Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Does anyone have any knowledge of what Binondo, Ermita, Intramuros, San Miguel, Tondo, etc. really are or what they should be called? Initially, these areas were referred to as "districts" here in WP. That's why this Category:Districts of Manila was created. Recently though, some user/s like PH 0447 have begun revising the articles and calling them either "neighborhoods" or just "places" in Manila. I'm not sure neighborhood is a correct term tho as we have barangay as its local equivalent. And we know those areas are composed of several barangays so it can't be the right terminology to use. If those aren't districts, could there be a better word for it?-- RioHondo (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the Charter of the City of Manila, Section 6, these are "municipal districts", so "district" is the correct term (at the risk of confusion with the legislative districts). —seav (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather call "legislative districts" as "legislative districts", and these... uh places as plain old "districts". –HTD 21:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks seav! I have reverted those labels and notified the editor about this error. Actually, i find it weird that some people use "legislative districts" as references to geographic areas within a city. And i noticed this also affects Quezon City which breaks down its barangays per legislative district. I didn't know there was a use for legislative districts outside of politics. Or that it should be a basis for administrative subdivisions within a city. Our legislative districts are like constituencies, ridings, or electoral districts that change size and jurisdiction every so often depending on population. "Districts" on the other hand are more permanent and is based on geography not on representation of population. So there shouldn't be confusion regarding this.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There are some legislative districts that are remarkably stable, though. Since there's no national redistricting laws since 1987, some districts had remained the same ever since they were created in 1907 like the legislative districts in Ilocos Norte & Sur. You won't find that in the USA and Canada. –HTD 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But nobody says they are from the first district of Ilocos Norte or that they live in the fifth district of Quezon City. Those imaginary places exist only in the halls of the Batasan Pambansa. Hehe. That's why I don't understand the entire section on the districts of Quezon City, it says there are six districts, but goes on to list 12 or more. Cubao, Novaliches, Diliman, Libis, Santa Mesa Heights, New Manila, San Francisco del Monte? What are they? Those aren't barangays. I don't think they are the six legislative districts being described either. There needs to be a clear separation of the geographic districts from the governmental districts. The Manila article has two sections on this but it needs to be more clearly explained, one under Geography and the other under Government. We can not mix these two as in the case of QC.--RioHondo (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help me building this page. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Luzon_East_Expressway

Mark Jhomel (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm so where exactly do you need help with on the article? The page looks fine. It just needs a second and/or third reference, and an update as to its current status considering this page has been around for a while. Start updating the article (whoever thought of it first has to do it as I learned here in WP) but we'll help to fix your edits for format or grammatical errors. :) Enjoy editing!--RioHondo (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A new editor has added "Cardio Pulmonary Arrest" as a cause and 19 July date of death, all un-sourced, to this BLP. here Can't find any news about it, on a very quick look, so I have reverted. Any input?? 220 of ^Borg 12:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Good call IMO. I can't find sources for this claim as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lenticel.
Well, WP policy dictates sources are absolutely required for controversial edits about living, or recently dead, people doesn't it? So I had no hesitation, after a very quick search for news of her death, in reverting. If there was any truth, I think the editor would have either reverted or communicated in some way, but nothing. So I assume just vandalism, or possible misinterpretation of someone else's death.

I also queried it at Talk: Deaths in 2015, and no sources found by a respondent there either.

I found the edit when checking edits by newly created accounts on the account creation log, which I haven't done for quite some time. Most don't edit immediately, when they do, a check is worthwhile! --220 of ^Borg 06:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Link to Special:Log/newusers added. 220 of ^Borg 08:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted proposal on Wikipedia Takes Rinconada. The activity aims to increase the coverage of free photographs involving landmarks and cultural icons of the City of Iriga and six (6) municipalities within the 5th District of Camarines Sur so that they can be used in Wikipedia articles which need pictures. Also, this activity aims to promote awareness of Wikipedia in the district which is home to over 500,000 Rinconada Bikol speakers. By 2016, the Rinconada Bikol Wikipedia project has been created and the activity will further promote the project among non-Wikipedians based in the targeted area.

If you think this project should be selected for an Individual Engagement Grant, please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project here. Other constructive feedback is welcome on the talk page of this proposal.

Thank you. --Filipinayzd (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if there are actual active contributors from the Philippines South here as there haven't been much activity on articles relating to the Visayas and Mindanao, its cities, infrastructure and development projects. Is Wikimedia Philippines doing anything to address this imbalance with regards to creation of Phiippine-related articles, which is all Metro Manila and Luzon? I think our second city: Cebu City and Metro Cebu have been getting many good infra projects in recent years, but there's not even a single article on them aside from the Cebu Bus Rapid Transit System and Cebu Trans-Axial Expressway which goes from way back. There's not even a single decent article on their existing infrastructure, like roads, parks and other things essential to a rising city. South Road Properties, the reclamation project that is supposed to be the next Bay City? The proposed third link to Cordova from Cebu? Where are you local Cebuanos? Even their images on Commons are getting old. The same goes for Davao City which does not even have a decent skyline photo. :(--RioHondo (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There are active (and semi-active) editors down south: we have Berniemack, Jordz, Pare Mo, Pinay06, Obsidian Soul, JinJian, Harvzsf and Kguirnela who are the main editors from Western, Central and Eastern Visayas respectively, as well as the newly-formed NIR. Mindanao is a little more difficult: we have some active/semi-active users like Acer Cyle from Zamboanga and Bonvallite from Sultan Kudarat, but many have also become inactive.

Take note that there are many factors as to why we don't have editors, and I don't think pinning this all on the chapter is the right thing to do. We have held events in Samar and Leyte within the last year, which we hope will help increase our visibility, and we are open to any and all suggestions you or anyone else in the community may have. We're looking towards pursuing projects in Bohol—Pinay06 and Namayan can explain better as to how that might take shape as they were the ones who represented WMPH in their meetings with officials in Bohol.

I am likewise disappointed that we don't have a lot of editors outside Metro Manila (and many of the editors that we did have in that region have since left, in concert with the general decline of the Wikimedia community since 2007-2008), and I think it is our responsibility as a community to do something about it. If any of you from the Visayas and Mindanao are reading this, please let us know how we in the community, and on my part Wikimedia Philippines as well, can best help you guys, and we will do all we can to help. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, why don't you come to Tacloban this Saturday. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from each other in answering this question. Jojit_fb is coming. :) --JinJian (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I'm still in Mexico, but I should try swinging by when I get the chance! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it's disappointing to think that Cebu City, having the biggest economy and the most number of BPOs and call centers in the PHL outside the GMA/GCR/Mega M, does not have too many residents going online to share with us the developments in their city. Btw, the Wikipedia takes Manila photography contest you did was effective, what started as photos became articles and our Manila buildings and structures category is now full of them. Maybe this is one way of generating interest from the southern community to start writing articles. Those other islands and cities in VisMin are welcome addition, but I would put Cebu City and Davao City as top priorities being our country's second and third population centers.--RioHondo (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted proposal on Run for Free Knowledge. The activity aims to promote primarily the English Wikipedia thru Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline as well as the Bikol Sentral Wikipedia project among the participants. There are public secondary and tertiary schools in the Bicol region that cannot afford broadband internet access for their researches. Also, there is lack of promotion of the local edition of Wikipedia, the Bikol Sentral Wikipedia project, inside and outside the academe.

If you think this project should be selected for an Individual Engagement Grant, please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project here. Other constructive feedback is welcome on the talk page of this proposal.

Also, please Like our Page in Facebook.

Thank you. --Filipinayzd (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Wikimedia Philippines has been around for five years now, and while the chapter has done great work towards advancing the movement in the Philippines, I think it's time to have a discussion as to what you think we should do for you guys. We've done a lot of work doing outreach to regional Wikimedia communities, but the English Wikipedia community here is the largest of all of them, and perhaps WMPH's projects may not be a suitable fit for English Wikipedia editors. Your input therefore is valuable.

This is why I'd like to ask what you guys think are things Wikimedia Philippines should do to help improve content on the English Wikipedia, help support Filipino English Wikipedia editors, and enable all of us to be more productive on the English Wikipedia. In short, what should Wikimedia Philippines do for you? We're open to all suggestions, so let us know what you think and let's shape the future of our chapter! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• How about lobbying and pressing the Philippine Congress to pass a Freedom of Panorama bill? :) Ive seen pics and entire albums deleted on Commons because of this. And i guess, closer coordination with the government agencies and providing them with seminars if you havent done so, as our articles would benefit a lot from their inputs, at least from their respective marketing/PR departments. We're sorely lacking in terms of government information dissemination and participation compared to other countrywiki projects, i think?--RioHondo (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We're working on it: WMPH through Namayan has been working on getting an IP lawyer to write a brief which we hope will say that despite the formal absence of freedom of panorama in Philippine copyright law, there is FoP in practice anyway. (It doesn't help that the IPO's opinion is that the law is silent and that the courts should decide.)

In addition, just as a heads-up to our many showbiz-related editors out there (ehem, Howard the Duck and WayKurat and Blakegripling ph), Markadan and I will be meeting with someone this Sunday pertaining to opening up entertainment archives for the use of Wikipedians in the Philippines. Would be great if we can organize monthly edit-a-thons that would involve using their material and improving Philippine showbiz articles, which we all know can use improvement. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Showbiz-related, eh? I don't really care much about the daily lives of local actors and actresses, let alone international ones save for a few; the main reason for cleaning them up is to keep fanboys and sock farms in check. As for whether I can make it to an edit-a-thon, I am honestly not sure about that, as I don't have the time or patience to come by. I'm willing to host one though. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's a good way to know who are the editors out there who edit those kinds of articles, find problems when they arise, and generally integrate a very important segment of the community into the wider community so that they know what kind of behavior we expect of them (no fanboying/fangirling, etc.).

On hosting: we'll let you know how this goes and hopefully, if we get the ball rolling on this, we'll ask you if you can host. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone check on this article and see if there was a good enough basis to merge Diego Silang and Gabriela Silang into one article? Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello board, please help translate the following from English into Tagalog:

• Please do not contribute text in Tagalog to English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Tagalog Wikipedia.

It will be used to create a template at Template:Notenglish.–– Gilliam (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, let me try.

Tagalog language: Ang inyong kontribusyon sa wikang Tagalog ay hindi angkop sa Wikipedyang Ingles. Mangyaring gamitin ang Wikipedyang Tagalog para sa inyong ambag na tekstong nasa wikang Tagalog.--RioHondo (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Please look over the template here: Template:Contrib-tl1 and make any adjustments you see fit. Regards– Gilliam (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess, Template:Notenglish is Padron:Hindi Ingles on Tagalog Wikipedia, eh? :) -- 李憲晉 - 리헌진 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How about my own translation in Tagalog, as well as in Kapampangan?

Tagalog language: Ang iyong ambag sa wikang Tagalog ay di-angkop sa Wikipedia Ingles. Mangyaring gamiting ang Wikipedia Tagalog para sa iyong ambag na sulatin sa wikang Tagalog.

Kapampangan language: Ing kekang ambag king amanung Kapampangan, e ya malyari king Wikipedia Ingles. Pakigamitan me ing Wikipedia Kapampangan ba kareng kekang ambag a makasulat king Amanung Kapampangan. -- 李憲晉 - 리헌진 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "iyong" vs. "inyong", don't they teach formal/polite pronouns in Filipino language classes anymore? There's even a more polite way to address a person in Tagalog: using third person plural, e.g, Ang kanilang kontribusyon ay... :) But "inyong" would suffice. I hope we bring back the polite nature of the language in our Tagalog Wikipedia.--RioHondo (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Leeheonjin's translation seems better, given as we're rooting for not resorting to loanwords or code-switching as much as possible, unlike those crappy dubs local stations air nowadays. :P Blake Gripling (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't speak Tagalog, so please feel free to edit the template directly at Template:Contrib-tl1. One request: Could the Tagalog-language text be wikified, like the other templates are at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages.– Gilliam (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to hit us up anytime if you need more translations.

