Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ISWAK3 (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 22 January 2011 (→Alakdana: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 
 
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.


Shortcuts

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

Discussion

Start new topic

Archives

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

Template:WMPH

Wikipedia Meetups
   November 2024 +/-
London 210 November 10, 2024 (2024-11-10)
US Mountain West online November 12, 2024 (2024-11-12)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 2 November 14, 2024 (2024-11-14)
Oxford 106 November 17, 2024 (2024-11-17)
San Diego 116 November 18, 2024 (2024-11-18)
Seattle meetup November 19, 2024 (2024-11-19)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 3 November 20, 2024 (2024-11-20)
CCA Montreal Editathon November 20, 2024 (2024-11-20)
WikiCon Australia 2024 November 23, 2024 (2024-11-23)
Brighton 3 November 23, 2024 (2024-11-23)
BLT Office Hours November 24, 2024 (2024-11-24)
Brixton 5 November 26, 2024 (2024-11-26)
   December 2024 +/-
Christchurch 34 December 1, 2024 (2024-12-01)
London 211 December 8, 2024 (2024-12-08)
San Diego 117 December 16, 2024 (2024-12-16)
Seattle meetup December 17, 2024 (2024-12-17)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta
For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in fifteen areas in the Philippines:

Interactive events

See also

Template:WMPH Toolbar

2014 Asian Beach Games host no more

Its now official. Philippines has been stripped hosting the 2014 Asian Beach Games in favor of Thailand. News website

Hidden history of the Visayas

When scanning some pages about the history of the Philippines here in Wikipedia, I cam across a doubtful entry on the Spanish East Indies, which is about a certain entity that came sometime after the Spanish colonization. I removed the edit dubbing it as questionable. Now, I tried to Google the "Federal Republic of Visayas", but no reliable sites can give me the right answer whether such entity really did exist. However, the first Google hit is a forum from Asia's Finest .com, saying that the information about the federation was removed from history books, to cover the truth that Filipino resistance during the revolution is not united, hence there is a struggle in Luzon, in Mindanao, then in the Visayas, so that's the reason why there is the Haring Bayang Katagalugan (Sovereign Tagalog Nation) which was only referred to the Tagalog provinces (i.e., central and southern Luzon), there is the Republic of Zamboanga, the Republic of Negros, etc, and that the First Philippine Republic is only exclusive to Luzon. Though I don't know if it's true.

So: apart from the Negros and Zamboanga republics and their own self-proclamation against Spanish rule, I found this several books:

However, other sources listed below seems to contradict the issue. First, it is said that it is only a federal council for the Visayas, so to represent the Visayan people to the Congress. Second, other sources below said that the formation of the federal republic was authorized by Aguinaldo. For the first case, it does recognizes Aguinaldo as the president of the Philippines, on the second, not. Seems contradicting.

I want to hear your part on this issue. And I am willing to start an article for this.--— JL 09 talkcontribs    06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are at UP correct? Why don't you go to the History department and request an interview with the director or a teacher there. While you are at it, you might as well inquire what they as presumably one of the premier centers of learning about Philippine history are doing to promote understanding and knowledge about the subject and if they have any plans on using 21st century tools like Wikipedia to do so. Lambanog (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the National Historical Institute's book The Laws of the First Philippine Republic ISBN 971-538-055-7, it listed a "Decree providing that, in order that the parish funds and cash belonging to churches be secured from danger of loss due to hazards of war, they be invested in the national loan." It quoted that this decree was addressed to the governors of Southern Luzon, and the provinces of Bataan, Zambales, Tayabas, Laguna, Infanta, Cavite, Batangas, Mindoro, Romblon, Albay, Ambos Camarines, Sorsogon, Masbate, Marinduque, Leyte, Samar, Bohol, Capiz, Iloilo, Antique, Panay and Cebu, which indicates the extent of the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Government at the time. The decrees in the listing were arrange chronologically this one though had no specific date, but it was between the decree dated August 9, 1899 and the decrees of August 29, 1899. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Guevara, Sulpico, ed. (2005), "II. List of Other Laws and decrees", The laws of the first Philippine Republic (the laws of Malolos) 1898-1899., Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library (published 1972), p. 182 (see item 101), {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) (English translation by Sulpicio Guevara). It should be understood that these are laws and decrees issued by the proclaimed government of the insurgent First Philippine Republic, mostly issued during the period of the Philippine-American War, and that the authority issuing these instruments had neither international recognition as a national government nor undisputed control over the geographical territory in which the laws and decrees were meant to apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The year was 1899, it was at a time that Americans had not pacified the entire archipelago and as a matter of fact they were initially quartered only in Manila and its environs before the Philippine-American War broke out, thus it will not be accurate to refer to the First Philippine Republic as an insurgent government.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 12:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion which has played out many times on the talk pages of various WP articles related to the Philippines. The Insurgency article says, "An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority". As far as authority being "constituted", internationally recognized sovereignty over the Philippines was passed from Spain to the U.S. by the Treaty of Paris (1898). A rebellion against that sovereign authority would be an insurgency. What is needed here is identification of the point at which sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago came into serious question, e.g., in a legitimate belligerency over the question of sovereignty.
My understanding is as put forth in the Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty article. AFAICS, the question is, "What point in the timeline of the various nascent governments under Aguinaldo (the Dictatorial Government, then the Revolutionary Government, then the Malolos Constitution government--see relevant parts of the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article for background) should WP choose to regard as the point at which one of those nascent governments moved from being an insurgency to being a belligerent in a legitimate contest for Philippine sovereignty?" The aforementioned timeline article identifies that point as the date on which the Malolos Constitution government (which fought the Philippine-American War) declared war on the United States. That seems to me to be a reasonable demarcation date. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I gave you a bum steer sending you to the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article for info on Aguinaldo's various nascent governments; I thought that info was in there, but I don't see it. I do see it in the Philippine Revolution article, so take a look there (search for "May 24" and read on from there). I am a bit surprised to find no mention of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in that article -- which is very incomplete without some info on that. Perhaps I'll try to find the time to go back through those articles and fill in some of the blanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Manila

