Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.


WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY - Deletion Sorting (Philippines)


Start new topic


00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36

Wikimedia Philippines.svg
AOI • By-laws
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Identi.caYouTubeUStreamYahoo GroupMy Space
Find us on Facebook     Find us on Twitter     Find us on Google+     Find us on

Find us on YouTube      Find us on UStream
This box: view  talk  edit

Request for comment[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Request for comment. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC is still open.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC is still open.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


One of our long-time tambays User:Exec8's account was banned as a sockpuppet of User:Fairyspit which I'm 100% sure as not true. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit. His work is now reverted or deleted. Please help. --Bluemask (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Just posted a comment on the page. I doubt he'd be involved in such sockpuppetry given how he earned a lot of rep over the years, especially with the meetups and stuff he organised. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like its solved now. Hmm... perhaps they shared IP's before when they logged in an internet cafe computer. --Lenticel (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Good thing that was resolved. Now, we need to restore his deleted file uploads and restore them on articles. He uploaded a lot of seals. For reference: Special:Log/Exec8 --Bluemask (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we have the deleting admin do that for us? I'm a bit too involved with this project to restore it for Exec8. --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: Callanecc has already restored the images. Give them an e-high five when you have the time. --Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's reassuring, didn't like how they wrongfully accused Exec without taking a good look at his rep, but at least they sorted things out and apologised. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. Honestly, I haven't done any edits for a month now and just read these comments only today. --Exec8 (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

About Salamat, Kaibigan[edit]

Hi Tambayan Philippines people. I declined the speedy deletion of this speech a few minutes ago. I can see WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Are there good reasons why the article should not be re-directed to Bong Revilla or added as further information in this section in the article? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of the article in question, the speech itself generated significant press coverage and was talked about for days on end in the local (and even international) press. If that's not an indication of notability, then I don't know what is. (In addition, allow me to question the judgement of the user in question: he's only been a Wikipedian for a little over two months, and I don't think he would be in a position just yet to make these types of judement calls.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd put this up for discussion. I agree with you about the notability of the speech. I'd assume that the deletion request was made in, well, sort of good faith. (On the other hand: I've been here 8 years, and I regularly question my ability to make judgement calls Face-smile.svg.) Thanks for addressing this issue. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, while I agree that the nomination may have been made in good faith, I would like to think that the nomination was raised perhaps without a full understanding of WP:GNG, something that I think we both know takes a while for us to wrap our heads around. To be fair, I likewise question my ability to make sound judgements on Wikipedia at times. But I do think that this is something that is rectifiable: let's see how it draws out, and maybe we can come to some sort of solution on how things can be addressed. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Question re: Construction date of the Manggahan Floodway?[edit]

Hi. I have a bit of an embarrassing question. I went to the Manggahan Floodway today and read that the floodway "was built in 1986,[1] with the cost of 1.1 billion pesos" (The reference seems to be a dead link.) This made me do a double take as I always thought it was built "in the seventies" - a date I've encountered several times in various sources (here [2] for example). It's a broad period, I know, but one which in my mind clearly excludes the possibility of construction "in 1986." I was going to accept the 1986 date in my head, but on researching a bit further, I find that the Napindan channel gates were built in 1983 and that the Parañaque Spillway fell out of favor with the urban planning agency of the time at around 1983 as well. I've always gotten the impression that the completion of the floodway antedated both those events. Multiple references seem to also say it was built in '86, but I can't shake the feeling these references may have used the article as a reference. (The ones I saw were written after 2009.) I was old enough to be watching the news in 1986 but not old enough to remember much. So my own memory is no help. Can someone with a better memory or at least access to more official sources please fact-check that date? If it WAS built in 1986, sorry for the trouble. I'm just... really confused. - Alternativity (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Alternativity, I was the original writer of this article. Unfortunately the reference is a dead link, but I can assure you that I do proper research, so that is what the publication stated at the time. I found that this publication is still referenced in other works (see references here), so it appears reliable. Another interesting article is this one. It provides much more history (I'll see if I have time to add it) and corroborates the 1986 date. Regards, -- P 1 9 9   19:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've fixed the dead link; see [3]. I haven't read either the article or the sources carefully, but at a quick glance there do seem to be some inconsistencies. Perhaps those would disappear if I read more carefully. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Philippines articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Pagsanjan Arch[edit]