Oh and, I have a thing against "purist Tagalistas" but that's a different topic for discussion. Why is there no "Wikipediang Filipino" by the way? (A Filipino language version of Wikipedia) :)--RioHondo (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's language committee believes that Tagalog and Filipino are similar enough that they can co-exist in a single Wikipedia. That said, since we have to work around that decision we need to make a middle ground where everyone's speech, "Tagalog" or "Filipino", "purist" or "universalist", are freely accepted with mutual respect within the framework of using formal, academic Tagalog/Filipino. I still have a lot of hope that the Tagalog Wikipedia will be that environment (and I actually have a proposal to downplay the "differences" between Tagalog and Filipino to make the project more palatable to academics and Filipino departments) despite some people thinking otherwise. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway now that you brought it up. If you ask me, if there was a need to merge these language projects, it should be at Filipino language, being the more "inclusive" language, and the language that more Filipinos are more comfortable with, the language taught in schools, and used in the media, in cities and even outside the Tagalog Region. It is the national language of course with its own Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. It's free of regionalistic and purist bias. After i don't know how many years of being the national official language (close to a century?), I don't know why it hasn't completely replaced Tagalog. It's like Spanish was for a time Castellano/Castilian, but now it's Español. Castellano is but an alternative name for it now, but the language, it's Español. Tagalog in its purist/regionalistic form is a thing for the library and old collections. I don't think anyone can claim to speak a la Francisco Balagtas these days on a daily basis, not even in the remotest Tagalog provinces and barangays. It's Filipino not Tagalog: It's Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas not Gitnang Impukan ng Pilipinas, it's Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino not Lupon sa Wikang Tagalog, it's Sentro Rizal not Gitnang Rizal or something. Anyway, a review of this decision by your language committee is much appreciated. And I would also appreciate if WMPH also coordinate with the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino on how we can promote our national language which is Filipino.--RioHondo (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, check out Google.com.ph. At least Google knows what its doing with its options for Filipino and Cebuano versions. IMHO, it is our duty as citizens to promote Filipino over Tagalog, especially in a learning portal like Wikipedia. I mean come to think of it, why do our regional language projects like Cebuano and Waray have so much more articles and edits compared to the supposedly national language? I'm thinking this purist exclusivity of Tagalog could be a main reason. So again, there needs to be a serious review and discussion on this outdated language policy which chooses Castellano over Español, or Malay language(Johore-Riau Malay) over Malaysian language, or Riau Malay over Bahasa Indonesia.--RioHondo (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting RioHondo's proposal. --carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the data shows that save for actual article numbers (where Cebuano and Waray take the lead thanks to bot-generated articles), the Tagalog Wikipedia has a commanding lead over all other Wikipedias. 13-14% of Wikipedia traffic in the Philippines goes to the Tagalog Wikipedia (and this is up from what used to only be 1% a few years ago), and the Tagalog Wikipedia has more edits, page views and actual Wikipedians compared to everywhere else, so I'm inclined to believe that people will still go there regardless. (In addition, the language committee's decision is partially based on ISO 639 codes. Tagalog has an ISO 639-1 code which gives it primacy; Filipino doesn't.)

That said, this whole "regionalism" debate isn't healthy, and at the same time, we need to bring Wikipedians of all shades into the fold. I don't understand why is it that we have to demonize one side or the other as if their existence on the Tagalog Wikipedia is to be treated as anathema, when we're all supposed to work together for the greater good. There should always be a place for Tagalog/Filipino language enthusiasts of all dispositions on our project, and it's our responsibility to foster that open, welcoming environment. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment If there is disagreement over whether the Tagalog or Filipino dialect should be included, I recomend including both on Template:Contrib-tl1. See Template:Contrib-pa1, Template:Contrib-sr1 for examples of how two dialects and/or writing systems go together.– Gilliam (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue on the ISO 639 codes. From what I gathered, the two languages Tagalog and Filipino are given two distinct codes, which means they are taken as two different languages. Is that right? Although linguistically speaking, we know the two are very similar and maybe even the same language, but officially they are considered distinct from one another with different codes. Does this mean then that there really is no basis to merge the two as your language committee decided? And that Filipino can have its own language project separate from Tagalog?--RioHondo (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cos if you look at Castilian, it has the same code as Spanish/Español. Now I don't know what has gotten into the head of the KWF official who submitted the ISO application for Filipino language as separate from Tagalog. But now that that is the case, I think Filipino language has to stand on its own and become a full fledged language with its own project.--RioHondo (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, this has nothing to do with intra-regional conflict or animosity (I am a Tagalog), but thinking more in nationalist terms and seeing where one is different from the other. And yes, not too many Filipinos are familiar with the Tagalog being described in purist terms, but every Filipino can speak Filipino. (The crappy type you hear in the local media). :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Draft:Mel Senen Sarmiento. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This person is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, so he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. That being said the article needs far better sources... –HTD 21:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed? Congrats Sky Harbor for a job well done. -Filipinayzd (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the difference between Tagalog and Filipino couldn't be more apparent as soon as you start reading through that Wikipedia version.

For example, this stub note in Tagalog:

Ang lathalaing ito na tungkol sa Pilipinas ay isang usbong. Makatutulong ka sa Wikipedia sa pagpalalawig nito.

How many Filipinos know what usbong, lathalain and pagpapalawig mean?

In Filipino, this should be easier read as:

Ang artikulong ito na tungkol sa Pilipinas ay isang burador o panimulang sulat. Makatutulong ka sa Wikipedia sa pagpapalawak nito.

So, as a followup to our earlier discussion, does anyone else here feels that Filipino, our national official language, should be given its own Wiki Language Project, separate from Wikipediang Tagalog? :) Congrats tho. And Maligayang Buwan ng Wikang Filipino to all, both Tagalog and non-Tagalog editors.--RioHondo (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be like coming up with a separate British English Wikipedia, or something like that? Blake Gripling (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It could be. But officially, and based on the individual ISO codes, Filipino is not a dialect of Tagalog. It is by law a separate language, a product of a government language engineering program based on all Philippine languages. At least that's what is known officially. Hence, Tagalog is tl and Filipino is fil, not tl-fil (which it should if it was a dialect like en and en-us / en-uk for English (American or British).--RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad idea. There are already too few contributors at tl:wp (since the overwhelming majority of Filipino editors contribute only in English). This would dilute it even more. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, i think it would be the reverse. I think it may even benefit the Tagalog WP with the amount of traffic that a Filipino WP would generate, considering most Filipinos are more confident and familiar with it. (Again, officially Filipino is a distinct language not a dialect). You know I am a Tagalog, but even I myself find Tagalog Wikipedia like Latin sometimes with the peculiar and kinda old poetic words they use. :) --RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, what I see happening then is that most Tagalog editors would merely move over to Filipino WP and the Tagalog WP would see no or little activity. It may be better to replace it then... P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You still have your little Balagtases and purist regional Tagalistas, and I don't think they're going anywhere. Anyway, true story. I was kind of an active anon contributor in Tagalog WP back in the mid 2000s when Tagalog WP was just starting. I did some translations from the English WP to the country and province articles in Tagalog. I stopped contributing when I found all my edits were reverted or changed altogether because of grammar or word choice. This is the kind of things that turn people away from that side of WP. And so it is my hope that a Filipino WP would be that all inclusive venue for Filipino contributors where your edits are judged by their academic merits not grammar or vocabulary. A venue where we can write confidently in our language, the national official language which should be number one in our priority. We can leave the Tagalog WP to the regional Tagalog editors (the old poetic type).--RioHondo (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good writer in either language. So I put in technical content using whichever words come to me, sometimes more Tagalog than Filipino, sometimes more Filipino than Tagalog. I just keep my fingers crossed that someone will improve the grammar later. I'm sharing that because in the context of this discussion, I want to raise the question of whether contributors like me should be encouraged, and if so, how? - Alternativity (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Tagalog Wikipedia editors write in Filipino anyway (legally defined as Tagalog spoken in Manila and other urban centers), so I don't see how a "rebranding" of sorts will make matters any better except if it were to make it easier for us to pursue partnerships with Filipino departments at institutions of higher education. That being said, we have to recognize here that we are not linguists, and it is not our place to describe the "differences", existing or otherwise, between Tagalog and Filipino. This is a discussion that we've had on and off for the last ten years now, and I doubt anything will change as a result of it. (The linguistic consensus, as in consensus by linguists, is that Tagalog and Filipino are the same language, regardless of what the political consensus is. The ISO codes were born of a political consensus, not a linguistic one. Until that changes, there will be no Filipino Wikipedia.)

I am likewise half-Tagalog (and from Marinduque at that; the other half is Cebuano), but that said, at the same time I think it is both our responsibility and our duty to uphold the standards for proper academic writing in Philippine languages. Teachers still discourage the active use of English words in formal Filipino-language academic writing, so if the complaint is that the words are too "deep" (a malapropism, mind you, according to Rolando S. Tinio, since it's only in this context that we're complaining about how hard it is to understand formal Tagalog/Filipino when formal English absolutely baffles most Filipinos), then we can certainly fix that. Remember that the aim of Wikipedia is to be an academic encyclopedia, written in a formal style. If you were to have a Filipino teacher read a Tagalog Wikipedia article, he/she would probably not say anything about it.

It has always been the aim of the Tagalog Wikipedia to be inclusive of the entire politico-linguistic consensus, whether you write differently or you think Tagalog and Filipino are the same or vice-versa. As it was pointed out earlier, the community is already very small as it is (I can count with my fingers the number of super-active Tagalog Wikipedia editors compared to here), and it would be unconscionable to consider splitting the project into two when there wouldn't be enough people to go around between both languages. I already have very strong reservations about the level of demonization being put on both sides, as if only their side deserves to be the only one that represents the Tagalog Wikipedia (and often, this accusation comes more from those who are more "pro-Filipino", who often accuse those who lean more purist of damaging the project and reverting their edits in the process), and this does nothing for the welfare of editors who are caught in the middle.

If you are discouraged in any way by editing the Tagalog Wikipedia, please consider editing anyway. Your edits are welcome no matter what they look like. But I cannot, will not, and will never support, splitting a community simply because of a question like this. (I might as well ask Christopher Sundita, the community's resident linguist, to pitch in on this discussion as well when he finds the time.) -Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This from the Tagalog WP Main page:

Maligayang pagdating sa Wikipedia, ang malayang ensiklopediang maaaring pamatnugutan ninuman.

Nobody speaks like that in Manila where I live. Actually, I have not heard this word pamatnugutan in my life, and I am a Tagalog. The Filipino instead might say:

Maligayang pagdating sa Wikipedia, ang malayang encyclopediang pwedeng i-edit ng kahit sino.

