there has been none (ironic). Thus the draft plans for secession through decree by Marcos, salvaged by UP Pres. Lopez by reorganizing into a system, autonomy for UPLB creation of GS, CAS (then CBSH?) and the rest is history.

Do forgive me for the tangents I committed in my arguments above....and the construction as well.

Point here is that yes, the articles right now are short, yet the subject is notable (its not the article that should be notable), more like wikipedia stubs. But there's a lot of information out there to help out, we could just, for the mean time, put stub tags on the articles. How did the articles of other notable colleges in wikipedia start out? How do we end up with a finished article in the future if we discard it just because at present what we've written is not enough?

Lastly, it seems like a very drastic move/proposal, given the efforts that have been poured into these articles... Meynardtengco (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Meynardtengco. :D - Alternativity (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I'd also like to add that these colleges are certainly more notable than a lot of other articles on wikipedia. I'd rate them above, say, any nonnotable "radio station in Metro Manila," for example, or perhaps any of the individual MRT stations. And you won't find me arguing to merge THOSE articles because I believe they ARE notable enough to enough people to merit a wiki page. - Alternativity (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm convinced. :) Last question though, do some of this have "significant coverage" (WP:GNG) other than those published by the colleges themselves? Moray An Par (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was/is/will be, from DOST to DA, NAST to TWAS, from Inquirer to Manila Bulletin, to even CV's and Resume's and periodicals and journals... from Dr. Bernardo to Dr. Hilario (whom you prefer). But then if you prefer ongoing coverage (WP:NTEMP), you'd have to regularly google 'em up. -- Meynardtengco (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, I think that the college of UPLB (eg. UPLB College of Agriculture, UPLB School of Environmental Science and Management) should be moved to University of the Philippines Los Baños College/School of ... .

Per WP:UNIGUIDE, "never use abbreviations or acronyms in titles unless the institution you are naming is almost exclusively known only by including such terms and is widely used in that form. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) for more information" and "never use an acronym in the name of an institution's related articles where one is not used in the name of the institution. The entire institution's name (especially any parenthetical disambiguation) does not need to be included in the name of a related article, however all related articles should follow the same convention. Examples: History of Michigan State University (rather than "History of MSU"), Oriel College, Oxford (rather than "UO Oriel College"), and, although lengthy, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (rather than MSU College of Human Medicine)."

And yes, I know it's gonna make the article names so damn long. Moray An Par (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done the proposed changes under WP:BOLD. I will also relink the templates into the new names. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)