Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Help looking for Tagalog sources?

Hey, I need some help looking for sources in Tagalog for the article Pagpag: Siyam na Buhay. It's up for AfD, but looks to be a fairly well known movie for the most part. I've found some sourcing but I'm already running into a language barrier. I can use Google Translate for some of it, but well... there's some obvious problems with GT. I'm also somewhat unfamiliar with the news sources in the Philippines, so I'm a little afraid that I'm looking over places that could serve as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Metro Manila template roadmap

It would be really nice if we had a template roadmap of Metro Manila that we could use on articles to identify their location in Metro Manila, similar to this New York map here. Currently we have a blank map with city borders, but I want one that includes major roads. I thought of taking a simple screenshot from OpenStreetMap, but it's way too cluttered with labels and minor roads. Anyone know a simple way a map like this can be done? TheCoffee (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One quick and dirty thing you can do is to go to OpenStreetMap, adjust the zoom so that you see the whole of NCR, then click on the Share button on the right side. At the bottom of the panel, you can download an SVG version of the map view which you can then edit in Inkscape or another SVG-editing software. Just delete all of the details and even edit the colors if you want. —seav (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Should this two article be merged?

I am currently setting the P131 (is in administrative division) property of places in the Philippines in the wikidata project. For example the article for San Beda Alabang is set to the wikidata entity Q4830864 Ayala Alabang. The Q4830864 in tern is linked to the english wiki article for ayala alabang and wikivoyage article Alabang. But i recently found another en Wiki article for Alabang the municipality which currently has no wikidata set to them. Maybe we should merge the two en-Wiki for Ayala Alabang and Alabang as one? If you look at the connection of wikidata it is quite consistent.

Here is a property tree of metro manila: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=13580&rp=131&method=d3

And here is for muntinlupa: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=17176&rp=131&method=d3

--natadecoco (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

    • I think the only one set are for administrative regions. up to the city level. Because it is not uniform, some cities have district/barangay items but some do not. I guess until the city level it was set. But for non administrative district like buildings/monuments etc. They are not set. --natadecoco (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make some factual corrections (with map links for illustration):

  1. San Beda College Alabang is actually in Barangay Cupang, not Barangay Ayala Alabang or Barangay Alabang.
  2. Barangay Ayala Alabang and Barangay Alabang are two different, though adjacent barangays. Merging the two articles depends on what the intention is for merging.
  3. Ayala Alabang Village is a gated community inside Barangay Ayala Alabang. I think the article Ayala Alabang discusses both.
  4. All of the above are in the city of Muntinlupa.

—seav (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Cool. I didn't know Alabang Hills Village belongs to Barangay Cupang. I thought it only gone up to Hillsborough (Southridge) and Pacific Village. But thanks for the info tho, i learned something new about my second home hehe. :) --RioHondo (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

SC declares Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 constitutional!

Two years ago, there was a discussion on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and what we should do about it in order to challenge the law. In light of the Supreme Court now declaring most of the law constitutional, including the law's provisions on internet libel, what should we do now? --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's first focus on which of the more controversial provisions we should challenge. So far, the DOJ's extra powers, online libel and the data collection provisions were shut down which is nice.--Lenticel (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that even some senators are clamoring for the removal of the online libel clause. Perhaps the Tambayan would like to coordinate with these senators or the journalist organizations to put pressure on SC about the online libel ruling? --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This DOJ statement may be of interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Wtmitchell. IRR work is very bloody but it's crucial on how the law is actually implemented.--Lenticel (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Two copies of the same photograph

I found two copies of the two different photograph with differing sizes. Is there a procedure to eliminate such duplicates? Should I just go ahead and delete one, merging its data into the other? Is there any rationale for having two? Here's the photos:

There is also these, but here they have different sources and different data. One is from an archive in Spain and says that it is a photo of Aguinaldo in Hong Kong and the other is from the US War Department and says it was taken circa 1900. Which to keep? Keep both?

--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if the files are exact or scaled-down duplicates you have to request it for speedy deletion in Commons. See the instructions here. Otherwise, you have to request for the deletion here. --Jojit (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

About Mutya Han Samar and Samar Day

Hello Tambayan Philippines people!

Could you possibly have a look at both these articles? Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Roldan Aquino

Hello! At the moment, I'm stuck with just the usual obituary articles about one of Pinoy film's original bad boy, Roldan Aquino. Apparently, I am the third person who attempted to create the article, so any help you can give will be much appreciated. Thanks :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 14/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jepoy Almario

This has been prodded. Please rescue it soon, or send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 16/03

Draft:Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The "references" aren't really references. All are either case citations, the constitution, or other laws. There has to be real life references elsewhere, such newspapers and annotated law books. –HTD 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Diamond V-Eight

This new stub has some issues. Please, can you take a look and fix it? Bearian (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Filipino Migrant Worker

I intend to add this article as a student enrolled in Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (University of Utah) and would really appreciate some thoughts on the topic and my outline. As part of the Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines) the aim is to highlight and create Philippine-related topics. Filipino Migrant Worker will specifically bring up issues surrounding the worker with a suggested outline as follows: 1. History, 2. Economic Developement (2.1 Remittances) 3. Gender equality (3.1 Labor Rights, 3.2 Women's Role as providers) 4. Migration Policy (4.1 WTO Policies, 4.2 Phillipines Domestic Policies) 5. Returnee Integration 6. Children to Migrant Parents. Please leave your feedbackYogibjorn (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The outline looks okay, but I would suggest using the more common term Overseas Filipino Worker, which redirects to Overseas Filipino. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Sky Harbor. - Alternativity (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought to question what the differences might be between a "migrant worker" and an overseas contract worker not identified as a "migrant". However, after looking at the article linked in the previous sentence, I see that there is apparently no difference -- at least as far as U.N. definitions are concerned. I observe that the aforementioned linked article does not have a Philippines section, and opine that one should probably be added. A look at RA8042 and the IRR might be useful. "WTO" threw me for a bit, but I see that is probably World Trade Organization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bachelor Express

This new stub could use some better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agueda Esteban

Please help fix this article as tagged. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

GAR of Philippines

Hey! Theparties put a GAR template on the Philippines last March 11 without addressing any issues to delist it from good article. The user would eventually blocked due to sockpuppetry. Can someone finalize the decision? And/or delete the page? FairyTailRocks 12:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I've closed it (although if I did it right as it's my first time closing a GAR). Now all we need to discuss is if the GAR needs deletion or not. Also, can someone do the necessary edits to Talk:Philippines? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ibong Adarna (mythology)

Ibong Adarna (mythology) should be renamed since the Ibong Adarna poem itself is not part of Philippine folklore or mythology/legend. It's fantasy fiction of the time, like Florante at Laura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.151.71 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just requested to move that article to Ibong Adarna. --Jojit (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Heads up at Juan Ponce Enrile

See http://technology.inquirer.net/35717/enrile-in-masters-of-the-universe-lord-of-the-rings for vandalism of said article. It's either INQ is having a slow news day or we really need to monitor the article.--Lenticel (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I got this one covered. I'll need all the help I can muster. It seems that he's looking at articles of our local politicians, so you now know what to watch out for. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
They better not be spilling too much beans on them trolls. Knowing how mainstream media tends to screw things up even further, what they're doing is making things even more complicated for us Wikipedians. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on their contribs, they might be computer shop hopping so the best course of action might be to semi-protect any affected articles.--Lenticel (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Likely so. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably, they are having a slow day and it seems that author of the INQ article does not know how Wikipedia works. Vandalism (or defacement as the author calls it) is normal in Wikipedia and it's usually not a news. Anyway, I checked the "Skeletor" vandalism and it was reverted and protected immediately. Nevertheless, I will add that on my watchlist. --Jojit (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It did seem to matter to them given how notable Enrile is, but then again such stuff is typical here - making a fuss about it on local news goes to show how yellow they are. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The "defacing" of the articles of Enrile and Janet Lim-Napoles was mentioned yesterday by GMA News. Looks like vandalism can be news-worthy nowadays. I still remember back when the local news that someone vandalized Renato Corona's article, making the article say that he was the "Thief Justice" of the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Official and native names of LGU's

There are several editors who add the terms city or municipality to the infobox in the many native languages of that place, either at the official_name parameter (i.e. Bacolod and Davao City) or the native_name parameter (i.e. Koronadal and Borongan). I like to point out that these parameters are often misused:

Languages that are in official use are not the same as the official name of a place. Official in this context means that it is part of the legally incorporated charter of the city/municipality. So I highly doubt that this is done in more than 1 language in most cases. If a LGU really has more than 1 official name, it needs to be supported by a reference, because I really think editors are merely adding all local languages to the list.

The native_name parameter is for when the actual name is different than the English one, for example: Manila (English) and Maynila (Tagalog). But in the far majority of cases, this is only used to translate the terms city or municipality. This is the English WP, so there is no need to provide translation to foreign languages; for that we have the links to other language Wikipedias.