Yes, bring out some of those English and Spanish loan words the way it is naturally spoken everyday. I am saying Filipino is different from Tagalog. I don't care about the politics behind them or the rift between those two eventhough you keep bringing them up. I am just saying the Tagalog used in Tagalog WP is the regional variety that not too many Filipinos know. Because the language that most Filipinos speak is Filipino not Tagalog. The language used in the media, in telenovelas, etc. not those pamatnugutan by old Tagalog poets that only people from old Batangas and old Bulacan know. IMO The difference is comparable to Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia. Same roots and grammar, different vocabulary. And again, Filipino is fil, not tl-fil nor tl-ph. We are no linguists and that's precisely why I think a Filipino WP is essential, to preserve the linguistic rules of Tagalog by having a venue where we don't have to think and write in their own linguistic terms, and just be naturally different as Filipino language, our language, really is. :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You said in the previous conversation that the Tagalog/Filipino spoken on the street is Taglish. I don't think Taglish is particularly appropriate for an academic encyclopedia, and it would be laughable for us to even resort to using Taglish when there are perfectly good Tagalog/Filipino equivalents, borrowed, calqued or native, that we can use.

The reason why I bring up politics is because to really understand the debate between Tagalog and Filipino, understanding the politics behind their formation is important. Not everything that Virgilio S. Almario says, for one, can be believed hook, line and sinker. Malay and Indonesian are different because they encompass different cultural spheres and were countries colonized by different colonial powers, naturally resulting in a divergence between the two languages. The differences aren't just in terms of vocabulary—they also encompass pronunciation, spelling and idiom, and Malay and Indonesian are not always mutually intelligible to those who speak the other language.

That's not the case with Filipino: a language born of the Congress of the Philippines and Quezon's aspirations for a native national language, and to which the KWF claims the differences are that Filipino is more accepting of borrowings and it has more letters. Tagalog has been borrowing for thousands of years, and now because Filipino is around the consensus is that it can't borrow? Prior to the birth of the "wikang pambansang batay sa Tagalog" in 1939, Tagalog had already been borrowing from other languages, including Spanish and English (e.g. the word for "flashlight" is plaslayt, borrowed from English). Now, suddenly, it can't, because only Filipino can? Words like vugi (fish eggs), kalaniyog (eggwhite) and xappo (bell pepper) aren't even used in "normal" Filipino, but the KWF claims they're Filipino words, so we should start using those? When you go out on the street, Tagalog and Filipino are generally conflated to be the same language, so what then are you talking about? Even the sambayanang Pilipino (especially non-Tagalogs) thinks Filipino and Tagalog are essentially the same language, contrary to your claims.

In addition, the general consensus on the Tagalog Wikipedia is that we're all writing in Filipino anyway, so I don't see how your argument that we're all writing in "regional Tagalog" carries any weight (and, on that point, I live in Manila). It's not our fault if your Filipino language instruction happens to be less effective than ours and you're unable to understand more formal Filipino, as you should've also been taught the same corpus of Filipino-language texts in high school (e.g. Florante at Laura, written by the author you just derided) as we were. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, from the look of it, it's like youve already had this discussion or debate in the past. :) I didn't say Filipino was Taglish. There is a huge difference between the way any normal filipino (President Noynoy Aquino for example in his SONAs and speeches) speaks, and how people like his sister Kris Aquino do it. You know what Im talking about. Filipino is minimal English/Spanish, while Taglish is so very Kris Aquino already. Lol.

Forget the politics between the two languages for a second. And let's say the two languages are the same or a dialect of one another. Don't we have Wiki Language Projects here that are dialects too? For example, there's the Dutch Wikipedia and then there's the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia. We have the Arabic Wikipedia, and then there is also the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible and are standardized variants of the same language, but they have separate Wiki Language Projects also. If my English wasn't good enough, i'd probably go and contribute at the Simple English Wikipedia instead. I'm sure that side of WP isn't all academic.

So what is preventing us from having our own Filipino Wikipedia then? :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, someone converted almost all the names from long names to short names at First Spouse of the Philippines -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone just created an article for Eat Bulaga's "Kalye serye" (aka YayaDub series). I'm aware at the pair's popularity, but with maybe half or most of the sources coming from GMA-affiliated sources and the nature of the "series", I'm not exactly convinced that it should have a separate article and at the most information could be merged to the articles on Eat Bulaga and Alden Richards. I'm thinking of nominating the article for deletion but given the existence of sources I'm asking for second opinions here before doing so. Should I still nominate the article for deletion? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: The article has been tagged for speedy deletion as A10. An article at AlDub however still exists, which I find weird given that we don't have separate articles for other love teams such as KathNiel. The question stands. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's sufficiently sourced and deemed notable then why not? We actually have er... precedence --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Imelda Marcos article has been undergoing many changes over the last month, since July, you may be interested. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled across Jose Roy by chance and noticed it was in pretty bad shape (see [1]), so I decided to try and clean it up a bit. I think it's a little better now then it was, but there's still quite a lot to do. In particular, the article still needs some better sourcing. I tried to find what I could by Googling, but was only able to get so far. Since Roy seems to be have played an important role in Philippine politics from 1946-1973 or so, I imagine there are probably quite a number of non-English sources that could be used in the article. I think this article is one that falls under the scope of this Wikiproject, so I was wondering if someone could take a look at it and possibly assess it or revise it as needed. I know almost nothing about Philippine history or politics and basically was trying to work with the text that was already in the article, so someone more familiar with the subject matter might be able to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I initiated a move discussion at Talk:Kapampangan language#Requested move 2 September 2015 to use its English name: Pampango language. Similar to Ilocano language (moved from Ilokano language), there should be a conscious effort in our project to properly distinguish between English and local, the F and the P. Comment if you are interested. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pilipinas as indigenized form of Filipinas -Filipinayzd (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good observation. But I was referring more to the names of ethnologuistic groups and their languages, where F (Filipino) is the common English spelling for the people of the Philippines and their national language, not P (Pilipino). The C is common for Ilocano in English, not K. But I understand that since we are all accustomed to using Taglish that we tend to forget which term or spelling we're using, if its English or our local language. Unless the local term has become more commonly used in English, we should stick to using English terms where available (and as they appear in reliable sources), like Pampango language which is by far more common in English than the local K, and V not B for Visayan people and language.--RioHondo (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Sambali language#Requested move 2 September 2015.--RioHondo (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! For those who are planning to edit on Latin Wikipedia (Vicipaedia), I have translated some of the contents if one still wishes to see basic instructions in Tagalog. Here are some listed below:

• la:Vicipaedia:Ops nexusque usoribus novis/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:A est B/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:Noli fingere/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:De orthographia/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:De Latinitate/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:De orthographia/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:Translitteratio/tl
• la:Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis/tl

I hope to see some of you guys very soon! -- 李憲晉 - 리헌진 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This section at the Tambayan's Project Page seems to be broken. Any ideas why? --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

According to what I was told by MediaWiki when I took a look at it, it seems that the page that holds all the new article alerts is now too big to be transcluded. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess clicking the link should suffice for now --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time to help fix this, but there seems to be a massive movement the names of history articles to use the term "middle ages." For example, Barangay (pre-colonial) to Barangay (Middle ages). This is alarming, and I must protest. The term pre-colonial might not be perfect, and I've been wanting to find some way to change it to be more inclusive (the term "pre-colonial" becomes problematic when you consider Moro and Cordillera history), but my understanding is that "middle ages" is entirely without context as far as Philippine history goes, and/or will make western readers associate its context with a European historical period which does not reflect the nuance of the Philippine situation. Also, I must objecct to the category " History of the Philippines (Prehistory until the Middle ages)" as it presents the early History of the Philippines (1521–1571) as prehistory. There's a difference between history and prehistory, and the category undermines the cultural significance of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and other early-historic Philippine articles. As I said, I would normally undo all this myself, but I don't have time. This middle-ages thing is perpetuating a massive historical inaccuracy. HELP!) - Alternativity (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is not the first time the user have been disruptive with his page moves and unexplained edits. See "Diego and Gabriela Silang" and Tagalog/Tagalog language. Kindly report this user:Shhhhwwww!!!! to ANI.--RioHondo (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• "Middle Ages" refers to the era in between the Classical period and the Modern period also known as the postclassical period. It has nothing to do with Europe. The problem is there is no official name for that era and Using the term "pre-colonial" is offensive to Moros and Indigenous Filipinos. "Post-classical" is just too long and presumes there was a "classical" era in Philippine History which we don't know. There is no term better or worse. "Middle ages" is merely a placeholder until somebody comes up with a better word. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

* To quote the "Middle Ages" wiki page,

"In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery.The Middle Ages is the middle period of the three traditional divisions of Western history: Antiquity, Medieval period, and Modern period."

The term, unless otherwise specified, is precisely specific to the European context because it's a reference to their post-classical period, the application of which to Philippine history, as you pointed out, would be presumptuous.- Alternativity (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Use Pre-colonial, colonial period, etc. per WP:COMMONNAME. Denying the existence and wide usage of those terms for historical periods in the Philippines and using other unheard of phrases or terms is tantamount to WP:OR. Revisionist historians/propagandists have no place in Wikipedia. I don't believe those are offensive to Moros and Cordillerans considering both nations also were subjugated by the Spanish (and Americans) albeit at a later century. See histories of the Cordillera Administrative Region and Sulu, Jolo and Maguindanao to see exactly what I'm saying. This is the history of the Philippines, a country that is a product of King Philip, of colonialism. Like America and Columbus/Amerigo Vespucci. And there is no changing the name nor that fact. If the US/Americas has Pre-colonial / Pre-Columbian era, we too have Pre-colonial or Pre-Spanish era.--RioHondo (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A further suggestion: I've seen a number of anthropology and archeology texts refer to the 900-1521 period as "Early Historic", which seems to be the most neutral statement to me. Perhaps that's usable if we want to avoid the use of the term "Pre-Colonial", although the use of the term is not universal as far as I'm aware. - Alternativity (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• We need to avoid inflaming the nationalists so the term "colonial" should be avoided. I'm good with "Early history". Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not for us to decide. We only follow WP:RS here, a basic WP rule, so your WP:POV or whoever else's don't matter, especially not coming from rebels/revisionist "historians".--RioHondo (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Alternativity, if the majority of RS use pre-colonial, then we follow them. That's what everyone who's ever studied Philippine history knows, not this Philippine "middle ages" or "early historic." We should only do mainstream history here, as WP:RS = mainstream.--RioHondo (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• The problem with the term "colonial" is that it goes against WP:Worldwide view. People who object to the term are marginalized and may not have the resources to be published. WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy so even of there are objections, their points of view still need to be recognized. Using the word "colonial" has a very Eurocentric tilt in the perspective of history. There needs to be a balance for those who disagree wit that term. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• I wish the term "pre-Magellanic" (or "pre-Legazpi") was predominantly used a la "pre-Columbian". The mainstream "Pre-Spanish era" is one too many words/too long. I object to the use of "Middle Ages" as that's a Eurocentric term. –HTD 20:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, "pre-Magellan" could be even more recognizable than any of those suggested. Im sure those suggesting to avoid using the term colonial only represent a minority. The main consideration here is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY based on RS. It's always been.--RioHondo (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Huhm. @RioHondo, I think I shall concede to your point WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for now. I shall study the case more, but I think you are probably right in indicating that these are the applicable wikipolicies. My interest is more academic than ideological, as this perpetuates a number of misconceptions about the early states established in the archipelago. But I recognize the importance of upholding WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. - Alternativity (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

* For the record, though, I equally object to "Middle Ages" as being Eurocentric. Note that I was one of the first to bring the issue up in the first place. My suggestion of "Early Historic" reflects a trend I've seen in RS after the '90s, which is when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found. - Alternativity (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to the note: This really depends on how you define "relibable" in the case of RS. I think the shift in term usage has reached a point where it's more dominant in primary (journals and theses, particularly in anthro-oriented fields) and grey (papers and lectures) literature, but because of cultural intertia, secondary literature (textbooks and some government texts) hasn't caught up yet. Main reason why I'm conceding to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, I don't think there's actual academic agreement on the precise term yet. - Alternativity (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

