Talk:Geography of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistics[edit]

The statistics section is cleary taken from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/rp/geogra.html or the like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vera Cruz (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 December 2002 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually taken from the CIA World Factbook, which is public domain. --Seav 08:54, 29 December 2002

Conflict with another article[edit]

Info in the Subnational enclaves and exclaves section of this article appears article appear to contradict information contained in List of enclaves and exclaves#Subnational exclaves which are not enclaves and List of enclaves and exclaves#Subnational inaccessible districts. I've placed {{tl|Contradict-other]] tags in both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Lasunncty (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest Point[edit]

This is a statement of the obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No political divisions in the archipelago?[edit]

Are the Philippine Turtle Islands part of the geographic archipelago of the Philippines?

If the answer is yes, are the Malaysian Turtle Islands which are as little as 2km from the Philippine Turtle Islands really in a different geographic archipelago?

If the answer is no, then we cannot accurately say that there are no political divisions in the geographic archipelago of the Philippines. Anegada (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map removal[edit]

This edit, removing this map from the article, caught my eye. The edit summary says, "Removed unsourced material [...]" and mentions an off-WP map. I'm expecting to be traveling beginning in a few days and may not be able to participate very much in discussion here about this, but I did some online searching today and found some useful items that I want to mention here.

The off-WP map mentioned in that edit summary can be seen here -- do a text search for Figure 1 and look at the first and third hits. The caption of that map says that it was redrawn from a composite of several open source maps. It's an interesting map but, if RS support is an issue, I don't see how it is necessarily any more or less reliable than the map the edit removed. It would probably need to be re-redrawn again for use on WP due to copyright issues.

Another map, this one apparently reflecting claims made in RP statute law, can be seen on page 40 of here. That copyright is probably owned by the author of that article, Lowell Bautista. I'm not an academic but I remember tat I had an exchange with him some years ago about including something of his in a WP article, and he was very accommodating. OTOH, I took a second look at the Bautista article and see that endnote 2 there credits that map to NAMRIA, so there are probably no copyright issues with using it on WP.

Some of that may be useful. (updated) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, unreliable maps should be replaced by sourced and reliable maps. Toto11zi (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. The source you cited in the Fisheries Center Research Reports is a reliable source. In the specific article you cited in that journal, I understand there to be a disclaimer that the map there was, "(redrawn by Mr. Mike Yap from a composite of several open source maps)". I do not take that as a claim that the map shown there is reliable. The map I mentioned as an alternative map, however, linking the University of Wollongong paper titled Philippine territorial boundaries is not only mentioned in that citeable reliable source but, besides being in an on-topic paper, is attributed to the Philippines National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), and can be asserted to be a reliable map. If I have time later today, since that map would be in the public domain, I'll try to upload a low-res image of that map captured from that article. That image could probably be later replaced with a higher-res image obtained directly from NAMRIA. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a screenshot of the NAAMRIA map as File:NAMRIA map of Philippine maritime zones.png. Since it is the product of an agency of the Philippine government, I think it is public-domain, but I am no copyright maven. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is for sure: File:West and East Philippine Sea.png is erroneous. The West Philippine Sea designation has to include the whole of Spratlys (at least Kalayaan, Palawan). That is the whole point of the label. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image description page says that it is "based on page 18 of published book "Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010" by "Fisheries Centre, University of British Colombia, Canada" The caption of the map image there says that it shows "the four ‘subzones’ (A-D) to which we have allocated the 15 administrative regions and 84 maritime provinces reporting marine landings to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics". It does not look to me as if the map in the source upon which this map was based was necessarily intended to faithfully show the extent of the EEZ. I have not looked carefully to see how well the NAMRIA map I uploaded matches this one or what Spratly Islands it includes, but I think that that NAMRIA meant to faithfully show the extent of the EEZ on their map -- probably with more focus on that than the fisheries folks in Canada gave it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed today that another WP image may be relevant to this discussion. See the lead image in the infobox of the West Philippine Sea article and read its caption there. I take that as saying that some parts of the Spratly Islands claimed by the Philippines (green line) are outside of the EEZ area (a blue shade there, part of which is also known in the Philippines as the West Philippine Sea). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geography_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1219943729"