IMO, Manila is done right and should be the example. I like to see some consensus to make the use of these infobox parameters consistent and logical, while avoiding needless clutter. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I'd also noticed such kinds of edits and I thought that they are unnecessary. Thanks for bringing this topic up. —seav (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I too agree. You can also look at Venice and Rome to find examples like Manila. Paris on the other hand only has one name since Paris is spelled the same in English and French. Same for Berlin and Amsterdam. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Naga & Legazpi

There is a edit war going on at Naga, Camarines Sur, and Legazpi, Albay. Both articles are being edited by new editors who have an agenda to promote these competing cities. Both articles suffer greatly from WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues. Other issues include problematic references, such as references taken out of context and taken from unreliable or biased sources, to support biased claims. I have cleaned them up periodically but it is better if WikiProject Philippines also gets involved. So I ask experienced editors to monitor these pages and assist in upholding the WP policies and guidelines. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be looking into this, too. I made some de-POV'ing on the Legazpi article, will be checking on the Naga article too. Thanks for bringing this up to our attention. --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: please see my comments on the Naga talk page. Please pass it on to the other editors concerned. Thanks --- Tito Pao (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I regret to say that I give up, as some of the important points I raised were ignored or left unheeded :( --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trying to be helpful and sorry it became so tedious for you. This actually highlights the need for more oversight by additional experienced editors so that there can be greater consensus on how the policies are applied. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Parang, Sulu barangays have missed one

I was wondering why Kuta'-Maas, a big barangay in Parang municipality is not found in the list.Benj Bangahan (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Benj Bangahan

Hi @Benj Bangahan: The barangay list in the article Parang, Sulu is based on the official list in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code. It may be possible that the place you mentioned is not an official barangay or a sitio inside another barangay? --Bluemask (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources and style for Filipino BLPs

A very large percentage of our articles on Filipinos (even the most popular or most prominent) have a bright orange BLP sources tag at the top. Some of the same articles, as well as other articles, also need copyediting. Can we form a taskforce or have an editing drive to fix this? It won't be finished overnight, but can we at least start working on at least the most popular Philippine BLPs (and even BDPs)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo in public domain?

This [1] is a great photography of Taft, Osmena and Philippine Commissioners from 1907 (Taft is the most charming in the photo, followed by Smith. Forbes is very dour. Osmena, tiny as he is, holds his own). It is taken in 1907 and is part of the Burnham Collection at the Art Institute of Chicago. Is it in the public domain? I cannot find any publication information and I assume that it has never been published and might be just a private snap by Daniel Burnham. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

They're selling the photos. [2] But I'm curious why hasn't the copyright expired yet. 舎利弗 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The photo was produced in 1907, and under United States copyright law all works produced before 1923 are in the public domain, so yes, this image is in the public domain. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My understanding is that a 1907 photo is in the public domain but I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some sort of odd twist due to a publication date. For instance, would converting the image to a digital format be considered "publication" and therefore the copyright date for the digital format is different from the original print? I note the "may" on their page selling the images which would imply that it is outside copyright: "...the prints and digital files produced may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)..." --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Based on our article, if the derivative work don't have enough originality then they can't apply for copyright protection. I don't think changing the format of a public domain image counts as originality. Perhaps they are charging their customers for the service of converting the image into digital format?--Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Certainly it is fair to charge people a fee to cover the expenses of digitization, especially if they are a commercial outfit. They do not charge for small-scale non-commercial use. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aspin (Dog)

Shouldn't this be at Askal (with an S)? Wikipedia favors the most common name and Aspin sure hasn't gained traction. Otherwise, the football team would be the Aspins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.203.232 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I commented over at the article's talk page, saying that I think it should be "askal" per WP:Commoname. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Military ranks of the Philippines

Can someone please confirm if the images for the sleeve insignia used in this article are legit? I do not trust User:Philipandrew's uploads, being that they are unsourced and the user has a history of uploading his own artworks and passing it off as historical artifacts and uploading copyright violations. See the archive of his sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia and his Commons talk page for reference. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Merging Filipino language to Tagalog language

I'm requesting all parties interested to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino language. I realize this is a controversial topic so I would like to get as much comment as necessary. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Related proposal: Talk:Filipino orthography#Rename to Tagalog orthography. 舎利弗 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Tagalog is a natural language. Filipino is national and semi-artificial created by President Quezon.--Jondel (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you directed your comment to Talk:Filipino language so you can see the progress we have made in the discussion and so that your opinion could be informed with the sources provided so far. Thank you. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I will try to make time for it. --Jondel (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for a Taskforce - Aquiring Free License for Notable Filipinos from living relatives

I was trying to add position held wikidata statements for notable Filipino politicians, and I noticed that some of them do not have commons image that can be seen from any other wiki. I mean, when checking out former senate presidents, which have their names used on major roads in the philippines, we do not even have a photo of them. Maybe Wikimedia Philippines should have a task force for contacting relatives of notable Filipinos relatives if they can offer photos of their ancestor for free license so we can place them in commons.

We can start with Presidents, then Vice-Presidents, even not politicians. I mean explaining to the family member that their photos would be reusable not only in English wikipedia / local wikipedia but possible uses of the photos in wikidata. I am not that new to the Philippine chapter, were you able to start such similar work task force.

I think they had a similar project to european parliament, something similar to wiki love monuments.

--natadecoco (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, natadecoco. The project involving the European Parliament actually began with Wikimedia Deutschland taking pictures of members of state assemblies for use on Wikipedia, which later expanded to the European Parliament. Currently, in the Philippines, we rely on government sources for pictures of government officials owing to their freely-licensed nature, but if we want high-resolution pictures, this would be a good project.
If you would like to spearhead this project, please inform Wikimedia Philippines through any of our channels so we can work out how the project will be implemented. We also look forward to helping secure funding for such a project if it comes to that point. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean thru your channel? Do the philippine wikipedia people have a private chat channels? Anyway, I am not yet ready to spearhead this. Just want to suggest this in case the chapter would do a meeting, how this project can be done. --natadecoco (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Links to the channels Sky Harbor referred to are right here, in a box to the right of the text. Ijon (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's an idea -- have Congress declare a "historical images day" (or some such name) say near the opening of Congress or the SONA and then on that day have Wikipedians with nice cameras (or maybe volunteers from a photographic society or photographic fins arts programs) visit the House and Senate. They would go around to the different offices and take photos of both the Congressmen and Senators themselves, plus whatever photos that they and their staff brought in for that day. Many are relatives of past dignitaries and have family albums that they could bring in (the albums would not have to leave their offices and could stay in the possession of their staff) that could be photographed. Further they would know the important folks from their districts and would be interested (I would hope) at getting proper recognition for their district's leaders and therefore could bring in photos of them. These would have to be personal photos and not press clippings of course (copyright issues). It would take approaching the Speaker and Senate President, the circulation of a letter and reminders and finally visiting the offices. The more folks who volunteer to visit the faster it would go. Nor does this require funding, though funding might help speed up the uploading. Of course, getting sponsorship from like Nikon, and tapping things like the various Nikon societies, (or other camera makers) might also be possible. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of Iloilo Wanderer. I think we could start by discussing this as a proposal document or a presentation in a wiki tambayan meeting? Maybe we could make a shared online presentation docs which we can edit together to share ideas on the proposal first. I think we can send the proposal to the congress if they will give permission to conduct the event. --natadecoco (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We can certainly use a new meetup, so if you guys would like to organize one, be bold! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we -- or rather you since I'm not in Manila -- could adapt WP:Edit-a-thon into a "photo-a-thin". From that article: "An edit-a-thon is... a scheduled time where people edit Wikipedia together, whether offline, online, or a mix of both; typically focused on a specific topic, such as science or women's history; (and) a way to recruit new Wikipedians and teach them how to contribute. Edit-a-thons improve the encyclopedia and can be a great way to help new Wikipedians learn to edit. This is quite different than large conferences such as Wikimania, which often have multiple speakers or panels about a huge variety of topics. An edit-a-thon is also unlike a regular meetup, which tends to be without a single goal and/or for socializing. In other words: an edit-a-thon is like a hackathon for Wikipedians. (And definitely not like a telethon.)" For an example of an upcoming edit-a-thon see the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014 --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The Peabody Essex Museum's edit-a-thin is focused on Native American and Chinese Art. The museum is based in Salem, Massachusetts (think witch trials, The Perfect Storm) a great 19th Century trading port whose ships and captains sailed all the way to Asia, including the Philippines, bringing back Chinese art. Just in case anyone here wanted to participate remotely.... --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
How do we "have the Congress" declare something? Will this be the topic of another project? Guevarra.jayson 01:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guevarra.jayson (talk • contribs)
Good question. That is something we should ask a friendly congressman or staffer. Is there an official historian? A letter from the historian then, or from the Speaker, or from the Sargent at Arms or the secretary. Somebody is likely in charge of organizing internal activities of the House and Senate. You ask them to choose a day to be an "historical images day". --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Philippines has a meeting with the PCDSPO tomorrow, so maybe you guys could approach Seav (WMPH President) with your proposal, and we can see what we can do about it? These are good ideas, but I would appreciate it greatly if you direct these suggestions to WMPH directly if you wish for the chapter to act upon them. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Long red right-pointing triangle.svg

Flag of Lakan Dula

Hi. I feel I have to raise a question about this image, which supposedly represents "Lakandula's Flag." Its historicity has to be doubted, because AFAIK we have no visual reference that can serve as a source showing what a flag in 1570s Manila looked like. |Watawat.net mentions Montero y Vidal's Historia General de Filipinas, specifying vol. I p. 36, but does not quote a segment of that document which describes the flag, or even say that such a descriptive passage exists. (I don't have a copy myself.) It only asserts that "The red flag or red banner was the typical symbol of the Kingdom of Rajah Lakandula (Lacandola for the spaniards), this color follows the traditional colors adopted by the ancient rulers of the islamic kingdoms of the filipino area." Even if a description of a banner of this shape and color exists within the Montero y Vidal text, there's the question of whether the text actually specifies that the banner was indeed "a flag." It could have been just some sort of decorative element - we can't actually tell unless we have the text in front of us, and THEN (this is my most immediate beef with this image), by the rules of historical rigor we would have to ask whether the original record could have been affected by the European-skewed perspective of the author. If this image should be on wikipedia at all, I believe at the very least it should always be accompanied by text explaining the historical caveats. But perhaps I am being overzealous? There is, after all, a source that attests that the image is historical. Or perhaps I am being far too much a wiki inclusionist? At any rate, I do not feel up to the task of doing anything about the image myself. Like I said, I feel there's a chance I am being overzealous and I feel there are many other things which deserve my...er...zeal. Still, this bothers me. So I'm bringing it up for the Tambayan's consideration. Alternativity (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are valid. But it's not Wikipedia's job to determine if historians were right or wrong in their "European-skewed perspective," unless another author criticizes Montero y Vidal and so on. What I would prefer is if we indicated a flag on the relevant article, then caption it along the lines of "Lakandula's flag according to Montero y Vidal ...," with a footnote as reference quoting the passage where he describes the features of the flag. But we don't have that, do we? Until such time, I think it would be best to remove the flag entirely since it might as well be a hoax. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WMPH's Wikimania Scholarship

Hello fellow Tambays,

The Board of Trustees is pleased to announce that it will be offering one (1) scholarship to attend Wikimania 2014 in London. The scholarship includes (among others) roundrip plane fare to London, shared accommodation, and visa application processing fees.