* Also, as a contribution to the above argument, I'd like to point out that Eurocentrism, while indeed an issue, isn't as big a problem here as is Manilacentrism- Alternativity (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it hasn't caught up yet. So, can we revert to the old recognizable labels for our historical periods please? Prehistory, Pre-colonial, Spanish colonial, American colonial, and years. See US template as guide. (Unless someone can come up with other recognizable terms for those historical periods, i think the US template is a close match and is neutral, straight to the point, and unromanticized/no drama). {{History of the Philippines}} {{History of the United States}}--RioHondo (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I was about to do that, and then I realized, the originals were just "History of the Philippines (Year-Year)". May I request comment on why that's objectionable? (I suspect reasons, but I want to have an articulation so that I can cite it in the edit history and talk page) - Alternativity (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the usual names: Prehistory, Classical, Spanish, American, Independence. I'd have to admit "Classical" era (recorded history before the Europeans arrived) was a "new" term for me, but at least it sorta made sense... unlike "Middle Ages" which is never used outside Europe and perhaps North Africa/Middle East. –HTD 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Whose classical period? The only legit definition of classical era in Wikipedia is that of classical antiquity within the Greco-Roman world which is again, eurocentric, and which was never used outside of Europe and Middle East/North Africa. Do we have RS to back up this definition of Philippine classical period inserted in 2014 by an already blocked suckpuppetteer? Or is it all WP:OR, part of a revisionist agenda?--RioHondo (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Our" classical period? FWIW, aside from sheer laziness, the reason why I didn't object to "Classical" was that I thought it was used elsewhere. –HTD 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In my view, it is better if we just use years rather than labels that tend to offend any one side of the narrative. Take for example the use of "modern." Until today, modern is still modern. How modern is modern? How early is early? Another thing of note is, how contemporary is contemporary? In five or ten years time, our "contemporary" would have had moved from 1986 to, say, 1992? The last thing I want to see is a postmodern label, which assumes there was a premodern era. Nothing comes after it. And come to think of it, a "classical" era? How come you had a golden age even before falling apart? This seems a nationalist viewpoint. A golden age to look back and regain. Not that I am not a nationalist. I may be as nationalist as any of you can be, or perhaps even greater. Who can say? But, what have our "classical" era produced? Any renowned scientist or artist from that era? Even Panday Pira is no longer of the "classical" era. How can one regain what is not lost anyway? Then again, Wikipedia is a supposed to be a neutral arena. Let us make it as neutral as it can be. You may not agree with me, but even historians in the past had problems with labels. That is why I do not prefer it. Have you heard of "Rediscovery of the Philippines" or perhaps "The Moro Wars"? If labels are indeed necessary, provide the most neutral labels. Arius1998 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, using years instead of labels or descriptions doesn't make it any more neutral or "politically sensitive" or whatever. Cos why begin in 1521? Why don't we just cover history per centuries. Like instead of 1521, let's start from 1600-1899. And before that: Pre-800, 800-1199, 1200-1599, etc. Lets do it per 4 centuries, if we really want to avoid using labels that "offend minorities" (whatever that means). However you try to mask history to suit your agenda, history is still history. Our story doesn't change.--RioHondo (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Centuries are still years, right? Arius1998 (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, and i was giving an example on how using years as labels does not cover the fact that we are still basing our historical periods on those you are trying to hide. Imagine if it was done per centuries as in my example, your narratives would be nothing more than just a timeline of mixed and unrelated topics and events from those years.--RioHondo (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Common people talk of the periods in terms of labels not years -- the Spanish Colonial Era, the American Colonial Era, Independence, Martial Law, etc. -- and so we should use common labels, not years. People will come to Wikipedia because they heard a reference to, say, the "American Colonial Period" at a party or on the TV and are looking for an explanation. Therefore labels are better. But there is a problem with the label "classical". Is it used by the general public? How often does the Inquirer or the noon-time shows refer to the "classical era"? Is it a common label? It is also clearly associated with Ancient Greek and Roman, especially Greek. See Neoclassical. And not with other historical Ancient European civilizations such as Egyptians, Persians, Vikings, Israel, Celts, etc. Lastly "classical" is not neutral. Ancient Greece and Rome were called "classical" because they were thought to be superior, classier, "of the highest rank", unlike those other Ancient civilizations, let alone those of the Dark Ages. Think Classical Music. See Etymoline, here. Wikipedia is not the place to try to change how people classify and label historical epochs. We are merely an encyclopedia. We are to summarize the historiography developed elsewhere, not participate in the discussion. We should use "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Era", "American Era", "Independence", etc. because that is at present how Philippine history is commonly divided and commonly labeled, even if historians are moving in a different direction. Years and "classic" are not common. Whether these terms are eurocentric, offensive or inaccurate is a debate to be had elsewhere. We just summarize the common, popular conventional historiography. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iloilo Wanderer, I couldnt have said it better. It's like when you discuss history to someone who's not an expert on the Philippines, or even to a Pinoy kid who's only beginning to learn history, do you narrate it in years? Or do you say sa panahon ng (insert historical period here). E.g, you say "sa panahon ng Kastila", "Panahon ng Amerikano", "panahon bago dumating ang Kastila" etc. There goes your WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Those who are offended by the truth, are simply in denial or have an agenda to perpetuate a false sense of nationalism for their own political ambition (i.e., secessionism).--RioHondo (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• The terms Prehistory, (blank), Early modern period, Late modern period, and Contemporary history are based on how World history is organized in general. The terms did not come out of a magic hat. Admittedly, using "Middle Ages" was ill-advised but the rest are fine. The use of "colonial" names colour the articles in a particular way that may be offensive to some minority groups. Though they may not be mainstream, their views are just as valid because of the concept of WP:NEUTRALity, which prevents a tyranny of the majority. Particularly giving the "American period" WP:UNDUE weight is a bit unbalanced since it only lasted for less than 50 years as opposed to the "Spanish period", which lasted for over 300. Framing the article based on how world history is perceived in general avoids any political colour. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup, he is our candidate. Person fits the profile. Funny how someone who is actively promoting using WP:COMMONNAME based on RS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other wikipolicies in all his RM requests would come here to introduce changes Against those same wikipolicies he loves to banner elsewhere. Your world view is Greek to 99% of our readers of Philippine history. And please, there is no political colour here until YOU mentioned there is. If there's anyone with a greater and more personal interest in this topic, it is only you. You need to learn to separate your political orientation from your newfound org from your work as a WP editor which is to only mirror what is common and what is recognizable for all.--RioHondo (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • We don't apply how the Europeans divide their history to ours. We apply how the Philippines divides its history. See for example Template:History of Indonesia or Template:History of China which don't use the Western divisions of Early/modern/post/contemporary. We use how mainstream historians divide history into eras, and how they are named. I haven't seen a history book that groups the swath of time from the British invasion to People Power into one "chapter". And the usage of 1762 as the demarcation is quite arbitrary; most historians divide the Spanish era into "controlled from Mexico" (1565-1821) to "controlled from Spain" (1821-98). The British invasion didn't change things a lot. –HTD 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• India and Iran (among others) both use the universal subtitles for history currently used for the Philippines, both have issues with colonial powers, and both are non-Western countries. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Template:History of India is not divided this way, while Template:History of Iran... AFAIK, Iran has never been subjugated by colonizers, but sure there were "issues", and both are within the Indo-European sphere. Whether or not these countries use these divisions is immaterial, though. What matters is how the history of Philippines is divided and labeled by mainstream historians. It's not divided and labeled this way. No one (and by "no one" meaning it's not mainstream) groups the British occupation of Manila and the People Power Revolution under "Early modern period of Philippine history".
  • There could be a discussion in the History of the Philippines article though on how history is divided and labeled, including the mainstream use and uses by other historians, with the note that "in the rest of Wikipedia, we'd use how mainstream historians do it". –HTD 21:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• The template used by mainstream historians is already visible in the History of the Philippines article with "Spanish colonial" and "American colonial" subsections. That isn't as necessary in the main country article because it should have a condensed version of history that avoids political bias which may cause edit wars. The British invasion is not important because of its impact in itself but the impact of the event that coincided with it i.e. the Silang revolt of Diego and Gabriela Silang. This is one of the more important revolts that inspired the Philippine Revolution. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the definition of "neutrality" in WP:NEUTRAL: "...neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." For the purposes of this issue, the two key phrases are "reliable sources" and "proportionately". First, what do reliable sources use? In my reading, the sources universally use "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Colonial", "American Colonial", and "Independence", or some version of those tags. What sources are others looking at? What sources use the other phrases mentioned? Second, what proportion of the sources use what titles? Proportion is explained in WP:Neutral as: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." So a minority view -- say using "classical" or "early modern" -- should be given a minority weight in proportion to its preponderance and if the minority view is significantly less, no weight at all. Neutrality in Wiki-land does not mean treating all viewpoints equally. It means reporting fairly viewpoints in proportion to their influence without concern about whether doing so furthers any other agenda, including not liking the way mainstream sources color history, including avoiding offense, and including trying to provide the right balance. Wikipedia does not take sides in such disputes. Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say in proportion regardless of whether the sources color history, offend, or are unbalanced. If one wants to debate color, offense or balance, bring it up with the sources. We just say what the sources say in proportion, and yes that means that the majority view takes precedence. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There goes that word again. Political Bias? Edit wars? Is that what you have been smoking on campus after class? I see they're actively recruiting Pinoy students again. So what happened after Diego and Gabriela Silang inspired the revolution? Please do tell. I am hearing all of this for the first time really.--RioHondo (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks btw for moving this article on the Southeast Asian country from Burma to Myanmar following WP:COMMONNAME based on WP:RS. It only means Europe or Britain does not dictate on how countries and related articles should be named. Now, stop being a hypocrite and do the same for our articles you have disrupted boy.--RioHondo (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iloilo Wanderer, please see History of the Philippines. That version there is the same as stated. (Except, perhaps, the term "Independence", which both the Philippine government and the U.S.State Department agree happened on June 12, 1898. This issue is what should be avoided since Filipinos don'the seem to agree when it happened even though the holiday happens every year. The fact is the "American colonial period" is very problematic if included in the main article.)