Everyone's invited to join and/or help organize the Philippines' and Southeast Asia's first Wikipedia Takes the City-style photo scavenger hunt! This will also serve as the twelfth meetup for Manila Wikipedians. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my facebook account, a photographer-friend raised the question on permits since the places in the list are commercial and government establishments. He said that the number 1 enemy of photographers are the security guards. Are the permits included in the contest kit? --Bluemask (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not, and as far as I know no other WTTC contest has done with asking permission to take pictures beforehand. However, I think we can add a friendly letter asking for permission to take a picture of the building for the sake of the contest in the kit. With all WTTC events though, this rule applies: if security guards tell you not to take pictures, then don't. Also, you can take any photograph as long as you are standing on public property. But perhaps we can write letters, expecting responses before the 15th. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline of online registration changed without notice? Sayang, members of my team had only just confirmed their participation. --Bluemask (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We posted notice of the deadline on Facebook days ago. We may reopen registration though, provided that we don't get too big. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was posted on the event page pala. Comments on event pages does not show on users' walls unless the user responded to the event kasi. My bad. --Bluemask (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, several teams are pleading to be allowed to register. I'd never think a Wikipedia Takes the City event would be this popular. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dahong Palay

This has recently grabbed my attention. Are there any herpetologists/biologists here who can point out what species of snake dahong palay actually is? Or if it's even real? I know we all grew up to the stories about how deadly it is and all that, but is there actually any scientific evidence of its existence?

This is a response to the mention of the snake (identified as being 'lethal', despite pointing to a relatively harmless vine snake, the Oriental Whipsnake Ahaetulla prasina) in the article about the filipino weapon Dahong Palay. No one can dispute, of course, the reputation of the snake as being extremely deadly, but when you really do try to find evidence for it, there is none.

Current discussion is in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Dahong Palay

Input is appreciated as to whether to treat it as a real snake or as folklore derived from exaggerated or misattributed stories about it.--Obsidi♠nSoul) 14:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day!

Wikipedia 10 Philippines cake!

From all of us at Wikimedia Philippines, we would like to wish all Filipino Wikipedians a happy 10th Wikipedia Day! If you can, please drop by Paco Park for Wikipedia Takes Manila and the 12th Filipino Wikipedians' Meetup. Let's go out there in full force! --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the participants of this event who diligently take pictures throughout Manila and patiently waited for the results and partied at Shakey's. Thanks to all volunteers who helped us throughout the event. Congratulations to Wikimedia Philippines. Thanks to Sky Harbor who really worked hard to organize this event. Thanks to Scorpion prinz who bought the Wikipedia 10 cake and brought the paraphernalia for the event. Thanks to seav who gave a powerful short keynote speech and tallied the winners. Thanks to Exec8, co-chair for the event, who distributed button pins to participants, video streamed the event and in-charge of marketing. Thanks to Cloudhand who is in-charge of medicines and was able to help us at the party. Thanks to Juned, chairman of the event, who also helped during the party. Thanks to Billie, who helped us on the interview on GMANews.TV, hosted the event, and helped in auditing the pictures. Special thanks goes to Wikipedians, Bluemask, Nickrds09, Chitetskoy who helped us in tallying the scores of the participants, auditing the pictures and distribution of T-shirts and pins. For those people that I forgot to mention, thank you very much.  :-) Again, Happy Wikipedia Day! --Jojit (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template:RP province and territory navigation box