If you're interested, you can find the complete details on this page at the WMPH official website.

Thanks! :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Documentation for Jusay Ancestral House and other National Heritage Houses?

New article Jusay Ancestral House was recently nominated for deletion because it seemed possibly not to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Relative to most historic sites articles in English wikipedia, this article is unusual for being sourced to audio and video interviews. (It also lacked basic identification of the site, like its address and/or coordinates, but I could find those and added them.) I believe, but am not sure, that the house is officially a National Heritage House. The AFD discussion was closed for now, but raised questions about documentation of Philippine historic sites, including use of primary sources. Wikipedia policy on primary sources, wp:PRIMARY, is that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". It seems to me that the audio and video files are published, because they are in wikimedia. But I think there are easy ways to smooth the introduction of more Filippino historic sites to be included in Wikipedia.

To start, I wonder, is there a complete, official list of National Heritage Houses available? The wikipedia article Lists of Cultural Properties of the Philippines‎ links to various sublists by region, but has only a redlink currently to List of National Heritage Houses in the Philippines. The regional sublists seem not to cover National Heritage Houses, or at least List of Cultural Properties of the Philippines in Metro Manila fails to include the Jusay one. I understand that maybe any house over 50 years old would be eligible to be listed, but does a list exist? I assume it would be public domain, as such lists elsewhere are generally held to be. If it does exist, then I'd like to get a copy and/or work with others to build out those lists in Wikipedia.

And, for the Jusay house, is there any written documentation available? What library or historic registry department keeps files on Philippine historic sites? It would help the Jusay article if a registration document could be included as a source, either if it is on-line and can be linked or if it is only available off-line. I wonder, was a written report created by the 3 Wikimedia volunteers (Hanah Dalawangbayan, Jun Pasa and Jeffy John Tomarong), who interviewed Mrs. Jusay?

In the U.S., where I am from, most local historic registries keep files of nomination documents. Some but not all U.S. states have their state-level nomination documents on-line. And the official registration of a site is usually accomplished by a local government office's declaration that the site meets the registry's criteria and is hereby officially listed, and that declaration can then be cited in a Wikipedia article about the site. It would be great if Wikimedia volunteers did write reports and these were "published" by a central registry receiving and filing them. And it would be super if these reports were specifically licensed as CC or public domain so that long quotes could be used in Wikipedia articles. Note in the U.S. some historic site nomination documents are in the public domain because they were created by U.S. government staff, but most are written by private parties or state government staff and are not automatically in the public domain (so these can be used as sources, but only short quotes are allowable by copyright law).

I visit by invitation of Sky Harbor at this discussion at WikiProject Historic sites, who also mentioned Namayan, Joelaldor and Seav. Looking forward to any response. :) --doncram 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember a wikimedia project in India that collected audio interviews in the absense of written records, Maybe that was a similar project. Agathoclea (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It is: that's the oral citations project. Given the lack of documentation for our heritage structures in the Philippines, the use of oral citations is inevitable. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Agathoclea and Sky Harbor, for commenting. Very interesting about the oral citations project, and I see that it includes recordings and also transcripts in English and/or the local language. Although the sourcing to the audio interview in the Jusay Ancestal House article doesn't include a transcript, and it being a primary source, I personally am fine with that being the "published" source supporting the article. And would be fine about similar sourcing for more articles. But, is there any list in a document or a database that I or others could use to help support development in this area? For historic sites in the United States, the Wikipedia development of a system of lists was accelerated by use of official lists (in PDF documents, available from a government site) and by use of a government database that could be downloaded. Which several programmers, including me, used to generate list-tables and/or to generate infoboxes that editors could then include into articles. What's available here? --doncram 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating Independent Pages

Hi! I created some independent pages for the yearly ceremony of GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards recently. However, one of the editors redirected those pages to the parent page since (s)he argued that the "...article fails to establish why it's independently notable". Nevertheless, I still believe that each award ceremony, which happens annually, is notable enough to have an independent page. Thus, I talked to the editor as seen here. S/he, then, encourages me to come here and forward this concern. Concerning my appeal, I would want to discuss with you why the pages are notable enough. Here are my concerns:

  • What is the article about/Main topic: The independent articles talk about the winners and the event of a particular year in general, not the award-giving body. It is only right, then, that the coverage of the page has "the winners list", "date of the event" and "place of the event" of that year included at the very least.
  • Sources/References: Just like what I said on his/her talk page, each article has at least 1 reference of that year each year. I believe that it's enough to cover for the main contents of the independent page since the main topic is about the "event" and "winners", not the award-giving body. If ever you still believe that it is not enough, I can even add more references (talking about the individual winner instead, for example) and/or a non-online reference pointing to the event itself. On the side note, what I said is that there has at least one reference for each year. In short, some independent pages have even more than one reference which mainly focus on the particular event.
  • Parent article: I think this is one of the things that I would agree that was covered during my conversation with the editor. I agree that I should also focus on the GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards page because it still needs a lot of improvement. In defense, I also said that I am planning to improve the page as well after doing the yearly event since I still need more information about it. Nevertheless, I would follow his/her suggestion to improve the main page first.
  • Notability: Although I understand that the parent article has to be improved, I still believe that independent articles for each year should be added/created. If ever I added all the winners on the main page, it would be too long, plus it would even look like a page full of lists instead. But then, if I do not include all the winners and just add the "major awardees", that would be unfair to others, or so I believe. Finally, if I do not recognize any winner at all, then what is the point of having the award-giving body? What I'm trying to say is that all winners from each year deserve to be recognized. That's where the independent pages come from. Again, if each year has at least the winners list, and the date and place of the event, then the page should be "independently notable" because it is about the event. Notability means that it covers the main topic significantly and has multiple, reliable, independent sources.

I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions, and special thanks 舎利弗 for your comments regarding this matter. :) 001Jrm (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no further comments apart from those I have already said in my talk page in my discussion with 001Jrm. If other editors think I was mistaken, I would be more than happy to rescind my edits. Cheers, 舎利弗 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems this thread is not gathering the amount of participation necessary to build consensus. I would just like to inform the dear user, should he still wish to pursue making separate pages for each year of the award, that there are other avenues (e.g., WP:RfC) by which non-involved editors can be invited to give their opinion on the matter. 舎利弗 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Asia may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/06

Draft:The Philippine Tabo. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting article, tho it needs more research particularly on the history of the use of Tabo in the Philippines. I can't believe that came from a history professor from UP Diliman that the tabo originated in America!? Afaik, the Philippine tabo is not just a toilet object, as it is used practically anywhere that needs scooping water as in its early use (except maybe filipinos don't use it for drinking water anymore). It's used for cleaning, laundry, taking a bath, watering plants, even as a container for your pets water or food. :) So i wouldn't call it a bidet at all, though it could be. From the Spanish dictionary of the Real Academia Española1, a tabo is a type of "Philippine container made from the coconut's hard inner shell." This was the original Philippine tabo that dates back to even pre-Hispanic days and which most probably made its way to the Spanish official dictionary prior to the tabo becoming a plastic container during the American period. This 1889 account from the Biblioteca de España Oriental refers to the tabo as a "vaso indigena" (indigenous glass) for taking a bath. And according to this 1887 source, the tabo is a half coconut shell (media cascara de coco) "para beber y para el baño" (to drink and for bath). I think this article needs some major fact-checking before being published. Thanks! --RioHondo (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Should be a different article - Where is the main venue for the discussion of the article, exactly? Here? On its talk page? Anyway. Coming as I do from an interest in indigenous Filipino culture, believe me when I say it is with regret that I say I do not believe the Tabo deserves an article of its own. Instead, I believe a strong arguement can be made for an article such as "Tabo use in Philippine culture", with "Tabo" serving as a redirect. I don't see that an argument can be made for the Filipino Tabo being physically (and thus, literally, "substantially") different from any OTHER culture's dipper, whether the construction be of coconut, of gourd, of shell, or some other material. In essence, they're all the same: simple tool consisting of a handle attached to a receptacle, used for holding, transporting, and pouring various fluids. The tabo is a dipper. The Pinoy just uses it differently. The difference lies in how each culture views and uses them. And to me, that means the article ought to be one about the cultural trait, not the artifact itself. - Alternativity (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Question: Do we refer to the tabo as "tabo" or "dipper" in English? –HTD 15:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone who is familiar with Philippines politics