Can the URLs to the relevant statements from the US State Dept. and the Phil. Gov. be provided?--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@RioHondo, I didn't say that the Silangs directly inspired the Revolution but their efforts did have a lasting impact for them to be remembered up to now. Ilokanos did form a significant portion of Aguinaldo's army and his final stronghold was in Tirad Pass having conquered Luzon before the Americans. The British invasion delineates the Revolutionary era of Philippine history which may have been affected by Mexico's independence. Whichever of the two is more important is a chicken and egg thing but the point is both were a byproduct of the late modern era. I do not understand your last comment. I don't live in the Philippines. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The "American colonial era" screws the whole thing actually. Apart from the fact that it is so short (48 years) compared to the other eras (for example "Early history", 621 years), it is also the most politically loaded. Even Americans themselves what nothing to do with it, like say Mark Twain or in the current era, Bernie Sanders. It is given more focus than what is proportional. The use of the word "Independence" after 1946 also creates controversy to the point that the Philippine government, Filipino Americans in New York, and the State Department seem to do a Pontius Pilate on the issue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly there should be a consistency across all the articles on the History of the Philippines and the template and it should be based upon what third party reliable sources say. It was consistent. For years. And it recently has been changed. I am still waiting to see a list of URLs and other citations for the reliable, third-party sources demonstrating that there has occurred a significant change among the public discussion. I still hear and read "American colonial era" all the time, for instance [here http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/669999/learn-from-history-islamic-studies-expert-tells-lawmakers] is an article in the Inquirer in February 2015 which says, "Wadi observed that from the American colonial era to the present..." and [another http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/151910/el-hogar-to-be-torn-down] from Feb. 2014, "The iconic building of El Hogar, one of Manila’s remaining American-colonial era landmarks..." and [another http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/86273/dot-building-to-be-transformed-into-museum-of-natural-history] from January 2013, "The three heritage buildings, all in Neoclassical style, dating from pre-World War II American colonial era...". The discussion of the length of the period and the political loading of the term is not relevant to our consideration here. We should only look at what the reliable third-party sources say. We should not replace their judgement with ours. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Iloilo Wanderer, the "American period" has two subsections in History of the Philippines so why the objection? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Shhhhwwww!!, I don't understand your question. What do you think that I am objecting to? I am arguing in favor of going back to the status quo ante of following the mainstream historigraphy of "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Era", "American Era", and "Independence" instead of maintaining the recent change to "early mondern", "late mondern", "contemporary", etc. across all the relevant articles and Wikipedia templates.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection to the so-called "American colonial era" on the mere basis of number of years. Let's ignore the name for a moment. Let me argue that that time-period should somehow be marked. Because that time-period marked a clearly defined gestalt of events, thought patterns, etc. Because the beginning and end of that era marks major conceptual turning points in our government, jurisprudence, economy, educational system etc. Turning points disputed by no historian. That's why there's an eagle beside the lion on our great seal - an inherent recognition that these countries (and their eras of influence) contributed significantly to the formation of the Philippine nation. If there's any aberation I can think of, it's actually WW2. Which took our government in a radically different direction for three years, only to have many of the old directions restored after the war (albeit set back in a big way, development wise).- Alternativity (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Some student doing homework or paper for his history class might get a D for copying wrong information posted on WP, and that's what worries me more than anything here. Seeing as only one person has issues with reliable sources, may I ask that we resolve this thing ASAP? Thanks. To the dissenter, take your grievances to other more appropriate fora. Or to the streets with your usual US-Aquino imperialism banners.--RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, the red baiting has to stop. Their views are just as valid as the rest of them. Second, @Alternativity, the focus and attention the "American colonial period" gets is disproportionate to its importance. The Spanish has a far more significant impact yet it doesn't get as much attention as the Americans do. The impact of the Americans on law, culture, and the economy has more to do with globalization that actual colonization because Spain and Mexico are just as Americanized as the Philippines is. As long as it is mentioned as a subsection, the vultures continue to gather and fight over a carcass. The complete contents are still in the Philippines article it's just the title that isn't. The full subsection is in the History of the Philippines, though so the objections are puzzling.
    • Their views? At least cite a pamphlet or notebook where this is all written, cos so far everything we hear from you is WP:OR. Cite your sources and we'll tell you if it is reliable. FYI This revisionist propagandist campaign and historical politicizing on your part is a serious violation of our wikirules. Especially when advancing outside interests is more important for you than advancing the aims of WP for mainstream historiographies and WP:RS based writing.--RioHondo (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, I am totally going to have to challenge the assertion that "The impact of the Americans on law, culture, and the economy has more to do with globalization that actual colonization because Spain and Mexico are just as Americanized as the Philippines is." First, as pointed out earlier, the assertion needs to be supported by sources. Second, you can't argue that the American Period was "globalization" while the Spanish period wasn't. The galleon trade was a major touchstone of globalization. You might as well just lump the entire colonial period and call it "globalization"... and leave us with categories so general/broad they're contextless/meaningless in context. (Or is that the kind of "neutrality" you're aiming for?). Third, this is local history, which needs to be defined by local events, not by broad global categories. The American period saw the Philippines experience globalization under American administration, marking a distinct period of changes/events/experiences in a particular direction. I can't see how you can argue against its significance to the local experience of history (aka Local History/"National" History. - Alternativity (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• On one hand, I concur with the desire to conclude this as soon as possible since the revisionism is getting frustrating. On the other hand, I want some of these issues settled definitively and want to see a policy statement so we don't keep arguing about these things. I at the fact that the idea of imposing broad World History categories to Local History has been brought up, because that's the kind of thing that starts edit wars that spoil perfectly good articles. Can it please be pointed out somewhere that the topic in question here is Philippine history, and that when you discuss Philippine history, you automatically make the Philippines your point of reference. That is to say, Philippine history is defined by events that shaped the Philippines. To define this local history by the broad categories used by world history (or even regional history) would literally involve forcing historical, geographical, cultural, and civic realities into artificial conceptual categories. As for periodization, given that there's ALWAYS going to be room for debate (some arbitrariness is part of the very nature of periodization), I feel it would be good to have some stated core principles. - Alternativity (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have major beef at this point with the term "modern" as it does not describe events, and lacks the necessary context to be meaningful. "Modern" relative to what? And defined by what characteristics? Pinned down to a specific point of history on the basis of what shared experiences? "Contemporary" is an acceptable placeholder because the period it describes hasn't ended and therefore can't be clearly defined yet. But "Modern" is just vagueness for the sake of vagueness. - Alternativity (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• I will just pipe in to say that Iloilo Wanderer has provided the best arguments with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is a tertiary resource. It is not a battleground for ideologies. We follow what mainstream historiographical sources do. And if "colonial" is really objectionable, I think "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish era/period", and "American era/period" are acceptable. —seav (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Alternativity is right to suggest that we go back to Wikipedia's core principles to decide of periodization. The core principle is reliable, third party sources. It is NOT UP TO US to decide on periodization. Wikipedia policies are clear; we adopt the prevailing practice. We have no choice, per Wikipedia policy. We cannot go against the prevailing practice for any reason, whatsoever, period (no pun intended). The prevailing practice may be offensive. The prevailing practice may be unbalanced. The prevailing practice may be Eurocentric. The prevailing practice may be.... it does not matter. We do not, per our rules, make such judgements. We, as seav says, are a tertiary source. We just follow majority mainstream does. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm still at work, so... if anyone wants to do it, can someone please revert the categories in the History of the Philippines template (above) already? :D - Alternativity (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Some issues:
  • I have reverted some of Riohondo's edits based on the following:
    • The original version of the History of the Philippines article was aesthetic ally displeasing and has some WP:READABILITY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH issues. The current state incorporates some of the original without returning to it completely.
    • The "Early history of the barangay" title has a more WP:NEUTRAL tone than having the word "colonial" on it in consideration of the Igorot people and the Moro people, who are still probably living in precolonial times having never been completely colonized by the West.
    • The demarcation of the "American colonial period" is based on law and the constitutional history of the Philippines.
    • The demarcation between the Spanish is based on the discontinuation of Spanish control. That article is too long and has to have a WP:SPLIT.
    • During the Magellan to Legazpi years (1521-71), the Spanish did not have political control so this should be a separate article.

Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't need you to lecture me on history. Those are the old versions I have restored that you keep reverting and setting to 1762 and your own labels. Actually Im not having anymore of this conversation. Let this serve as a warning though so you don't get surprised if you get blocked.--RioHondo (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of these are actually improvements to the articles. Have you read the subsections in History of the Philippines. It's a mess. Find a better alternative than the status quo. WP:READABILITY is one aspect of an encyclopedia. What is the point of being historically and factually correct when no one is going to read it? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted History of the Philippines try navigating through that. Good luck. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's so frustrating how someone tries to make it easy for everyone only to be attacked. Reading the table of contents in History of the Philippines is like reading a menu from a restaurant. An article can be created from that table. Nobody tried improving these articles until now. Please try to provide a better alternative rather than simply opposing. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to square one, it should be easier to discuss improvements on the articles. Any opinion on how to improve the artices is welcome, except opinions on history itself. We don't need that here.--RioHondo (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone tried checking the periodization of Tadhana: the History of the Filipino people? Yes, it may not be perfect. It may be a Marcos project. However, it might be able to present a fresher view than that of Agoncillo and his contemporaries, which historiography and periodization is still been widely used in many textbooks today? Arius1998 (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tadhana periodization: The Roots of Filipino Heritage (pre-1565), The Formation of a National Community (1565-1896), The Promised State: A Nation in Travail (1896-1946), Search and Synthesis: Towards the New Society (1946-present). Of course, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was not yet discovered, which pushed our recorded history by more than six hundred years. Tadhana was published 1976/1977. Arius1998 (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with using a single source as basis for periodization (which is why I'm really not pushing the use of F. Landa Jocano's periodization for articles on Prehistoric Philippines, even though Jocano is prety danged preeminent in the field) unless use of those periods has since become standard. I do love the 1565 (Legaspi) date instead of 1521 (Magellan), though. That has always made more sense to me, and almost all historians I know would use it... although the nonspecialist trend is to use 1521. Huh. As for an update from Tadhana, does anyone have access to the Philippine Centeinal PAMANA series which was published under UP Press in '98? That compilation is probably as close as we can get to an updated consensus, assuming it tackles periodization. - Alternativity (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. We can certainly follow Marcos' periodization, actually it closely mirrors ours and mainstream books, except there is a discrepancy on what year exactly the Spanish period and influence started. This and other books has it at 1565, but most others set it to 1521, the year when native conversion to Roman Catholic began, the first mass was heard on Limasawa, and Rajah Humabon's kingdom embraced the Santo Niño. But we certainly cannot use Marcos labels for those periods, as they are a bit on the nationalistic side that only Filipinos or filipinologists can relate to.--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not solely relying on Tadhana. I just saw that it had a pretty good periodization (whatever the Marcos critics say), and suggested that we check it out. Has anyone checked out the periodization of Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People? I have also checked a number of periodizations from Agoncillo to Zaide (A to Z, get it?), but I can only present some of them here for your reference.

José Rizal (1889): Pre-Hispanic Philippines (pre-1521), Arrival of the Spaniards to the loss of Philippine autonomy and her incorporation into the Spanish nation (1521-1808), Incorporation of the Philippines into the Spanish nation up to the Cavite Mutiny (1808-1872)

Nicolas Zafra: Period of Discovery and Colonization (1521-1565), The First Century of Spanish Rule (1565-17th century), The Eighteenth Century (18th century), Political, Economic and Cultural Progress (1800-1872), Philippine Nationalistic Movement (1872-1898)

Eufronio Alip: Geography and Resources, The Malayan People and Culture in the Philippines (pre-1565), Three Hundred Thirty-Three Years of Spanish Rule (1565-1898), Political Awakening, Revolution and First Republic (1872-1901), The Philippines Under the United States (1898-1946), The Philippines Today (1946-present)

Teodoro Agoncillo (with Oscar Alfonso, History of the Filipino People 1960 edition): The Land and the People, Ancient Philippines (pre-1521), Conquest and Colonization (1521-1898), Democratic Partnership (1898-1946), The War Years (1941-1945), Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (1946-present)

Teodoro Agoncillo (History of the Filipino People 1990 edition): The Setting, Pre-Colonial Philippines (pre-1521), The Spanish Period (1521-1898), Reform and Revolution (1872-1901), The American Period (1901-1946), The War Years (1941-1945), The Third Republic (1946-present) Arius1998 (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional, for your reference:

Conrado Benitez: The Land and the People (pre-1521), Period of Discovery and Settlement (1521-1600), Period of Restrictions (1600-1815), Period of Commercial Liberty and Reforms (1781-1935)

Samuel Tan (1987): Evolution of the Land (100-2 million years ago), The Cultural Breakthroughs (250,000 B.C. to 200 A.D.), Patterns of Ethnicization (500 B.C. to 1280 A.D.), The Rise of Communities (1280-1663), Colonialism and Traditions (1521-1898), Imperialism and Filipinism (1898-1946), Neocolonialism and Nationalism (1946-1972), Democracy on Trial (1972-1986) Arius1998 (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Some comments and observations:

1. Agoncillo's is by far the most widely read version of our history.

2. There is a clear pattern that historians follow and agree on in general and its basically those 4: that there was a pre-colonial era, that Spain and America had their eras, and finally what happens after those eras. (1946-present). They appear to be the most neutral labels for those periods also.

