Talk:List of special elections in the Philippines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of special elections to the Philippine Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that despite being tied at Biñang, the Progresista Party candidate defeated the Nacionalista Party candidate to win the 1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election? Source: "in Biñang it was a tie"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center

Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - n
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - n

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: There are significant problems with this nomination. On a DYK level, the QPQ is not complete and the hook is not interesting. Those problems can be overcome, but their are fundamental problems with the article. It only cites primary sources, in contradiction of the original research policy, which forbids basing an entire article on them. I have thus marked it as possibly not meeting WP:NEVENT, and am marking this nomination as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How can the Cablenews-American, a newspaper, be WP:PRIMARY? I suppose official government election reports are primary but not newspapers?

Please bring this to WP:AFD if you think this is not notable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the notability of the topic, but I agree that the hook is too specialist, perhaps even for Filipino readers, thus failing WP:DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought ties in elections, or even at a subset of one, is interesting as it is rare. We even have an article about that. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole election was a tie, maybe yes that would work as a hook. But the tie was for only one town, so it's not really that hooky in this one instance, especially without additional context (like why is it important that it was in Biñan that it was tied, out of all places?) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, even if a gubernatorial election was tied in a certain town, wherever it is, it's interesting, even if the election itself wasn't. The election itself was a landslide, with the winner carrying 6 towns, the loser 4, and one tied. A landslide election saw a tied result in one place. Imagine that. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to being very confused. I cannot see how the 1,400-1,000 victory can be described as a landslide, I cannot see why the not-rare occurence of ties in areas with a small population is being talked about like it's a mystical event, but most of all I cannot see why the fundamental issues of an incomplete QPQ and a complete reliance on primary sources are being disregarded in favour of this comparative tangent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused myself. How is the "Cablenews-American" newspaper a primary source? AFAIK, this was not an instrument of the American government. If you think this fails WP:GNG, send this to AFD.

A 60:40 victory is a landslide in most definitions. The source itself calls it as a "big majority".

I'm actually looking for similar sized elections where the overall result was lopsided, but it was tied on one or more subdivisions and can't find one. Maybe I should try harder, I guess?

See WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." I will nominate at AfD tomorrow if there are no further objections; do you know of any WP:SECONDARY sources Howard the Duck? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth are newspapers from 1910 breaking news sources? The way the world works by then, the time you read the paper, it's been at least 24 hours after the event took place (LOL). But please, do go ahead with the AFD. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Other sources, the Cablenews-American talks about another newspaper, La Democracia, covering this event. So that's another, only that we don't have access to the specific issue; the University of Santo Tomas Library has copies of some issues, but we don't know if they have issues relevant to this event. Online uploads of newspapers from the Philippines from this time are hard to come by. It's a miracle we have this. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the election met notability guidelines, there's still the issue of the hook, which really isn't interesting to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an alt I'd add after I'm done with the QPQ review tomorrow. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT1: "... that William Cameron Forbes refused to seat the La Laguna gubernatorial election winner and appointed its 1st district's assembly delegate as governor instead, triggering a special election in 1910?" Sources: "Governor General Forbes has refused to seat him", "Malvar... resigned his position as delegate to accept the governorship... after the courts declared the election for governor null and void owing to election frauds", "Paulino is easily victor in Election in Laguna"
- I have also completed the QPQ review. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted at AfD, therefore the nomination fails.--Laun chba ller 17:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening this per Howard the Duck's message on my talk page and pinging Narutolovehinata5 and AirshipJungleman29. ~~I have not reinstated this to T:TDYK as I plan to prep this myself, assuming this passes, but would not stop any other editor.~~--Laun chba ller 12:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has responded, I am going to take this review over and reject it for failing both WP:DYKCOMPLETE and WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. The original and alt hooks are rather dull, and the article itself is even duller. While technically over the the size limit for DYK, it's over inundated with dry statistics and the rather long lead section just regurgitates the facts in the rather short body of the article. I'm overall left with an impression that this is either an incomplete picture of the topic (in which case its a stub) or a non-notable event (in which case it should be deleted). The AFD had little participation and closed as no consensus, and I am not convinced that if it were taken again to AFD and had more participants that it would survive. It's time to pass on this hook.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]