... please keep an eye on Template:Aquino Cabinet? An IP has been making some disruptive edits to this template, but has also been making some edits that appear to be genuinely useful. As I'm not familiar with Philippines politics, it would be useful if some more knowledgeable editors could take a look. Thanks, --NSH002 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the edits are changing on how the departments are ordered in the template. For example, the current version has the departments ordered alphabetically; the IP's version has Foreign Affairs on top. As for other changes, at first glance, there were none on the people or links. (P.S. is there a way to make that template less unwieldy?) –HTD 15:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
A few more changes I saw
  • Changing the link targets from secretary articles to department ones, while the pipe links remain as "Secretary of Foo". This deceiving the reader, as there are separate articles on each department and its head, but not that much.
  • Adding Category:Filipino politicians. This is a bad idea from the get-go as most cabinet members are not career politicians.
For the most part, I prefer the current version, but I could go with a different arrangement if there truly is one. –HTD 18:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fort Bonifacio

See Talk:Fort Andres Bonifacio to determine what should be the primary topic, the military or the district? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

New National Artists

Heads up! Malacanang named six new National Artists. I have already updated the main article and the template. Only two of the new NAs have articles: Francisco Coching and Cirilo F. Bautista, so now's a good time to create new articles for the other new National Artists (Alice Reyes, Ramon Santos, Francisco Feliciano(done!) and Jose Maria Zaragosa). --- Tito Pao (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ambahayan Broadcast Center(ABC)

ABC has its seat at the Ambahayan Counpounds in Poblacion Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay. It broadcasts videos and music online .--121.54.58.197 (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Earth Music

an original Filipino music using traditional instruments and found object. First album came out in 1994 released by Backdoor Records of Mr. Gary Granada recorded and produced by Ato Mariano from Mindanao. The album was recorded at the Aroin Studios in Sta. Mesa Manila by Mio Aroin as technician in 4 tracks system.--121.54.58.197 (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nereus Acosta

Why exactly does the Nereus Acosta article have a Neutrality tag? Looks like a pretty run of the mill summary of achievements and positions to me. Do you folks think it deserves the tag? I know too little about Acosta to be able to determine for myself what exactly is and isn't there. - Alternativity (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been tagged since 2011 and there hasn't been any discussion. It should've been removed in 2012. –HTD 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I had removed the tag. It seems to be added for no reason by the person who expanded the article. –HTD 14:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a Philippine PPP projects template?

Hi. Just had an idea: wouldn't it be nice if we had a template for ongoing and proposed Philippine PPP projects? There's a template for Philippine Highways, but if my research interest is in the financing and policy aspect of these projects, it would be much more helpful to have a template that links me to nonhighway projects as well, such as dams, power plants, etc. I could try and make one, and will do so maybe in two months if nobody else wants to do it, but I thought I'd bring it up to the group so that anyone here who is faster at making templates and wants to do it can do so. (I would have to do a lot of trial and error, and don't have much free time, thus this request.) - Alternativity (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alternativity: Do we already have a list on these PPP projects? What should the template contain? A list, or a table? --Bluemask (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the disambiguation page for PPP, I see that one use of that abbreviation applies to projects described in the article on Public–private partnership, and I'm guessing that you're talking about these sorts of projects. It would probably also be useful to add a Philippines section to that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I see that a {{Public-private partnerships in Puerto Rico}} template exists. Someone who has some idea of what the initial content ought to be could create such a template for the Philippines using the one for Puerto Rico as a starting point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a list at http://ppp.gov.ph/?page_id=5663 , which I can only assume is relatively complete, if not necessarily entirely up-to-date. - Alternativity (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think creating a template or category on PPP projects in the Philippines is necessary as it would just basically link to ALL proposed infrastructure project articles found in Category:Proposed infrastructure in the Philippines which includes all the new airports, rail lines and roads, and which already have their own individual templates (under their main articles listed as planned/proposed/u/c). Afaik PPP is just like the earlier BOT and almost every government project now has adopted this approach. Maybe what we need is a consolidated Template:Proposed infrastructure in the Philippines regardless of the approach or mode of financing? Btw, apart from public transport projects, i dont think there are other available articles out there.--RioHondo (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Proposed infrastructure in the Philippines sounds great to me, @RioHondo:. I just noticed the need for it because I felt the Laguna Lakeshore Expressway Dike project would have benefitted from having a template in which a more comprehensive list of proposed infrastructure - not just a list of highways - could be seen and clicked through to. My interest is less in the financing, and more in terms of the macro view of infrastructure development being undertaken by the government at this time. - Alternativity (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And oh, a non-transport projects: Laiban Dam and Laiban Hydro Electric Power Plant. (It seems the NEDA asked MWSS to undertake the related but smaller Kaliwa Dam using existing funds or ODA funding, effectively splitting the old New Centennial Water Source project into two projects with different financing schemes. - Alternativity (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Not everything needs a navbox! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe I am arguing that major Philippine government infrastructure projects do. (I am withdrawing my original "Philippine PPP Projects" category for being overspecific.)-Alternativity (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made this edit to the Public–private partnership article, adding sections there for the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Improve or modify as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal: can we have Philippine Government Infrastructure Projects Navbox

Since this phrasing of the Navbox idea is very different from the PPP one, I thought I'd mention it as a subsection to the previous proposal, to make conversation easier. :D = Alternativity (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 01/07

User:Carnalito/Don Benito Alvarez Toral. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New articles in the ESWP

I found these articles on former provinces in the Spanish Wikipedia that have no corresponding English articles yet: Amburayan, Apayaos, El Príncipe, La Infanta and Lepanto. Not sure what the rules are for translating articles though. Is it alright to Google translate their whole content and copy their sources? --RioHondo (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

SM Mall of Asia

There is discussion in Commons for the deletion of photos of SM Mall of Asia. --Bluemask (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The images have been deleted.[3] --Bluemask (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't these images (especially those used in articles) be moved to Wikipedia instead? —seav (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, they wouldn't be allowed under the English Wikipedia's interpretation of fair use. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PDAF scam navbox

Hi guys. I'd just like to get the opinion of other people here to see whether it would be wise to have a PDAF scam navbox. I'm expecting there will be more articles on the particulars of the scam (we have Napoles, the Revilla speech, the scams proper, the PDAF itself, and I'm expecting the court cases and the DAP will have articles as well), so it would be wise to put all of them in one place. What do you think? :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regions of the Philippines as first-level administrative divisions?

I was trying to review our local government structure found in Administrative divisions of the Philippines and I realized that provinces not regions are supposed to be the primary or first-level divisions of the country. Local government in the Philippines says the same thing, with the exception of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which is a separate case and which should be treated as a territory like Puerto Rico is to the U.S. or Tibet to China. Our first-level divisions should be the Provinces of the Philippines and other Province-level divisions namely independent cities and independent municipality as presented in the List of primary local government units of the Philippines. As for the 16 administrative regions, i'm not sure they belong to any of those administrative levels. Component cities and Municipalities should be second-level divisions; Barangays should be third; and Sitios and puroks, fourth-level.

Need to know your opinion before I make any changes. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The only "administrative divisions" are "classes of places" that has its own separate executive and legislative branch that were given to them by the national government. Autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays satisfy this. Regular regions, sitios and puroks do not. –HTD 12:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. So definitely, provinces and province-level divisions (independent cities/municipality) go first. Component cities and municipalities second. Barangays third. And leave sitios and puroks out of the country admin level categories. I think autonomous regions, in our case theres only one, should be outside these classifications (like a territory), or it could fall under province-level divisions (first level). What do you think? I will move the regular regions out of the first-level division but keep them under Cat:Subdivisions of the Philippines same with Puroks and sitios. But having the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as the sole first-level division with the provinces and independent LGU's at the second-level would make it look like all our provinces fall below the ARMM. --RioHondo (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone told me here that any regional division "isn't an LGU." I eventually agreed with him/her. –HTD 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I see. I think this Category:Province-level divisions of South Korea at the first-level closely resembles our admin structure. Will be creating that category, move that and the provinces up to first-level, followed by the rest. The regions, do you think the ARMM deserve to be separate from the regular regions? Or will it be better to group it with the province-level divisions at the first-level like China does with Tibet, etc at Category:Province-level divisions of China?--RioHondo (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I dunno about "ordinal number"-level subdivisions, TBH. I'd put independent cities on a level with their regular city and town cousins, but that's just me. If there's something I can agree with is that regular regions aren't "first-level". Provinces are "first-level". Cities and towns could be first or second. Barangays are third, but how about barangays in independent cities? Are they second-level? There isn't enough literature that describes the relationship of autonomous regions and provinces. If anything, they could be like on a level between zero and first. –HTD 14:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think barangays belonging to independent cities are no different from barangays in component cities and municipalities, but as these province-level independent LGU's have no "cities" or "municipalities" then they skip the second-level division, just like not all the 26 Cantons of Switzerland (first-level) have Districts (second-level), but they all have Municipalities at the third-level. So it is still possible to arrange the provinces and independent cities like that. With the Autonomous Region outside this hierarchy, their provinces, cities/municipalities and barangays will be a category of their own similar to that of a territory or associated state, i.e, Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi would be moved from Category:Provinces of the Philippines to Category:Provinces of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; Lamitan and Marawi from Category:Cities in the Philippines to Category:Cities in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, etc. so that they don't have to follow this hierarchy of the majority regular LGUs and which I believe more accurately reflects their current situation and organization which is really different from all the rest.--RioHondo (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The Philippines is still a "unitary state". The thing with "associated state" is that both the "associate state" and the national government would have to agree if the perks of being the "associate state" would be withdrawn. For example, if Virginia was to peaceably secede from the Union, both Virginia and the U.S. would have to agree; if one doesn't agree and pushes the envelope, well, ask Jefferson Davis. Perhaps the more correct analogy would be Northern Ireland of old when the British unilaterally removed the Northern Irish institutions during the Troubles. This (associated state) is not what's happening with the ARMM or even with the upcoming Bangsamoro; the national government can withdraw the autonomy of the ARMM by itself without the consent or even under the direct opposition of the ARMM Assembly (of course, excepting the requirement of plebiscites, as autonomous regions and creation of other LGUs need plebiscites). All of the powers of local government, including of autonomous regions, are derived from the powers of the national government. The provinces of the ARMM are still provinces of the Philippines, and not provinces of the ARMM (but provinces in ARMM), just that there's another level of bureaucracy. –HTD 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, forget their labels. But for the sake of putting things in their right places, do you agree with the above structure / categorization? :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be content in not further subcategorizing provinces into regions, TBH. Towns and cities within each provinces should be OK. –HTD 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Done moving the LGUs to their proper places. Btw, i think Regions of the Philippines needs to get updated to include info on the role and composition of the Regional Development Councils which serve as the regions' highest policy-making body.--RioHondo (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, but anything that comes out of these RDCs aren't binding, right? There's this issue with the Bicol and Central (or Eastern) Visayas RDC on whale sharks but nothing happened because RDCs don't make (local) laws. If a "legislature" can't tax you, it's worthless. The best they can do is persuade the SPs, which may not follow them. –HTD 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Shades of the Metro Manila Council of the MMDA? A council thats more like an advisory board that has no real legal power? Hehe--RioHondo (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly like that. We don't even know how often these RDCs meet, perhaps when there's like a calamity, to settle grudges (whale shark example) or something. Regions are pretty much worthless. Think of it as something like New England, only that there government offices that are too poor to have provincial offices so they resort to regional ones. –HTD 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, RDCs meet regularly: at least once a month, if I'm not mistaken. RDCs are also responsible for defining metropolitan areas in the absence of the NEDA doing so, as is the case with the expansion of Metro Cebu. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but again, these have no force of law. Metro Cebu in its current state is "extra-legal" at best. The only legally defined metro area is Metro Manila. –HTD 12:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Howard, metropolitan areas are defined by the NEDA: there are twelve so far. I suggest checking Cities of the Philippines#Metropolitan areas. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
These are just informal definitions. Metro Cebu wanted to be legalized already so that they could like do actually something. –HTD 13:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now how do you draw that line again to point to this new paragraph? :)
Hmm i think regardless if RDC members don't meet often or how worthless they truly are, they still deserve to be mentioned in the Regions of the Philippines article at least, right? Btw, according to this Executive Order 325 from 1996: "The RDC Full Council shall meet at least once every quarter". Its advisory committee on the other hand "may meet as often as necessary but not less than once a semester." RioHondo (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well yeah. A person could even make articles on each one. –HTD 20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Philippine History