3. In all these books published by historians, the British occupation and 1762 is not marked.--RioHondo (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have read and edited some articles about Filipino musicians and bands and I saw that Original Pilipino Music or OPM is one of their genres. Is OPM really considered as a genre or what? Should we state that OPM is one of the genres of a music act just because he or she is a Filipino? Israel's Son 09:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In that there is a set of core sounds/characteristics that are unique to Original Pilipino Music, from the Juan De La Cruz Band to the Apo Hiking Society to The Dawn to The Eraserheads to Sugarfree to Up Dharma Down, (And more obviously from Basil Valdez and Renz Verano to Aegis and whoever these newfangled other artists are) and so on, mixing and breaking across other genres (OPM Alternative has a distinctive sound, for example). So I think there is some value to calling it a genre. The problem is that this broad category is the only descriptor for some of these acts, but also includes acts that aren't distinctively Filipino, soundwise. (My first thoughts for examples: Outerhope and The Ransom Collective, and most of the OPM Blues Acts, which all reflect their respective global genres so much that I'm not sure they're distinguishable soundwise as Filipino. (Although of course that's not a bad thing. Just... an observation?)) More importantly, good luck finding reliable sources that describe the boundaries of the genre so that you can define that sound properly on Wikipedia. (Not sure this reply is helpful, but I've got to get to work now. hehe. Will be back to participate in this discussion further later. - Alternativity (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question. Is OPM really a local music genre or style or does it pertain to any song or act written in Filipino language (formerly Pilipino)? If it's a genre regardless of language or dialect, can we merge it to their respective music style articles? I'm guessing pop, so it should be at Philippine pop. But if it's music based on language, then rename it to Filipino music and make it a subcategory of Music of the Philippines, with your different genres Filipino pop, Filipino rock, Filipino hip-hop, etc.--RioHondo (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot actually be sure because where do you even get definitive references for this, but I believe this overlaps most precisely with the term "Contemporary Filipino Music." I believe the origins of the term had something to do with branding for Contemporary Filipino Music (as opposed to foreign music and covers) during the last part of the 20 century. (I can't be sure if this is the '80s or '90s. I should really look it up in Wikipedia... oh wait. - Alternativity (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

By "Contemporary Filipino Music", do you mean contemporary Philippine music or contemporary Filipino-language music? From the current definition of OPM in that link you provided, it looks as though it is really the pop genre of Philippine music which is mostly in Filipino language, but also includes popular music in English and some Bisrock (Visayan) by artists from the Philippines. Is this true? So if OPM also covers popular music in Visayan and other Philippine languages and dialects, then it really is just the broad category of Philippine pop and we can forget about the Filipino label (which was what I thought it was, Philippine pop music in Filipino language only).--RioHondo (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Genre problems. What a pickle we've landed ourselves in. It goes beyond "Filipino pop." Unless you're willing to call obscure subgenres like OPM Blues and OPM Shoegaze "pop". (Also, I'm pretty sure the Pinoy Punks would get pretty mad at the idea of getting lumped in with "pop".)I'm gonna go say that I think that article/segment is problematic, btw. Largely because OPM was and has always been (will probably always be) a marketing term, carrying whatever meanings the marketers want it to carry. The thing is, it's a marketing term that has solidified into a concrete concept as far as much of the public goes. (But this is definitely not language-limited. Some OPM artists perform ONLY in English. Jose Mari Chan, for example. Dearest, and Outerhope, for others.) The problem with that is...how do we even find a reliable definition of this beast? - Alternativity (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So if it isn't genre-specific nor language-specific, and the only basis of OPM is in the musician or singer's Filipino nationality, then it really should be just merged to Music of the Philippines and their respective genres under Category:Philippine styles of music.--RioHondo (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, let's include Pinoy rock, Pinoy pop, and Pinoy hip hop to this discussion, considering that they've been attributed to several music acts as genres, as long as they're Filipino (by nationality, obviously), unlike their counterparts in any other countries like American rock, American pop, and British rock. I've read several articles about American and British rock bands; such things as American rock and British rock are not attributed to them respectively. Israel's Son 14:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There's also Manila Sound, which was originally the narrower definition of OPM. IMO, OPM is a genre in a sense that it encompasses music from certain time periods that usually share certain characteristics. Similar to, say, J-POP, which doesn't actually refer to all Japanese pop music, but only those made from around the 90s onwards that do sound a bit similar. But yeah, both J-POP and OPM are weird because they are sometimes used to refer to all natively produced music, as opposed to foreign ones, regardless of actual musical styles. I think the best approach to this is to only refer to artists as OPM when their sources overwhelmingly identify them as such. Otherwise, use the usual genres.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't able to come up with a better section header; sorry.

When I looked at my watchlist this morning, I saw this edit by a newly appeared anon user. The edit had changed |place=[[Caloocan]] in the infobox. to |place=[[Caloocan]], [[First Philippine Republic|Philippines]]. I reacted by reverting the edit and several others by the same editor, [2] and warning the editor. Looking at his contributions, I saw that he had edited a number of articles about Philippine-American War battles. I had jumped to the conclusion that these were POV edits,, and I started re-editing the articles one by one. Eventually, I came to this edit, which changed |place=[[Manila]], Philippines to |place=[[Manila]], [[History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#U.S. military government|Philippines]] in the Battle of Manila (1899). That obviously made me question my presumption re editorial POV, but I still question the edits. This impacts multiple articles and involves an issue which I think ought to be decided by WP:Consensus -- hence this discussion.

As I write this, I have re-edited some impacted articles. I am going edit (or re-edit) all of the involved articles to present the place name consistently in the format [[local place name]], Philippines and to remove any presentation of First Philippine Republic as the name of a place or in a context which suggests that this is the name of a sovereign political entity. I think that anything else is just too fragile and invites too much controversy and invites edits and re-edits related to the controversy. If I am being too WP:BOLD here, please come to a consensus about how this ought to be handled. If a stable differing consensus is reached, the impacted articles can be re-edited once again. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't see any problem with it. It's usual practice to identify both the locality and the larger state when it comes to historical battles. And since the current Philippine government didn't yet exist, the contemporary equivalent is instead used. For example, the Battle of the Nile links not to modern Egypt (even though it takes place within its modern borders) but to Egypt Eyalet, Ottoman Empire, i.e. a province of the Ottoman Empire (not Turkey either).

IMO, it might be better to use/retain a piped link to History of the Philippines (1898–1946), rather than link First Philippine Republic or United States military government of the Philippine Islands. Since the sovereignty of the latter two were not technically established yet during the course of the war.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the problem here really is the historical inaccuracy of those labels themselves, which could get really confusing. The name Philippine–American War itself suggests a struggle between two sovereigns, with the term Philippine having come to be associated to the sovereign nation as it is applied today. While that may be the WP:COMMONNAME for it now, I'd say it really gives an inaccurate description of what the event really was. If only to put things in their proper, neutral and accurate perspectives, i would have requested changing the label to Filipino–American War to totally strip it of any false sense of sovereignty. The terms Philippine and Philippines should only be applied to the sovereign island nation, or prior to 1946, the government in control of the island nation. It's like there is no Bangsamoro–Philippines wars, only Moro-Philippines wars. There is no Chechnya–Russia or Chechnyan–Russian conflict, only Chechen–Russian conflict.--RioHondo (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I would oppose changing the name of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME. We should also take into consideration that the current Philippine government recognizes the legitimacy of the First Philippine Republic (though not the earlier ones under Bonifacio) with Aguinaldo as the first Philippine President. When it comes to how we decide WP:DUE, the Philippines should come first. And when it comes to calling things a "war", I don't think official international recognition of sovereignty is a requirement. Using "Filipino" would also be inaccurate anyway, since it does not refer to an ethnic group, but a nationality.

The issue is not the name of the conflict, but the localities affected and which government they should be treated under. Like I've said, it would be much better to just link the articles discussing that particular time period, rather than siding with either the Philippine or the American viewpoint when they were literally fighting over the very same question. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Filipinos are multi-ethnic like Moros, but there's a difference between a nation and a (sovereign) state, which is what I was trying to say. But anyway, we can have this as a separate discussion in a more appropriate article talk page.--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway, i would prefer using the historical place names for Philippine locations of wars and other historical events:

1. From 27 April 1565 to 7 September 1821, use New Spain or Spanish East Indies

2. From 8 September 1821 to 9 December 1898: use Spanish East Indies

1. From 27 April 1565 to 9 December 1898, use Philippines (linked to Spanish Captaincy General article) or Filipinas (linked to same article but in Spanish as a more accurate historical name)

3. From 10 December 1898 to 30 June 1901, use Philippine Islands (option to link to History of the U.S. military government in the Philippines article)

4. From 1 July 1901 to 14 November 1935 use Philippine Islands (link to the U.S. Insular Government article).

5. From 15 November 1935 to 3 July 1946, use Philippines (linked to the U.S. Commonwealth article)

6. Anything beyond that, use Philippines. :)--RioHondo (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of using historic place names, and the wikitext [[History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#U.S. military government|Philippine Islands]]. The term Philippine Islands was to be used in the English version of the Treaty of Paris (1898) and, without checking, I seem to recall reading that term as the common name for the islands at the time through the first several decades of U.S. rule. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd support this as well.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Between 1898 and 1935, "Philippine Islands" was not just its common name, it was also this US territory's official name. You will see this in most official US documents from that period, and was commonly written in addresses on old postcards and newspapers. "Manila, P.I." :) BPI still bears this American-era name.--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, some minor revision for the islands' earlier historical name under Spain. I just remembered that while the Philippines was technically under the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of New Spain between 1565 and 1821, it was governed as a single administrative division of the Spanish empire called the Captaincy General of the Philippines (Capitanía General de las Filipinas). This was the official name for the Philippines throughout this entire period which also covered other islands in the Spanish East Indies. The name "Spanish East Indies" was only used as a reference to a geographic region under the Spanish empire, but the geo-political name was Filipinas or the Capitanía General de las Filipinas. This is similar to Puerto Rico (the Captaincy General of Puerto Rico) and Cuba (the Captaincy General of Cuba) where the region called Spanish West Indies where they were located was never used officially in those islands. Like the Philippines, they also went from being under the Viceroyalty of New Spain to being directly governed by Spain in 1821 when Mexico gained its independence. So i would suggest using Philippines or Filipinas as your location for any historical event from that whole Spanish period (1565–1898) instead.--RioHondo (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help find sources for the article for Robert Campos? His death has received some coverage in the news so I'm getting the impression that there are likely sources out there, but not in English. It's up for AfD and I'd like to have someone look for non-English sources just to make sure that they are or aren't out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I happened to notice that User: Rms125a@hotmail.com has recently nominated several articles that are part of this project for deletion. I have no idea if those articles belong on Wikipedia or not. Just curious why one editor would nominate so many? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that user only nominated one AfD and it is not even Philippine-related article. Perhaps, you have posted this concern in this Philippine noticeboard by mistake. --Jojit (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. After digging that user's contributions, he or she indeed has several articles nominated for deletion and one of the is a Philippine-related article (Mariel Pamintuan). --Jojit (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, all. Note that an editor can nominate as many articles for deletion as he or she deems deserving, provided they are done in good faith with a valid rationale. I did not nominate Mariel Pamintuan for deletion, that was a different editor (@Jimfbleak), but I did endorse his rationale for deletion (see [3]).