An IP User is currently creating unnecessary edits on Pagsanjan Arch including changing the name of the road of Calle Real to Calle Clinton, and adding names to the bandits --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency on the definition of the term Morion in the article Moriones Festival[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to call your attention regarding a certain definition which I have found to be a little off. During an online search session, I incidentally stumbled on the article about the Moriones Festival. I pored over the details in the article and eventually caught sight of the definition for the term Morion which says mask or visor. But looking at the article Morion_(helmet), the morion is defined as a type of open helmet, which, by our purposes, we can consider maskless/visorless. Definitions by other articles elsewhere around the Web seem to concur with this idea, such as those in Wiktionary and in Merriam-Webster. I can see that the article is of low priority at this time, but I hope the part of the article specified here can be reviewed for consistency with definitions from reputable sources, all for the overall improvement of the articles itself. I could have effected the necessary edits myself, but I still believe in the spirit of collaboration that has made Wikipedia one of the most sought after references. The article says that the term Moriones was concocted by the media in the 60's, the reason for the use of which was not specified nor can it be readily found online with just a single search, so it might still be possible that the article's definition may have been accurate if viewed in line with the dynamics of language and culture evolution. Nevertheless, it still pays to be sure about it. Thank you—Geo (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The mask depicts the entire soldier's head that wears the morion helmet. Basically it's a mask that shows a maskless face.--Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says, "Morion means "mask" or "visor," a part of the medieval Roman armor which covers the face." Perhaps that is the meaning in the context of this particular article, but it is a definition which conflicts with the Morion (helmet) article and with the more commonly understood meaning outside of this article (see e.g., [4]). It seems to me that this needs rewording to clarify. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a cite in the article which states that the masks are called morion and are also named after the morion helmet. --Lenticel (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just uploaded some pics I took in the Palace Museum, Valetta Malta a few years ago. Don't know if they'll help or hinder!
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 01.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 02.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 03.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 04.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 05.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
[[File:Spanish conquistador style armour 06.jpg|thumb|Spanish conquistador style armour]]
I hope the former. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 18:29, wikitime= 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

College home study programs in Cavite?[edit]

Sorry if this is a tad off-topic, or in the wrong place (I could ask RD:M for this, but since this concerns a regional subject, I felt this would be better addressed here), but can anyone here vouch for a good, trusted and certified schools to apply for a college homeschool programme in Cavite? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

LGBT history in Philippines[edit]

There is no article about LGBT history in Philippines, LGBT in the Philippines Transgenderism in Philippines or Transsexualism in Philippines.

I was looking for info about violence against sex workers in Philippines, after I read about Philippines summons US Marines in transgender murder case that has led to "The killing has forced the Philippine government to defend itself from criticism that it was not doing enough to seek justice for the Filipino victim." --Truxtondo (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox changes by IP editor[edit]

An anonymous editor (using IP, is making some systematic changes to infoboxes that should be reviewed:

First, (s)he is changing population_density_km2 in {{Infobox settlement}} from "auto" to an expression (e.g. {{#expr: 18630 / 33.65 round 0}}). Since the template already calculates this automatically, is there any value in changing this? What is the point?

Second, (s)he is adding to {{Philippine Census}} the note:

Executive Order 135 §6<ref name=eo135>{{url | }}</ref> states that for "census years" (years divisible by 10) the reference date would be May 1st, but for all other years, the reference date is to be the "middle of the year".<br />This means that growth rates, although correct, are not necessarily simple year-on-year comparisons.

I think it is excessive/overkill to add this to every instance of {{Philippine Census}}. Also the Executive Order info is somewhat incidental to the census figures, and the growth rate statement is superfluous because per annum growth is already understood to be an average for that period. If really necessary, it may be better to add such notes just once to the article Demographics of the Philippines.