Just recently, this project was labeled inactive. However, I believe I would need help to revive this, especially since August, our national history month, is fast coming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philippine_History Arius1998 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not make this WikiProject a task force under WikiProject Philippines (aka Tambayan)? —seav (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible. How can I? Also, WikiProject University of the Philippines has been labeled inactive as well. Arius1998 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Supports with the merger. I will help with the merger of the Philippine History project as a Tambayan taskforce. Will do this tonight. --Bluemask (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

LGU update

I have requested the following municipality articles to be moved according to their true common and/or official spellings showing evidences of their official seal, official website, and images of municipal halls or welcome sign from those municipalities carrying their real spelling:

Bulacan —> Bulakan
Impasug-ong —> Impasugong
Ma-ayon —> Maayon
Pigkawayan —> Pigcawayan
Pinamungahan —> Pinamungajan
Sapi-an —> Sapian

Also, the following municipalities need to have their maps replaced to reflect their new names:

Sultan Sumagka (renamed from Talitay – MMA Act 228)
Datu Montawal (renamed from Pagagawan – MMA Act 152)
Banguingui (renamed from Tongkil – MMA Act 71)
Mataasnakahoy (erroneously spelled as Mataas na Kahoy)

The following recently created municipalities in Maguindanao have no maps yet:

Mangudadatu, Maguindanao(created in 2006 – MMA Act 204)
Datu Hoffer Ampatuan, Maguindanao (created in 2009 – MMA Act 220)
Shariff Saydona Mustapha, Maguindanao (created in 2009 — MMA Act 252)
Datu Salibo, Maguindanao (created in 2009 – MMA Act 222)
Northern Kabuntalan, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 205)
Pandag, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 204])
Datu Anggal Midtimbang, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 206)
Datu Blah T. Sinsuat, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 198)

Anyone here knows how to create/edit LGU maps?--RioHondo (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to request new and changed maps at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
For the municipality article move requests (first list), I would like to note that the main reason why I supported the recent similar move request from Miag-ao to Miagao is that the Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC) listed the name as "MIAGAO". This doesn't hold for the other listed municipalities where the official national-level standard apparently conflicts with the municipal-level standard. (What about at the provincial-level? What do the province websites list?) Given this conflict between 2 official sources, please note that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use the official name (Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton) in titling articles but rather what most reliable sources use. Looking at Sapi-an/Sapian, local news articles use both spellings but "Sapian" is used by around 300 links as opposed to 80 for "Sapi-an", so I may support the move to "Sapian". (I personally would like to standardize on using PSGC as much as possible, but Wikipedia policies trump that.) —seav (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(Oops. Sorry for the almost blanking of the page; my browser crashed. I noticed what happened and was about to fix it but Blakegripling ph beat me to it. :) —seav (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
It's OK, at least it ain't something a little revert/fix can't do, aye? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That only goes to show that the PSGC or whatever central government data agency is not always reliable when it comes to geographic names and spellings. WP:COMMONNAME for me is how the LGU officials and residents themselves commonly refer to their LGU, not what the central government thought their LGUs are called or how their names are spelled when they entered them in the database and published them online for others to follow. Their seals, websites, what is visible in their own locality is what we should follow, and not these central government agencies which continue to call this marsh in Mindanao as "Ligawasan Marsh" or this national park on Lake Pantao Raya in Saguiaran as Pantuwaraya Lake National Park (the DENR could have just copied the name of the barangay where it is located). Miag-ao is just like Ligawasan whose misspelling was picked up by many with those official government entries to UNESCO's heritage list. :)--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind moving, but as far as I know, there's still no consensus to drop province names from municipalities. So why is it that the move requests all involve dropping the province name? --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is. But you can discuss that with your Philippine chapter president or chairman of the board of trustees in your next assembly. :) As far as im concerned, this is in line with what WP does for article titles and editing in general. Achieving consensus through discussions which the individual RMs did (part of the whole WP:BRD process). But i guess you already know that. Some BAU stuff. :) --RioHondo (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we all actually please defer these moves until we've found consensus? The last discussion stalled. –HTD 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with the article naming discussion was that it tried to include everything at once. I suggest a new approach to discuss only municipalities, cities, provinces, one at a time. BTW, Baloi, Lanao del Norte, may also need to be renamed, which appears to be commonly written as Balo-i (see official website). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey P199, thanks for noticing. Will request for it to be moved too. Hopefully we can get a dedicated editor to start updating those maps too.--RioHondo (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Another thing: in order to make locator maps for the new places in Maguindanao, we need an authoritative/official map or source to base it on. I have not been able to find this. Do you know where we can find this? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this map posted in the provincial article looks updated. It's the same map posted in Maguindanao's official website. P.S. I know someone who does this really well, only he's busy in that other discussion lol. --RioHondo (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I had seen that map, but I don't trust its accuracy. It's clearly more like a tourism map than an official survey or cadastral map. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

New articles on built cultural heritage

I have noticed there has recently been a surge in new articles about the Philippines, especially on the architectural front. Many appear to be the work of new editors, several of whom have been producing high-quality work. Over the past few days, among others I have for example seen Church of the Risen Lord created by @Fmgverzon:, Church of La Milagrosa by @Karkossa:, National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes by @MIKELAAGAN:, Holy Rosary Minor Seminary by @Jun pasa:, Church of Panay by @Iannekleina:, Santiago Apostol Church, Plaridel by @JJ Carpio:, Santo Domingo Church by @Joannerfabregas: and San Juan de Dios Church by @JJ Carpio:. (I have included all of these in the New articles section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture (where the more recent additions can be seen on the main project page and an extended list at Portal:Architecture/New article announcements.) I think it would be useful if your project page could also highlight this work, especially as we appear to have acquired many excellent new editors. If it is the result of a local initiative, it would be useful to know how it has been set up and who is responsible.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, I think this is the result of the Philippine Cultural Heritage Mapping project by Wikimedia Philippines. You can contact the project lead (User:joelaldor) directly regarding this project. Thanks for bringing this up. --Jojit (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are these articles not nominated at WP:DYK? --Lenticel (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jojit: Thanks for all the background. See my comments at User talk:Joelaldor.
@Lenticel: I fully agree with you that several of these could be nominated for DYK. I have already suggested this to @Rosiestep: but I would appreciate any assistance you can offer.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