{{RP province and territory navigation box}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is already the {{Luzon lateral}}, {{Visayas lateral}}, and {{Mindanao lateral}} templates used in its place.--Obsidi♠nSoul 07:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a separate template. For example, if there's a politics of Ilocos Norte, geography of Ilocos Norte, economy of Ilocos Norte, etc. articles it can be added there. So far I don't know which provinces and cities have one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cebu

When doing New Article Patrol, I was looking at the article Northern Cebu. It is an almost exact copy of part of the existing article Cebu. I do not see any reference in the latter to a province called Northern Cebu, but I am entirely unfamiliar with the Philippines so it may exist. I have tagged the new article with Notability|date=January 2011 as I don't believe the subject is notable (because it is not a province) and because the information is only a duplicate of the other article. Please remove or change the tag if I am wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposed Cebu del Norte as part of the Sugbuak (Cebu-split movement), but it never came to fruition. If ever, this would be a hoax at worst, and a duplicate at best. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License of iskWiki!

Question for UP people: what's the license of iskWiki!? If it uses a free license, maybe we can use some content to enrich the Wikipedia articles on the UP System. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to retain individual copyright for all material. Speaking of their content, I nominate Leonard L. Co for a wiki article (this wiki, not there), heh.--Obsidi♠nSoul 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move article "Malacañang Palace" to "Malacañang" or "Malacañan Palace" due to WP:COMMONNAME

This article was placed at "Malacañang Palace" because it was thought that the palace was more commonly called by this name than by Malacañan Palace (without the -g), which is it's official name.

However, a quick search on Google showed that "Malacañang Palace" was actually less common than "Malacañang Palace". However, the most commonly mentioned name seems to simply be "Malacañang" (without "Palace").

Google search on the name:

If no one opposes, I would like to move the article to either "Malacañang" or "Malacañan Palace" because they are more common names.

(If anyone needs background on the spelling differences, see the bottom of the article at the Official Gazette at www.gov.ph - http://www.gov.ph/2011/01/17/briefer-on-the-new-malacanang-briefing-room-signage/ - according to it Malacañan Palace refers to the building itself while Malacañang is shorthand for the Office of the President (subordinates, staff, etc.)) Mk32 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Considering "Malacañang Palace" is already considered informal, much more can be said to "Malacañang." Remember, Malacañang is also a subdistrict of San Miguel, Manila, and is also the word to refer to the executive branch (when people say the "White House," they're not usually referring to the building but to the executive branch of the U.S. government), so the proper Google search is "'Malacañang Palace' Malacañang" just to be sure the we're referring to the palace. For Google searches with two words, I suggest using quotation marks to make it sure that Google lists the pages the two words are listed together.
As for "n" and "ñ," as per laziness, and that keyboards don't have the letter "ñ," we should probably omit those.
All things considered, "Malacañang Palace" does emerge to be the most commonly used name. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. Article is about the building. As HTD said, when people refer to 'Malacañang' they are usually referring to the executive branch (i.e. not the actual building but the people in it). The proper name 'Malacañan Palace', on the other hand, is obscure enough not to justify a move. The lead text already explains the usage.--Obsidi♠nSoul 10:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically enough, "Malacañan Palace" is so obscure, to say it's even a "common name" is stretching it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OT: I have to say that the glowy thing going on in the Arroyo-era version of the logo is horrid. LOL.--Obsidi♠nSoul 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alakdana

There are 3 pages for Alakdana (Alakdana (Philippine TV show), Alakdana and Alakdana (TV series), and a certain user has redirected them all to Alakdana (Philippine TV show) which isn't the proper format for the title. There are no known TV series called Alakdana, so Alakdana (TV series) is more suitable than Alakdana (Philippine TV show). However the page Alakdana is vacant as well, so shouldn't it be just Alakdana? Many thanks --ISWAK3 (talk) 17.58, 22 January 2011 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines&oldid=409398233"