Also, @Ottawahitech: "I have no idea if those articles belong on Wikipedia or not" -- that is why AFDs/CFDs/RFDs exist, but you should have some idea of what constitutes notability. Quis separabit? 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for ping Rms125a@hotmail.com. Of course, the number of noms is immaterial, it's whether the nominator understands the criteria that matters. I note that several of the AFDs went on to be deleted, and I also took a look at the deleted text for a couple. I can't see any cause for concern Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You didn't nominated the article Mariel Pamintuan for deletion. I also believe that anyone has the right to nominate an article for deletion regardless how many the nominations. --Jojit (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::: @Jojit fb and Jimfbleak: Can you please explain where you get your information regarding the number of AfDs nominated in this WikiProject? I believe all the following ten articles have been nominated for deletion by Rms125a@hotmail.com (see Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Article_alerts

• janette McBride
• Aiko Climaco
• Saab Magalona
• Sharmaine Arnaiz
• Cheska Garcia
• Andy Poe
• Paco Arespacochaga
• Aldred Gatchalian
• Robert Campos
• Marco Polo Adriano-Garcia Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I just only looked into user contributions of Rms125@hotmail.com. Nothing more, nothing less. -Jojit (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment People who are engrossed in AfD's should probably know through experience that articles on people, how they are written, whether they are lacking in sources, aren't and shouldn't be their basis in deciding whether they meet the notability requirements. Do your work and google for sources first and save yourself from embarassment. To the avid nominator of articles on actors, Google and WP:NACTOR just so we don't waste each others time here. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't it that the AfD nominators are also telling contributors to do their work and search for sources before making an article? Whether there's an AfD or not, someone would have to waste their time to find sources for an article anyway. --Jojit (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • All that time and energy spent in AfD nomination and discussions could be better spent actually improving the articles. Besides, it is the nominator's job to prove how one article or person is not notable, by indicating how few or how unreliable those few sources he finds about the person are. This avid nominator doesn't do none of that and I've seen him even scolded for that once. See Gladys Reyes. He also did Julia Barretto, Carol Banawa, and many other famous entertainers. Note that those articles are well-sourced even before he nominated them. From his current list, I see a good number actually passes NACTOR without even googling. This lazy person's AfD's are all guesses that just waste people's time.--RioHondo (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • User:RioHondo Wrote: All that time and energy spent in AfD nomination and discussions could be better spent actually improving the articles.
        • Right on!!! We (I) spend way too much time in discussions, time that would be much more useful if it was spent in building up content.
        • BTW I have added the {{WP Women}} to the talk pages of the articles about women discussed above. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll post this here since I can't be bothered to go through everything he nominated. @Quis separabit?. DO google for sourcing first before nominating something. Read WP:NEXIST. You do not determine notability by the sources used in our articles. You determine it by finding what sources can be used. You seem to be specialized in AfD nomination. The least you can do is know the policies behind them or you're just making more work for everyone else. It's nonsensical to me how you could nominate some of those who are clearly notable even with the most cursory google searches. Are you basing this off whether you've personally heard of them before? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Are you basing this off whether you've personally heard of them before?" -- no, I never heard of any of them before. I am in New York. Quis separabit? 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I already replied here to @Obsidian Soul. Yes I have made mistakes (Carol Banawa, Julia Barretto), but we normally judge people by the rule not the exception. Why don't you mention the articles deleted or redirected (such as Perla Adea, Mika Dela Cruz, Daniella Amable, Saicy Aguila, Sunyee Maluche, Gianna Cutler, Shaira Mae dela Cruz, Valerie Garcia, Bugoy Drilon, Laurenti Dyogi, Gian Carlos, Mika Aereen Reyes, Kristoffer Horace Neudeck, Bangs Garcia (redirect), Marvelous Alejo (redirect), Zara Aldana (redirect) and Kris Aquino Productions (redirect)), just for the most recent examples of my horrendous judgment? Perhaps if there were better quality controls at this collective so many poor articles would not be relentlessly created and there would be no need (or less of a need) to clear out the cruft in the first place. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite or a blogsite. Let's see how this batch of AFDs (plus Cristina Aragón, which I just added) turns out. If the majority are keep, I will acknowledge that my vetting criteria is flawed and will voluntarily refrain from AFDing any Philippines-related articles until I figure out how to improve my vetting system and how to separate the gold from the dross. Quis separabit? 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Copied from the deletion discussion on Paco Arespacochage, let's discuss this here: @Quis separabit? Slow down a bit and make sure that the articles you're nominating are really non-notable first. I've noticed for example that your nomination rationales reveal nothing about what you've done to ascertain that he really is a "non-notable entertainer". I know you mean well and have done well, but when it comes to notability of non-western celebrities, please do make the extra effort. Wikipedia already has enough problems with systemic bias favoring Anglophone countries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, yes, that's the point. Just because you've never heard of them before shouldn't be the reason for an AfD. And your list of "successful" AfDs is more alarming than you think. Most of those ARE notable. Laurenti Dyogi (or more popularly known as "Direk Lauren") for example, is a very very well known film director and actor. I hope his article gets restored. Locally yes (as in only in the Philippines). But national notability is still notability. Just because this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean we judge notability only from the perspective of English-speaking countries.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Obsidian Soul for your kind words. I have nothing but the highest regard for Filipino people, with whom I have worked and interacted as teachers, nurses, doctors, etc. I am amazed at their resilience and integrity. I acknowledged that I am in/from New York (which I didn't have to do) as I know I am not an expert on Filipino celebrities. In the 24/7 news cycle, celebrity-obsessed world in which we live, Filipino youngsters are no more immune to vapid Idol worship than any others. As I posted above, if the latest batch of AFDs are mostly kept, then I will acknowledge that my vetting criteria has become flawed and will voluntarily refrain from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles until I am sure I am on 'terra firma'. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, I hate cruft as much as the next person, and I acknowledge that yes, it's a problem. But I still take issue with how you are using AfD. You seem to be using it to determine whether or not the subject is notable. More or less throwing suspicious articles at the wall and seeing what sticks (from your characterization of it as "judging by the rule, not the exception"). And that is simply not how it works. AfD is supposed to be a place where you can ask other people to confirm that something is non-notable after you have done your own research on it. It's not a place where you ask others to prove to you that something is notable because you yourself don't know much about it. While knowing anything about the subject is not a requirement, at least try and look for evidence of notability before nominating.

Whether the AfD passes or not also has no bearing on the subject's notability. As I've already pointed out with Laurenti Dyogi (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurenti Dyogi). Just because that passed AfD does not mean he is not notable. There are dozens of reliable sources from the google searches I gave above. He is mentioned in forty-one articles in Wikipedia. His article was deleted not because he wasn't notable, but because no one who knew anything saw the AfD discussion or bothered to comment (as I won't with your new list even though I know some/most of them are probably notable, because this isn't my area of interest). And more importantly, apparently because no one actually checked to see whether he is notable. Thing is, as the nominator, that's supposed to be your first task.

Given the coverage on him in secondary sources and his body of work, how is it possible that you nominated him, and more importantly, that the AfD passed? @User:SwisterTwister for example, apparently got the impression that he was only famous for being the business head of Pinoy Big Brother. LOL. This is his body of work. Multiple notable mainstream movies (mainly romance) and TV shows long before PBB. The other commenter, @User:onel5969 thinks articles like this or this does not pass WP:GNG (hint: The Philippine Star is one of the major national newspapers, and ABS-CBN is one of the two largest media networks of the country).

So yeah. Your vetting system is flawed. Disclaimer: I am not a fan of Dyogi. I'm just using him as an example since you mentioned him as one of your "successes". I bet every single editor in this WikiProject knows who he is.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You're not a fan of Dyogi ("I hope his article gets restored")? "I bet every single editor in this WikiProject knows who he is". So?? Everybody on this Project (except me, as far as I can tell) is from the Philippines. Your assertions to the contrary, I do do Google searches but that doesn't mean I am going to arrive at the same conclusions you do. I am not withdrawing the noms so let's end this discussion. If the majority of the last/latest AFDs fail, well that's my humiliation and I will voluntarily refrain from AFDing Philippines-related articles until such time as I feel comfortable resuming, as I already indicated. However, a newcomer to this colloquy might come to the conclusion that somehow I only target Filipinos for article deletion. I am an equal opportunity AFDer with admitted deletionist instincts, and I will AFD anything that I deem appropriate regardless of provenance. Got it?That's my last word. Quis separabit? 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying I'm lying? LOL. Look at my contributions. Do I sound like I watch teenybopper romance movies or reality TV? I don't think I've even edited anything related to Filipino movies/TV shows. Ever. Ask them if they know who he is. And don't avoid the question. Does Dyogi pass WP:GNG or not? How do you come to your conclusions from Google searches then? Or does that not matter because you're not "withdrawing the nom", presumably with a "no matter what" attached there somewhere.

And no. This isn't about my nationality or yours, neither is it about pride. It's your willingness to vouch for your nominations. "That's my last word" doesn't address the issue in any way. Why did you think this topic was raised in the first place? Because I think the current impression every editor has here is that you didn't search at all.

"Because I think the current impression every editor has here is that you didn't search at all." -- What you "think" is of no relevance to me at all. What you "know" might be if there was anyone here even willing to back you up or if the things you post were consistent. (I seem to recall your posting "I know you mean well and have done well, but when it comes to notability of non-western celebrities, please do make the extra effort" above, before your latest snit. So which is it -- have I done well and mean well -- or are am I lazy and incompetent?) Not that your opinion matters to me. I know I do Google searches, however, that is of limited assistance given the avalanche of almost identical boilerplate formatted articles about an endless series of Filipino actors, idols, singers, stars, etc. who cannot all be notable, regardless of how reputable the local news coverage is. Thus, bios have to be reviewed to decide which are and aren't notable, and mistakes are made (Barretto, Reyes, Banawa). Quis separabit? 19:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So did you? -- So did I what? (WTF??) Quis separabit? 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

When a large amount of your recent nominations are for Philippine celebrities, some of whom are quite easily verifiable as notable with a simple google search, then the only conclusion is either you did not bother to look for evidence of notability or you don't actually know how to tell notability when it comes to non-western celebrities and just presume all are non-notable by default. So which is it? As another editor pointed out above, examples like Gladys Reyes, Carol Banawa, and Julia Barretto are inexcusable mistakes. It's not a question of being from the Philippines. You don't need to be Filipino to see they are notable. So again, whatever criteria you used to nominate them needs to be updated. If you are even using any. Because from our standpoint, it seems like all it needs is for them to be Filipino and a celebrity (and possibly also that they have rather badly written short articles).

And yes. I just lost my temper there. Implying I'm only challenging your edits because I'm secretly a fan of all these celebrities is insulting. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not imply you are a fan of all these Filipino celebrities. However, you are a fan of Dyogi (" Laurenti Dyogi (or more popularly known as "Direk Lauren") for example, is a very very well known film director and actor. I hope his article gets restored.") and should own up. You also should have participated in the Dyogi AFD (see more on that below). Quis separabit? 19:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As for your "So??", you still don't get it, do you? Yes, most of the editors here are from the Philippines. If most of them (at least those that grew up here) know who Dyogi is, what does that tell you? And again, this isn't about him. It's the concept of the notability of people like him.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, most of the editors here are from the Philippines. If most of them (at least those that grew up here) know who Dyogi is, what does that tell you?"