San Juan de Dios Church - @JJ Carpio: @Ipigott: I'd like to nominate this one at DYK. Before I can do so, a reference has to be added to each non-lead paragraph. I was unable to find a citation for the Architecture section but perhaps you have access to some other sources. Also, the image gallery appears bloated; perhaps it can be curated to just a handful of images? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, thank you for noticing the article. I've tweaked the article a bit though I am not sure whether I am doing it right. I'm new here so I would appreciate comments from you guys on how to make good quality Wiki articles. Thanks! JJ Carpio (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Santo Domingo Church - @Joannerfabregas: @Ipigott: I'm moving discussion about this article to the article talkpage, Talk:Santo Domingo Church. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott and Rosiestep. We're "nagging" (if you will) the editors in question to come and respond to this, but if you would like a method of faster communication, please feel free to join the project's Facebook group. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sky Harbor, It is best for the conversations about these articles to say 'on wiki' and either be addressed on the project's talkpage (i.e. right here) or the particular article's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree, Rosiestep, but these are new editors that we're talking about here, and we can only do so much to coax them into becoming more engaged on-wiki. We're trying, but sometimes we must also reach out to them using channels which they're more comfortable using, which in this case is Facebook (which also most Filipinos use). --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed there have been a few articles created here for the same place, like Santo Niño Church (Midsayap) & Archdiocesan Shrine of Santo Nino de Midsayap, Our lady of the most holy rosary binondo chinese parish (duplicate of Binondo Church), and Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Anne & Saint Anne Parish Church, Taguig. Are these churches covered by this project? Do the project members actually talk among themselves and coordinate who's doing which? Already merged the first two but i dunno which one to keep for the Taguig church.--RioHondo (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The two articles whose diffs you linked were made before the start of the project last month. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this project still ongoing? Would just like to request for the following articles on Philippine churches in the World Heritage Site list including those in the tentative list (or at least prioritize them if possible)
1. Miag-ao Church checkY (ooh that was fast! Thanks @User:Carlojoseph14!)
2. Tentative List
Baroque Churches (extension) and Jesuit Churches in the Philippines
a. Baclayon Church
b. Boljoon Church
c. Guiuan Church
d. Lazi Church
e. Loboc Church
f. Tumauini Church
Btw, thanks to User:joannerfabregas for creating the Maragondon Church article. Regards--RioHondo (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope that structures under the tentative list be part of our priority. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of articles needed

Last Saturday, June 28, we had a meeting (raw minutes) with the volunteers who are creating and improving these articles on built heritage. Before July ends, the project leads will be deliberating and then assigning them to cover nearby towns and cities to do research and take photographs of all declared (by NHCP or NM) built heritage in their assigned places. Thus, we are expecting an even larger surge of new articles. Before that happens, I hope that we can do a peer review of the articles that they have created thus far. You can find a list of articles created or improved per volunteer at the WMPH website. The idea is to provide them feedback so that they can improve their existing articles and so that the articles they will be creating in the future will have less newbie-related problems. An example of review feedback is the one I left at Talk:St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines). Pinging Ipigott, Rosiestep, Sky Harbor, Titopao, RioHondo, Namayan, Bluemask, Lenticel, joelaldor. —seav (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly an impressive list. Congratulations to all concerned. I will continue in particular to monitor the new articles. I think one of the lessons learned up to now is the need to paraphrase material found in the sources and to avoid copying over chunks of original text. It's also important to include inline references (at least one per paragraph) and, in the reference, to try to provide data on the title of the source article, author (if given), publisher and date in addition to the URL. Of course most contributors are already working along these lines. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see the efforts here and I'll monitor the new ones as well. Some recommendations: (a) newer editors should consider avoiding large content additions at one time, opting instead for incremental edits with inline citations, (b) create a Gallery section in shorter articles, instead of over-saturating the content area with images (i.e. St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines)), and (c) where there is information about a building's design, include an "Architecture" section (or "Architecture and fittings" to include content on a font, etc.). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Peer-review is a good way to assess quality of articles so that we could ensure the reliability of our articles. Just a clarification, Josh mentioned during the workshop that it is not a good way for encyclopedic articles to create a gallery. Or it is okay to place a gallery if the article is too short? Please correct me. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think they prefer linking to a Commons gallery for the pictures instead of displaying all of them in the articles. Anyway, one thing i noticed in some of these new articles is that they seem to have been copied straight from somewhere, like you're reading halfway through at the start of the articles. The lead sentences begin with the history, the architect, some even just introduce these structures as being "one of the oldest churches or buildings in the Philippines" without even mentioning the exact municipality or city they are located, which is supposed to be part of the introduction. But many have been corrected and re-edited, by the same authors or by me when I am in the mood. :) Oh, and another advice: try to begin your articles with this format: Article Title is a ____ located in _____. Its always easier to read to read it like that, and more encyclopedic i think. And do not forget the LINKS. Link every word you can! :) anyways, good job guys.--RioHondo (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage Task Force

Similar to the History task force suggested in a separate thread, I would like to propose to create a Cultural Heritage Task Force. This task force will be a natural complement to the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project currently being undertaken by Wikimedia Philippines. Does anybody object to this idea? —seav (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, so long as other people who are not involved with the CHMP may join in as well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys okay after Typhoon Glenda?

Finally managed to get online. Are you guys okay? --Lenticel (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in Manila right now, but I'm hoping everyone's alright there. (Also, allow me to make a wiki-related pitch: if you have pictures or videos of the typhoon, please upload them to Commons so we can populate Category:Typhoon Rammasun (2014).) --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm at Bulacan now to avoid the rolling blackouts. Internet is, at best, intermittent in Manila so it's best to go North if you want stable Net and electricity. The damage here isn't that bad but I'll post pics if I find any interesting (for lack of a better term) damage. --Lenticel (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, my folks and I are fine here. Took eons for electricity to be back up though, much to my chagrin. As a matter of fact, certain areas in General Trias, Cavite are still without power for days on end. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses and Race and ethnicity in censuses

Pleas add information about this country to this articles--Kaiyr (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PAGASA

Just calling everyone's attention to the fact that Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration has been moved to PAGASA. I am uncertain how I feel about this, and so I ask the group for their thoughts. (I'm not at all inclined to protest, actually. But... exactly what rules apply here?) - Alternativity (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't ask for an RM to PAGASA, but I would had supported. Similar to the "EDSA" (or "laser") analogy, if most people don't know what the acronym means anymore, use the acronym to name the title. –HTD 15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I prefer the long official name cos that way people actually learn something without having to go too far and reading through the text. Like who would have thought our MRT was a Metro Rail Transit and not the typical mass rapid transit. Or the LTFRB meant Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Or the UVVRP meant Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program. For me, the title is important as this is what most people would remember, and it really helps to educate like a normal encyclopedia should if they are in the official name so that people may also get used to them, unlike the colloquial names or acronyms that they already know. But that's just me. :)--RioHondo (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thing with those is that the long name is always used somewhere in the news report. A radio report told me earlier about the truck colorum issue earlier, and they used the full name of LTFRB, then used the acronym the rest of the way. This doesn't always happen at "EDSA" which is almost always "EDSA" right from the start. –HTD 12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is different case from EDSA. The name "EDSA" is used as part of names of something else like the EDSA Shrine. Is "PAGASA" used in that case? --Bluemask (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Their astronomical observatory building only uses "PAGASA" on the facade. They probably don't have money to make letters for the whole name. :p –HTD 12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Manila? Metro Manila? National Capital Region?

I think it's time to resolve this issue of conflicting names for the Philippine capital city, the Philippine capital administrative region and the metropolitan area in the Philippines. As of now, these three entities overlap each other in almost all articles here in WP. As someone who does a lot of organizing and maintaining Manila-related articles including their categories and templates, I am starting to grow impatient with the lack of unified naming guidelines with regards to our city, region and metropolis. And im sure many editors especially contributors from other nationalities who authored many of these articles are just as confused as I am.

Take these articles on Manila for example:

As much as I would love to create these topics for our metropolitan area and/or region (I'm a Manileño from outside the City) , i can't as they are already covered in those articles.

And many of those Category:People from Manila are not actually from the city but from other areas in Metro Manila.

I think it's safe to say that Manila is the commonname for the metropolitan area, for both foreigners and locals, like me.

The National Capital Region (Philippines) Many of the government-related articles on the region are named NCR:

Perhaps when it comes to administrative matters, the commonname for the administrative region is National Capital Region (Philippines).

How about the City of Manila? It is not uncommon to see this entry in many of the articles as a form of disambiguation from Manila that almost always refers to the metro as a whole. And Manila has never been exclusive to the city alone and is used as the generic name for the metro area:

I have been meaning to move History of Manila to History of Metro Manila; Timeline of Manila to Timeline of Metro Manila; Geography of Manila to Geography of Metro Manila and all those categories like Category:Organizations based in Manila where the Asian Development Bank is under, and Category:Diplomatic missions in Manila that has the Embassy of Israel. But that would leave Manila bare or empty and I do understand Manila is the common international name for the city AND metro area, as how their authors intended them.

Unless anyone can offer an alternative solution to this mess, i propose that:

  • 1. Manila be moved to City of Manila
  • 2. National Capital Region (Philippines) be created that will discuss briefly pure administrative and regional matters of NCR formed only in 1975 through the MMC/MMA/MMDA. Those government agencies belong here.
  • 3. Manila be made as an article about both the growing city and metropolitan area that developed from Intramuros to Province of Manila to the Province of Rizal the City of Greater Manila to the MMC/MMA/MMDA and continued expansion into Greater Manila Area.