I want to revert this but first I'll check here if there is a consensus for these changes? -- P 1 9 9   18:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That is the same editor who insists his disruptive edits on Loboc Church regarding capitalizations where my edits were copyedited by seav. (which I later applied for semi-page protection and was granted) He's also using If you will revert his edits with an explanation, he'll revert it again and again. Then, he'll issue 3RR and post notice on admin incidents. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's why we need to discuss this and have a consensus. Please add your comments on the 2 issues described above. -- P 1 9 9   18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re issue 1, it is more convenient to stick with the automatic calculations since retyping (manual input again) of the values maybe prone to errors (although errors may be insignificant); new editors might also not understand the math expression here: 554. And a question, why is the value using the expr different with auto calc? (Auto calc uses total area in denominator while the IP uses land area) With issue 2, I agree that it is overkill to add it to the Philippine census. I might be good to add this info on an article on Philippine population census linked on the box's title. Just my thoughts. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: Census reference dates: May 1 and "middle of the year" (June 30/July 1) are two months apart. In a span of 5+ years this is insignificant math. –HTD 13:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. Population density - auto calculates this to 2S. This is fine for large areas / populations, but when it gets to small places, such as Cogon, Tagbilaran with an area of 2044 ha it can make quite a difference – computed gives 8373, auto gives 8400. There has been quite a lot of discussion about pop densities on Template_talk:Infobox_settlement where you will see that land area is to be used, if available, not total area, principally because not many people actually live in the sea. This is what the US census says: Population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States, state, county, place) by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles. Density is expressed as both "people (or housing units) per square kilometer" and "people (or housing units) per square mile" of land area. Added to that is that there is a lot of contradiction in the official government numbers as to what the area of any place is. Perhaps we should request a change to Template:Infobox settlement to allow better precision of small numbers?
  2. Average population growth – I don't see any problem with explaining how the growth figures are derived, via a footnote. I spent a long time reading the conversations in Template_talk:Philippine_Census to help me understand where the figures came from which were quite at variance with my own computations (as much as 10% out). In fact the time of the data explains the difference, because "middle of year" in this context is usually 1st September (but other dates are used). I don't know why you don't want to explain this to others who may be as bewildered as I was – to the point of disregarding all the information because it seemed "wrong". If you don't like the overt footnote like that, maybe we can agree on an {{efn}}? (And maybe get it built in to {{Philippine Census}}?) There was a considerable change to {{Philippine Census}} to get it emit the mathematically correct numbers.
  3. My edits to Loboc Church weren't the slightest bit disruptive, although Carlojoseph14's blind reversions were. This user has been editing only 5 months, yet already thinks he owns Wikipedia, and that all the style guides are for others. Guides to the production of a better finished article as well as guides to working with others. S/he already ignores WP:CAPITALS WP:OVERLINK WP:ROC WP:EDITORIALIZING WP:PEACOCK Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia and WP:OWNERSHIP as well as WP:PRIVACY, and often includes snippets of external pages without appreciating what they say.
  4. I choose to edit anonymously because I am not interested in personality cults, edit counts, barnstars, GA, and other similar trivia. IP address is allocated by the telecom, nothing to do with me. I don't know why Carlojoseph14 thinks that using an account is better than an IP address. It still gives no clue to identity. How does P 1 9 9 (for instance) convey more than (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. In reply:
  1. For most LGU's (I am not concerned about barangays for now), we only have 1 area figure available (from NSCB) which is taken as total. Although land areas should be used for density, we don't have reliable info on this available. Therefore in those cases, there is little benefit changing "auto" to a math expression. And yes, the precision in {{Infobox settlement}} is an ongoing issue and I don't understand why it takes so long to resolve. It would be much better to press for corrections to the infobox than changing each article.
  2. True, my real concern is the overt footnote that bloats the infobox. I certainly support {{efn}} (and support building it into {{Philippine Census}}).