It tells me that something is very strange -- since not a single keep vote or a vote from anyone, including you, on this Project was recorded in the Dyogi AFD (see here). What, if anything, that tells you is perhaps the question that should be asked. Quis separabit? 19:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:Rms125a@hotmail.com has been here for a long time. They know the rules. If they have nominated something for deletion and it was subsequently kept, well, that's great. It does not mean their nomination of a set of articles is somehow disruptive--and that it's a set of article should surprise no one who edits Wikipedia: the very nature of how this works, with wikilinks and categories, means that one frequently goes from one to the next related article. Now, if Rms is nominating so many articles that editors can't keep up, that can be disruptive, and historically this has been regarded as disruptive. But from this discussion I don't see any evidence that this has happened, and if it is true that there wasn't much participation in those AfDs from editors here, then really the burden is on them. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Rms125a@hotmail.com I am assuming good faith. Given how long you've been here. But yes. I am also saying you are deliberately being less careful when it comes to celebrities you've never heard of apparently.

And here. Let me spell it out for you. If the WikiProject here knows who Dyogi is, that's already an indication that he may actually be notable. Nationally notable. And let me state this very very clearly: I am not a fan of Dyogi. I don't watch his movies. I don't follow what he does (though I did google what he was up to now when I saw his name in your list, as you should have when you nominated it). I don't even watch TV anymore. But the fact that even though I don't, I have heard of him and know who he is is an indication of how notable he is nationally. It's the same thing as me telling you that you're a fan of Tarantino (assuming you aren't) just because you know his name. Is that clear enough yet? I'm in the Philippines. It's a different country. We have different famous people (shocking, I know). Almost all of them are people no one would recognize even in neighboring Malaysia. "Hey I know that famous person" does not translate to "Hey, I'm a big fan of that person!"

Moreover, the fact that you're actually implying that my criticism here is motivated by my desire to promote these people is fucking insulting. Period. I'm not doing this because "I'm a fan of Dyogi." I'm doing this because this WikiProject thinks something is wrong with how you nominate articles for AfD. If this topic hadn't come up (I didn't start it), and if I hadn't seen the recent nomination on Robert Campos on the Philippine-related AfDs in my watchlist (I'm watching nearly 9000 pages btw), I wouldn't have even cared. I still wouldn't care, except for the general feeling of regret that the end result of these AfD runs is the reinforcement of the existing WP:Systemic bias.

To get the discussion back on track. Again, does he pass WP:GNG or not? Are his works notable? Just answer that question. Regardless of the AfD results, examine what sources can be found, and what he has done. The same thing for every single nomination you've done. Because again: This. Is. Not. About. Dyogi. This is about articles of people who are demonstrably notable being deleted because no could be arsed to check. People like Gladys Reyes, as mentioned previously (and no I'm not a fan of her either, LOL). People who are already so glaringly notable in the first page of a google search even if you are NOT Filipino.

So did you actually google your nominations? Or did you just automatically nominate him because he was one of the "identical boilerplate formatted articles about an endless series of Filipino actors, idols, singers, stars" that you can't be bothered with? What's wrong with the latter picture?

And lol, what's so strange about no one seeing the AfDs? How long do AfDs last? How many Filipino contributors do we have? How many of them are interested in show business? How many of them care about AfDs even? In most AfDs there are only 2 or 3 people commenting. Most of them the same people. I'm not putting down your work here, but the fact that people who can be easily ascertained to be notable are being nominated and being voted upon as a "delete" without fully examining the sources is alarming to me. And I do think it has to do with the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever.

And @Drmies, he did admit he's nominating them "by batches". While I'm not implying WP:POINTY, to me, it kinda seems like an admission that he is using AfDs as a gauntlet run to see who fails. And that, in turn, also implies that he doesn't check them thoroughly individually first, and instead relies on whoever sees the AfDs to tell him if they're notable or not.

And both of you ignore anything I said that might be construed as WP:NPA. That's not my intent. I'm still angry at the accusation of WP:COI. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Disruptive is when you go wholesale AfDing even for articles that are well sourced, without even checking google first, and this attitude of I just feel like it, this person is non notable even when the articles already say they are through their sources, having to bug editors here for comments and defense because the nominator is lazy to do his own research, or to even look at the articles first. This wholesale AfDs for local Miley Cyruses have been going for a month and IMO that is disruptive. You can get the community's engagement in the first and second instances or first and second batches of AfDs. But now on its second month and the quality of AfDs still the same, you can't blame the community here for thinking this person is a troll.--RioHondo (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been longer than User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Please participate in the voting to Keep or Delete in the Afd process. It may be hard to re-insert those articles for people who do deserve notability.--Jondel (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Anyone noticed the sudden proliferation of articles on "branches" of the Iglesia ni Cristo in Metro Manila? I'm not sure these are all independently notable though. (For instance, they all look the same, well, mostly) I just worry cos there are like hundreds of them all over Metro Manila alone (See List of religious buildings in Metro Manila#Iglesia ni Cristo) and we can't possibly have an article for each and every one of them being built in the same generic style by mostly the same architect. Although the INC Central Temple and its first branch in Santa Ana are notable that's for sure. Im just not sure about the rest. Pinging GretchBacayan, appreciate hearing from you with regards to these articles. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Washington (Sampaloc)
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, F. Manalo-San Juan
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Cubao
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Pasay
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Tondo
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Capitol
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, Punta
• Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, San Francisco del Monte

Please be informed that I am being investigated for Stalking which was instigated by our good friend Rms125a@hotmail.com. Wow maybe I should keep quiet and just let our articles deleted huh? This was after making a personal appeal--which was hastily deleted-- and one day7 of keep proposals to the issues discussed above. Anyway since I'm accused of wrong doing let me open this issue here. --Jondel (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You did engage in AFD stalking (see [4]). Own up, and edit and contribute productively, as I have been doing for almost a decade. Quis separabit? 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is deleting personal appeals contributing productively? I've been here 11 years and then some. I've never delete on my discussion page.--Jondel (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So first you complain that no one here comments on the AfDs. And now you're accusing people of stalking when they do? *facepalm* -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I was far happier to be honest when you all stayed out of it. However, push come to shove, when you whine about Dyogi then yeah I have to point out that no one here participated.
As far as @Jondel -- his contributions on the AFDs he has been stalking are either boilerplate "keep"s without any demonstration of why despite the massive evidence you all claim is right there in plain sight. In at least two cases (so far) I have requested that his contributions be stricken. In one of these, he openly acknowledged gaming the system to ensure that one of the articles is kept. I will copy and paste his exact words in a few.
"Just to make sure. I have to make sure since this debate is ridiculous.It is evident P.Arespochagaq is notable"
"She was notable since I was high school. The nominator is not Filipino is not familia [sic with the Filipino media"]. Quis separabit? 13:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: perhaps you could explain offwiki to young @Jondel what is wrong with the two comments which he made that I just illustrated. In all good faith, I can say that they will do him no good and likely be used against him by other editors if he keeps making them at AFDs and other important discussions. Maraming salamat. Quis separabit? 13:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually think we know each other? Or that we're secretly conspiring to do all this? Jesus. I'm beginning to think this really is WP:POINTY. Maybe we're all on Dyogi's PR team? Maybe we're all secretly actors! Maybe I'm Dyogi! And Jondel is Sharmaine! Haha. But yes. @Jondel, Mr. Rms125a@hotmail.com wishes me to tell you that that was inappropriate. The point of AfDs is to demonstrate notability. Provide links to WP:RS or otherwise any evidence of notability. Don't attack the nominator there, no matter how lazy he is, because WP:Wikilawyers will eat you.

Yes. I said lazy. "I was far happier to be honest when you all stayed out of it". LOL. What happened to "I have nothing but the highest regard for Filipino people"? *whistles* Because yes, Sharmaine Arnaiz and Arespacochaga are both notable. Maybe the others are too. The fact that you haven't and won't bother trying to find out and instead place the burden on us is telling. When the nominator doesn't actually care about notability and just wants as many articles deleted as possible, there's a problem there, don't you think? Because you still haven't answered my question earlier on Dyogi (of whom I am the biggest fan of because I know his name! <sarcasm>). Is he or is he not notable? Your answer will demonstrate if you actually know the policies. You've been here longer than I have, but I'm beginning to question your overall productivity when you clearly can't be arsed to care about your nominations. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A debate is going on at the admins. Let's wait and see.--Jondel (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Let us assume that our good friend Mr. Rms125a@hotmail.com is doing his job. On my part I am beefing up the sources, so there should be no issues with notability. Please do participate in the voting whether it be delete or keep, since I am also being accused of being the lone 'keep' proposer. And feel free to add sources yourself. Thank you--Jondel (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Before I fully descend into rage mode (I really am trying to be civil but your attitude isn't helping at all). What we're actually asking of you User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is simple: don't blanket nominate articles and expect us to do the sorting for you. Do thoroughly check all your nominations for notability even when you don't actually know or care about any of them. Only when you're really convinced that the subject is non-notable should you then nominate them. No one here is denying that there are plenty of cruft in the articles on celebrities from the Philippines. As there are everywhere else. No one here is protesting against your deletion of those either. What people here are concerned about is that you are nominating notable people as well, without prior research, purely on the basis that they are Philippine celebrities. You have acknowledged mistakes with those that some people caught as actually notable. But you refuse to acknowledge that maybe in your list of successful deletions, there are also actually notable people who were deleted because no one caught the AfDs. Refusing to do the preliminary legwork, refusing to withdraw nominations, refusing to change the way you vet your nominations when there are already valid reason pointed out on why you should NOT rely on this WikiProject to tell you on what subject is notable not. Those are the main complaints. Do you understand this? Read all of this carefully. This is not "hysteria" and this is not unreasonable. Neither is it personal. Thank you. Now I need to take a break. -- oBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask that we all chill? Simply vote delete or keep as you deem appropriate and as afforded by due process. Please vote by the way even if it is delete. That way it becomes obvious the article is not notable. Do not vote 'keep' just to show solidarity but do express your opinion.--Jondel (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't my place to comment on the AfDs currently going on at this time, but I will take the time to do so in the next few days. That said, I just seriously want to facepalm at the entire discussion above because it basically screams of patronizing behavior on the part of Rms125a@hotmail.com, as if we don't know better when in fact we do. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation at the Afds. It would be good to practice assuming good faith to accomodate genuine change when a person reforms. Unfortunate I feel Rms125a@hotmail.com's behaviour is a form of recidivism of his sock puppeteering.--Jondel (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We have submitted an IEG Proposal related to this WikiProject. The project proposal is called Philippine Music Survey. You can check the proposal at meta: meta:Grants:IEG/Philippine Music Survey. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions, please post it at the talk page of the IEG. Thanks. --Jojit (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We are soliciting tshirt silkscreen designs for Run for Free Knowledge and Wikipedia Takes Rinconada. Please upload your designs at Wikimedia Commons before October 10, 2015. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are logos of our past events:

• 
  Wikipedia 10th anniversary logo for the Philippines (2011)
• 
  Wikipedia Takes Naga logo (2012)

I suggest we have a single character baybayin in the design. Arius1998 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Baybayin is more associated with the Tagalog language. According to the Rinconada Bikol language article, the writing system is called Kul-ītan. --Jojit (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that baybayin is only a Tagalog script. See this: http://history-ph.blogspot.com/2014/10/quo-vadis-baybayin.html However, it is up to the designers. Arius1998 (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, you're correct that Baybayin is not only used as a Tagalog script. I just said that it is more associated with the Tagalog language and I didn't say that it is Tagalog script "only." --Jojit (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)