Anyone's got any thoughts on this? Or is everyone comfortable with the current mess? :) But definitely a National Capital Region (Philippines) article has to be made as there are already a growing number of references to it, and that's what all the government portals call the region.--RioHondo (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd only support Manila's move to City of Manila if the term "Metro Manila" isn't that popular; as in the current levels in the popularity of the use of the term "National Capital Region". –HTD 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Manila" referring to both the city and the region is a mess. But I have not personally decided what the best solution is although I'm leaning towards the status quo. You can look at London, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles for other examples where the city proper is confused with the greater region. But ultimately, I think it will be upon the Tambayan community to decide. —seav (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That Los Angeles example truly is the best example, IMHO. Pasadena and Los Angeles are two different cities in Los Angeles County, but most people don't usually know the difference between the city and the county. People even believed that the Lakers played in the city of Los Angeles the whole time (lol). –HTD 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. As for names of man-made places, just use the WP:NC. We don't call "UP Diliman" as "UP Quezon City" or even "UP UP Village" or something. It's not our problem if they want to use Manila's name and everybody else is doing it. It's marketing. –HTD 15:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember we had this conversation some years back, HTD. Up to now, I am still restless with the lack of order as you can see. :) But have you guys seen those articles on the regional government agencies? They all link to a National Capital Region article that does not exist and is only a redirect to an article with a completely different name: Metro Manila. Their titles alone can be confusing. Do you think we should start building its own article that will discuss all these admin/governmental matters? As for Metro Manila, i know it will be hard to rename it just like that due to its popularity, but would shifting its focus to strictly the metropolitan area and its urban profile with the new NCR article focused on the political jurisdiction itself be an ideal remedy? I mean, metropolitan areas grow and the urban agglomeration that is Metro Manila which is now extending beyond NCR can be a whole different topic from one that has a defined territory with the role of a capital district like NCR. Anyone else agrees? Anyways, i guess theres nothing we can do with Manila and Metro Manila unfortunately. --RioHondo (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region" one and the same? I mean, you shouldn't see news about robbery in Antipolo in the Inquirer's Metro (take note: not "City") section, right? It's in the Nation section or at the generic news section. Also, some government agencies use the term "Metro Manila" as another name for "National Capital Region", most notably PAGASA. What if PAGASA says it's signal #3 in "Metro Manila" and it's #2 in Rizal? Surely Taytay, Rizal is a part of the "agglomeration"? So what signal number is it in Taytay? –HTD 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, metropolitan areas can have a different meaning from a human settlements perspective hehe, but i was hoping we can give National Capital Region (Philippines) its own article as it is a prominent and notable entity that has administrative/governmental uses (as in those references in those government articles). And also, Metropolitan Manila (MMC) and NCR were created through separate decrees three years apart, and metropolitan areas can grow depending on the transportation infrastructure and economy (think North Rail and South Rail) while administrative regions are plain political jurisdictions. :) So... how do we get the NCR article started?--RioHondo (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You haven't exactly answered my question. You're insinuating that "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region" are different. Perhaps NCR just replaced MMC? Most references treat them are coextensive. Perhaps you're looking for a different article like Greater Manila Area? –HTD 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Just trying to come up with a reasonable argument here for creating an NCR article. :) See the Metro Manila LGUs also have NCR in their navboxes making it look like MM and NCR are two different regions. :) --RioHondo (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But we already have an article, not just on the title you'd like. As for navboxes, it shouldn't appear that way as "National Capital Region" is piped linked to Metro Manila, implying that "Metro Manila" is another name for the "National Capital Region". –HTD 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rio for trying to clean up duplication and redundancies. I think the article title for Manila should stay as is (the discussion about whether or not to add "city" has been beaten to death and we don't want to set another precedent for other cities). It should just be made very clear that the article is limited to the city itself, and info about greater Manila be removed (unless it is intrinsically relevant). And I thought like HTD that by definition Metro Manila is the same as the National Capital Region. If so, then there is no need to create the National Capital Region article, but the info can just be merged. As for institutions that carry the name "Manila" but are located outside Manila city limits, well, that's not our problem if they want to be misleading. We just need to properly identify their location in the article (which we already do). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess the looming RM is for "Manila" to be moved to "City of Manila", which doesn't make sense since no one calls it "City of Manila". How about "Manila (city)"? Interesting, but I'd rather see "Manila" become a disambiguation as neither the city nor the metro would claim primary topic status, but the city can claim it solely on "dibs", and that if "Metro Manila" is moved to "Manila" it will trigger more confusion since "Metro Manila" term is well-known.
We have terms, or words, in both English and Tagalog, for the place Erap is the mayor, and the place where the MMDA is in charge of flood control. "Metro Manila" and "Kamaynilaan" are not unheard of, neither is the use of the word "Manila" to also refer to the metro. If a foreigner or promdi says she's going to "Manila" and ends up in Cubao, there's nothing wrong there. It's like a shortcut. Once the "Metro Manila" term dies, then we can move the metro article to "Manila". That's not happening yet. –HTD 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, there is no "looming RM", just a regular discussion. I hope we don't contradict ourselves, when clearly even you use "city of Manila" as well. Anyways, good chat. Btw, have you ever been on any one of those Wikipedia Manila Meetups? (which I heard takes place more often outside the City. Lol) ;)--RioHondo (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I dunno why you are insisting on the "city of Manila" bit. I was clearly distinguishing what "Manila" I was talking about there, as the article "Manila" was about the city, so the categories and daughter articles should be about the city. –HTD 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha! Actually, City here is valid as I use it all the time especially to distinguish the old city (central core) from the larger metropolitan area. You can't say the same for most other cities which have neither a namesake province or region. :) I know most people refer to the metropolitan area as simply Manila when you go outside its borders. Like people from the different provinces and overseas Filipino communities refer to MM as Manila. And so it is common to hear City of Manila being used to refer to that place that has Estrada as its mayor. (actually even within its borders, it is common to hear Manila to refer to MM, like i went to a Live in Manila concert recently in Pasay, i listened to Manila's Hottest whjch has its studios in Pasig, have you heard of Thrilla in Manila? Hehe) Are you Filipino btw? But anyway, maybe a stub like National Capital Region (Japan) that is coterminous with Greater Tokyo Area can work to clarify and define more this administrative area used in practically all government records? :) --RioHondo (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen the term "Manila City". Never. "City of Manila" is as rare people in Espana Blvd. speaking Spanish. Even Los Angeles and Madrid know the difference between the city and the county (LA)/community (Madrid). There's no argument that "almost all metro area articles are found in the title where the city article should be". Let's not go there. Again, this "Thrilla in Manila" is all about marketing: the same reason why the Dallas Cowboys stayed as the "Dallas Cowboys" after they moved to Arlington, Texas and wasn't renamed to "Arlington Cowboys", or worse, "Metroplex Cowboys" (same thing to Ateneo de Manila).
For most people, NCR and Metro Manila are one and the same... so wait, you're telling me the MMDA is not a government agency for the "National Capital Region"? What's your definition of "Metro Manila", anyway? –HTD 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: Category:People from Manila -- I tried cleaning this up, but the references are vague on which "Manila" they're talking about. This is what we should be dreading, having the city and metro mixed up, which would be result of any successful RM. –HTD 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe it's a cultural thing? I don't hear a lot of "Metro Manila" being used even in everyday Philippine English. So no, that cant be just marketing, it is everyday speech, just like Mall of Asia is called Mall of Asia or MOA but never the full SM Mall of Asia. Lol, anyway, we can argue between Gil Puyat and Buendia, at the end of the day the title goes to what is on paper (or street sign). :) --RioHondo (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. See, you used the word "city of Manila" in your discussion there regarding the people category. Lol! A natural disambiguation ;) --RioHondo (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
TBH, the term "Metro Manila" isn't that used frequently. It's used for um... metro-wide things. Like public storm signals, anything the MMDA wants to do, number coding, etc, heck even a Singaporean movie. But once it's used, it's clear that the topic is about the metropolitan area. As for marketing, SM City Manila isn't actually called that way; it's called as "SM Manila" by people; the same way Forum Robinsons is "Robinsons Pioneer", and SM Megamall is just called as Megamall, but people know the "real names" of this places a la "Metro Manila". AFAIK, Buendia's the Pasay part, and Gil Puyat is the Makati part of the same street; that or either the LRT station is too lazy to replace signage. And yeah, I had to disambiguate because there were like a lot of Manilas involved in that discussion to be clear. That's unlike on an article that should clearly state what is it all about at the start so you won't get confused. There should be no confusion if it's an actual place or event as we'd know which part of the metro is it, unlike vague "Foo was born in Manila".
I'm interested on what's your definition of "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region", though. Is Antipolo a part of both? Or just the first? Or neither? How about Bacoor? –HTD 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to know that we agree on three things:
1. That "Manila" is the generic name for the metro.
2. That "City of Manila" can be used to disambiguate the capital city from the capital region.
3. That "Metro Manila" isn't used as frequently as "Manila".
On marketing, i understand the strategies of private organizations and companies do not matter, but what about government and intergovernmental organizations based "in Manila"? You can't call that marketing?
1. International Labor Organization Manila Office is in Makati
2. Asian Development Bank with headquarters in Manila is in Mandaluyong
3. World Bank Office Manila is in Taguig/Makati (formerly in Pasig)
4. International Committee of the Red Cross in Manila is in Makati
5. British Embassy Manila is in Taguig/Makati
6. Embassy of France in Manila is in Makati
Those are just some. Im sure they named their representative offices after the commonname for the NCR region, like we all do. :) --RioHondo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
We need to balance commonname with clarity. People in general may mix up Manila with MM and use it interchangeably, but it is not a good idea to adopt that here at WP. If we are starting to use Manila to refer to other places in MM, then we're creating only more massive confusion for readers. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Noone's using "Manila" to refer to "other places in MM." We still call Makati Makati, it's only the Metro :)--RioHondo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"The metro"? I thought the entire place was supposed to be a city or what thingamajig?