(Items 3 and 4 are not discussed here, but yes, I specifically choose an anonymous user name.) -- P 1 9 9   16:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to respond to, there are numerous advantages to having an account, the most important one being that your edit history is not spread out across different IPs, and we can easily track the work that you've been doing rather than having to pin down each and every IP address you've ever been assigned. Having a username also extends to you protections that you don't get as an IP (e.g. you have more credibility when asking for page protection, when you've suffered a personal attack, etc.), and generally makes you more respectable as a Wikipedian in general. While I respect your right to anonomity, a username guarantees that as well if that's what you're looking for. (In my case, I could be anonymous, but I willingly chose to disclose my identity, which is elaborated upon in my user page. That's your call if you ever decide to do that.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Today I seem to be
  1. OK I'll stop changing auto to a formula for now, but I'm expecting better consensus than 2 out of 4 (or 5 if you count the last contribution immediately above). But one of my main peeves is editors who revert hard work, seemingly solely on the basis of NIH. This goes completely against the ideas of WP:WIP. Maybe we should invite Frietjes to this conversation.
  2. Regarding the putative footnote, I think what I'll do is experiment with a variety of methods, before proceeding to {{Philippine Census}} with a formal request. At the moment I favour adding the note to the column heading, but we'll see.
I do have a user account, but I choose to use it only when I have to (such as upload pics to wikimedia). It is hard though to imagine less protection than what I get now anonymously, which is about none, particularly my request to WP:AIV which just vanished. I may investigate an alternative approach. (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
To respond to point #3 by the IP-editor, I think it is a mis-characterization to say that your edits are not disruptive and Carlojoseph14's were. I also disagree with your assessment that Carlo's edits do not follow WP:CAPITALS. Insisting on "Loboc church" is like insisting on "Westminster cathedral" instead of "Westminster Cathedral" especially when reliable sources capitalize the "Church" in "Loboc Church". Furthermore, saying that Carlo has only been editing for 5 months is not a bad thing. I have been editing for almost 12 years now and Carlo has already brought 2 articles to WP:GA status, something which I have never done (yet). By bringing 2 articles to GA status, it shows that Carlo already knows quite a lot about how Wikipedia and its guidelines and policies work. Being a relatively new editor is not in itself something that should be frowned upon as you seem to imply. —seav (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you also going to defend your Manila mate's breach of all the other Wikipedia style guides I indicated - WP:OVERLINK WP:ROC WP:EDITORIALIZING WP:PEACOCK Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia and WP:OWNERSHIP as well as WP:PRIVACY – and dismissal of WP:WIP and assume good faith? Not to mention another Manila IP user who reverted other work of mine 3 times within 4 hours, overnight. Maybe Loboc Church is acceptable, but capitalising every occurrence of parish and church certainly isn't.
This is not the place for this argument, but my feeling is that only five months editing would leave most editors short of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and general culture. As regards GA status, is that short for GArbage? I have already questioned the decisions in passing both those articles as GA. They both abysmally failed WP:OVERLINK amongst other things; Maribojoc Church has some strange attribution, and Punta Cruz Watchtower has an oblique phrase whose meaning I can't determine. That's the trouble with lifting material from books without appreciating what they mean. They both rely extensively on just about one reliable source, with the other main source itself quoting the first one. I think WP:QPQ is a dangerous policy, known as "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and not conducive to objective evaluations. (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, while I understand the general direction of where this is going to, I seriously urge you to assume good faith in Carlo's edits, if you won't do so for seav. Alluding to his GAs as "garbage" because you decided to be persnickety with his referencing and/or writing style - to which they seem minor in comparison to the effort he poured into them in actually adding information to Wikipedia which is valuable - is completely uncalled for. While I may agree that people who are relatively new to Wikipedia may not have a complete grasp of policy just yet (something that I admitted to in the above discussion on "Salamat, Kaibigan"), I would never go so far as to demean his/her work just because he/she is "new". I believe we were all new at one point in our editing lives, weren't we not? (In addition, WP:QPQ applies only to DYKs, and not to GA nominations. I wonder what that says about your grasp of policy if you claim to question one's credibility.)
Just because we ask you to assume good faith, that doesn't mean that concerns about one's editing behavior ought to go away. But that also does not give you the right to jump into downright accusing people of being wrong about things. That's precisely why we're suffering from editing decline. That's precisely why we can't retain editors, let alone make new ones. While I understand that you may be well-intentioned, at the rate this is going, you're burning bridges more than you're building them, and it only goes to speak for all of us as Wikipedians when we, in defense of policy, ultimately drive away good editors, and in particular good-intentioned ones, just because they don't happen to edit to your or my benefaction. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)