Has anyone noticed that primetime news programs and newspapers generally avoid using the term "Manila"/"Maynila" to refer to the metro (excepting for quotes)? For example: "Public storm signal #3 was raised in Metro Manila"; "Stage of rebellion in Metro Manila", etc. They always use "Metro Manila" or "Kamaynilaan". Also, did any one also noticed that government agency almost always avoid using unqualified "Manila" to refer to metro-wide institutions? Probably the reason why they're using "National Capital Region". Manila Police District serves Tondo and not Baclaran, right? Imagine if the moves were successful, the confusion would be worse than what's happening at the category. –HTD 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, and we are not changing anything until the government does something to change this messy setup. Our job would have been easy had the government not passed the selfish/feudalist/trapo-ish Local Government Code in 1991, as Manila or MMC then had a real form of government with a governor and a single council that passes laws for the entire region. The mayors then were merely like area administrators or borough presidents, and the cities and municipalities did not have their own city or municipal councils. Instead, their councillors all worked at the Manila City Hall. Speaking of the Manila Police District, this is probably one of the few that remains from the old setup: national government services provided and distributed per geographic district: Capital District, Southern Manila District, Eastern Manila and Northern Manila or Camanava. (although Eastern Manila District have been divided between QC and the rest). The police districts and fire districts were based on this setup. :)--RioHondo (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't every city (and Pateros) has its own police force? This per district setup for police just screams bureaucracy and patronage. And they've never been called as "Eastern Manila Police District", just "Eastern Police District". The people who did the naming did it right by dropping "Manila" if they ever even thought of that. –HTD 11:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope, ours is Southern Police District which we share with other southern LGU's. Although theres also MMDA and Macea (mostly traffic management). I dont know about bureaucracy but i dont see anything wrong with naming areas, districts or even provinces based on geography. (Manila Bay? And Manila Isthmus?) you sound like the same LGC and Local government autonomy advocates that i loathe LOL. Umm all three provinces in that peninsula in Mindanao have that in their names. There's also four provinces sharing the name of the gulf in the same island. Local Government Code is primitive. :)--RioHondo (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. Our very own Taguig police just had a pissing contest with their SPD brethren Makati Police because of BGC. As in real cops, not the Macea and the very much hated MAPSA boys who aren't even police. Every city and town has their own police force. It's only the metro has this extra bureaucracy. I dunno if provinces have district police HQs. As for geographical features, they were named a long time ago. The government has more control on manmade things such as agencies and settlements. Getting it right on those is important. –HTD 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Southern Police District has those line units per LGU.. You can call any new settlement with any name but there is no changing the fact that Regional Names are based on geography. So Compostela Valley is still Davao, Santiago City is still Cagayan Valley, just as Quezon City is still Metropolitan Manila. :)--RioHondo (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is the SPD is just another layer of bureaucracy that accomplishes, well not very much. On geography, yeah, no one's disputing those. Metropolitan Manila is Metro Manila is NCR. Those Zamboanga City folk are uber pissed though that the probinsyanos stole their city's name. How would you sort out a "Category:People from Zamboanga"? Just a category that has zero articles but 4 subcategories? What if it becomes the mess that is Category:Manila, which is the impending fate of your suggestion? –HTD 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
So you mean to say each city and municipality should have its own investigation/tactical/logistic/SoCO etc/etc unit? Lol! All for the sake of Local Government Autonomy up to the 2.2sq.km. municipality of Pateros LOL! (Malate district is even bigger). mm. How many primary LGUs do we have? Even the DFA Consul Office can't operate that many passport centers. But with the current inefficiencies of the divided NCR, what with the different traffic schemes, planning, the truck bans and disagreements on the use of the Port, i think youre lucky as we seem to be heading that direction anyway. :) Thanks to the LGC, the different cities and municipalities managed to land citizens in harmful places and dangerous zones all for that extra bucks from subdivision developers. Classic example: Marikina Valley. There is no proper planning and zoning. How can a region the size of a city (only 639 sq.kms.) have as much as 17 lords? The region is even smaller than 81 Philippine cities and municipalities. So definitely if you look at the region's size, economy, population, commuting patterns, Manila's real metropolitan area has already gone beyond that area we call Metro Manila. Why for example, the call centers here have a growing number of staff from the neighboring provinces, Taytay, Bacoor, SJDM included. But anyway, thats just looking at it from the definition of "metropolitan area." The NCR on the other hand is not "dynamic" if you know what i mean. :)--RioHondo (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, each town and city has its own police, which could have its own SWAT, SOCO, children and women's desk (that's actually required) and whatever teams a normal police force have. Come on, isn't this basic local government? If a town has to rely on the other town across the river for its police, they're screwed. Thinking about it, these "police districts" function more like provincial police offices, so they might have some use. Now as for if Wikipedia would care on how the government spends it's money, it's not Wikipedia's problem any more. Think of it this way, if there wasn't "Metro Manila/NCR", there would still be 17 lords, with QC, Manila and Pasay having their own personal fiefdoms, while the other lords answer to their respective overlords in Rizal and Bulacan. Wikipedia should pressure the government to fix up the horrible fair use clause in the IP law, though.
And yes, I'm still waiting on the differences between MM and NCR. I'm waiting........ –HTD 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, afaik only the SPD has a crime laboratory for example, which is why they always lead investigations regardless of where the murder took place in the south metropolis. As for NCR and the metropolitan area, try to do some backreading as I have already explained the difference even since my initial post. But will look for sources that studies the Manila built up area, i just cant remember where i read that Metro Manila is expanding, probably Jica or ADB or PIDS? See Chicago metropolitan area example to see how that area too can have several definitions. --RioHondo (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the "Manila built up area" = "Metro Manila"? In almost all accounts, "Metro Manila" is the "National Capital Region", which may include the "Manila built up area", whatever that is. Perhaps you're thinking of another term. "Metro Manila" can't change every day/month/year/decade without "notice", otherwise, the MMDA people would have reached Kawit by now, and everyone would have been confused with PAGASA's storm signals as the composition of "Metro Manila" isn't stable.
In the old days when the "metro" was mostly composed of towns (only Manila, QC and Pasay were cities), the way to write addresses was "EDSA, Makati, MM" (It changed when the towns became cities, and no one wrote "MM" anymore). "Metro Manila" was understood to be what would become the 17 cities+Pateros. There's no other definition; or in other words, only Congress or NEDA can say what "Metro Manila" is. In the Philippines, "metropolitan areas" aren't "organic". –HTD 15:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, in the official PhilPost-prescribed form for addresses, you still use "Metro Manila" for addresses outside of Manila proper. ;)
That being said, however, we must also recognize that "Metro Manila" is a juridical entity, and its coverage cannot be expanded without corresponding legislation (as Metro Manila was established by a PD, if my memory serves me right). Until then, we can't go around tinkering with definitions. (On the "Greater Manila Area": I was one of the users that questioned the factual accuracy of that article, and I am strongly inclined to delete it as there is no way we have a concrete definition of what the extent of this area, let alone Mega Manila - which at least has some basis - is.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but no one adds "Metro Manila" when writing mail anyway...
As for the Greater Manila Area, I also thought it also meant GMA=MM=NCR. Perhaps there should really be an article about the organic built-up area around the Metro. –HTD 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've heard "Greater Metropolitan Area" used to describe an area including Laguna as far as Calamba, Rizal as far as Rodriguez Cainta and Antipolo, and... I dunno, Meycauayan in Bulacan? I've definitely heard San Pedro, Sta Rosa, Biñan, and Calamba referred to as being in GMA. (Context: Los Baños is the dividing line between Urban Laguna (San Pablo to Calamba) and Rural Laguna (Bay and points Northeast). Also, I for one still use Marikina MM when I write my address. But I'm probably just anachronistic that way. Hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I normally write "Makati, Manila" when sending out letters or packages to my address from overseas. And its fine as theyve been received all the time. Btw, there is also a "Greater Metro Manila Area" (GMMA) now which I don't know if it's the same as Greater Manila Area or Mega Manila or Metro Luzon Urban Beltway or Urban Luzon? Should there be an article discussing all these different definitions for the built up area around Manila, what do you think should be its title? I'm thinking Manila metropolitan area a la Chicago metropolitan area as what I have been saying earlier up there. :)--RioHondo (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"Makati, Manila?" Who else does that? My grandma used to write "Makati, Rizal". What's next? Does the post office screw up "Antipolo, Manila" addresses? There's Antipolo Street too. There's even this Ayala Ave. building that has the "Makati, Rizal" address on its facade. Come on, to say that this is used at least somewhere is disingenuous. –HTD 12:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
First time I heard of "GMMA" too. Is this some sort of WP:OR? The use of "GMA" is sorta well-known. The closest definition to the built-up area around and including the metro is Mega Manila. –HTD 12:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Umm are you sure you joined the right forum or website? I normally do a little google search first to try to verify information before uttering a statement or reverting an edit. There's no harm in trying it on GMMA. :) As for San Pedro Macati, Manila, yea I'm just old-fashioned like that using the much older style like in the cartas y tarjetas postales of the past, as well as in the cedulas personales of Rizal's days that had the old province. ;) remember those cedulas they tore up in Pugad Lawin, Caloocan and how Manila ended up as one of the eight rays of the sun on the Philippine flag? Lol! The pueblo had been part of Manila far longer than it had been with Rizal or NCR. But you are Bulaqueño so i don't expect you to know this stuff ;) There was one time I sent a postcard that had only Manila and the Makati codigo postal. It arrived in my mailbox too.--RioHondo (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The first results Google search for "GMMA" said I'm bad at spelling and I should've typed "gamma" instead. When I insisted on using "GMMA" I found... guppies. This smells like a stinking case of WP:OR. And don't worry, Caloocan, Morong and Valenzuela, Bulacan are all accounted for in the 8 rays of the flag. –HTD 13:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Lucrecia Kasilag" or "Lucrecia Roces Kasilag"

There's a question up at Talk:Lucrecia_Roces_Kasilag regarding the article title for the National Artist. Comments on the talk page are welcome? :D - Alternativity (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_35&oldid=1137456892"