Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Call for Philippine Christmas pictures!

It's that time of the year again and articles like Christmas in the Philippines, Parol, and the like could use more free pictures! --seav (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys how about Santa cop?--Lenticel (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Any Simbang Gabi pics, anyone? (I don't attend.) :-P --seav (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Today's Inquirer editorial mentions Wikipedia

Though only in passing: [1] (But I would really love it if all proposed legislation were created using a wiki process that is only editable by legislators. That way, we can know which congressperson inserted which provision into the budget, for example.) --seav (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah so we could also know who has the "lowest edits" or "inactive" and kick him out of Congress next election.--Lenticel (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Would be interesting to see who've clearly done pov-pushing, self-promotion/coi and downright malicious vandalism. :P Shrumster (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
@Lenticel: It would be much lulz indeed, since it's quite easy to know who screwed up his edits if they used MW for writing any proposed legislations and stuff...

New RfA at Tagalog Wikipedia

Thank you for all of your help in my RfA at the tl wiki.--Lenticel (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of ASEAN members -- Philippine-related FL?

List of ASEAN member states is a Featured List. Is it a Philippine-related Featured List? I mean, should we include it in that section on the Tambayan main page? TheCoffee (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ateneo de Manila College Glee Club

Any Ateneans willing to clean up this article?--Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not a Loyola guy, but I think we'd appreaciate it if that guy never came back to edit this. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Found these articles again after assessing Philippine related articles. The following articles have multiple issues on them & I humbly asked you to look at them. Thanks --Kleomarlo (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jose Manalo's from Eat Bulaga and he could be seen there everyday, although i think there are people more notable who don't haave articles.--23prootie (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ingrid Sala Santamaria is a touring pianist who made her name not just here in the Phils. but also abroad. If I'm not mistaken, she belongs to the generation of classical concert artists that preceded Cecile Licad. I think that the article is OK as it is except for the schedule; I removed the table of performances anyways. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Who got the bright idea of getting the PNP-IAS their own article? Much of JB's text seems too POV, and Informatics deserved its ad tag. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I already removed the POV section in JB's article, although I think it still needs some fixing... Blake Gripling (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to create more RP SC Decision articles

Evolution of Marlboro Lights.

Portals, images and movie articles abound, but who cares about creating SC judgment articles? US Supreme Court allows 'light' cigarettes lawsuits[2] - most popular front page article[3] in the LIST[4] --119.95.26.88 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should know who is this one.
If there's anything that should be done, it has been my longtime project to at least have stubs for all of the articles in the Constitution, at least before they change it. –Howard the Duck 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Floro, your input is more or less appreciated, but when will you come to terms with the fact that you've lost the respect of the tambays here? Hasn't the blocking of your accounts and the Wiki-shenanigans you've done over the past months ever taught you anything? Using anon IPs and socks will never hide who you really are. If this 'need to have more RP SC decisions' is your avenue of expressing bitterness at your disbarment, sorry man, no dice. Just heed Migs' earlier advice and you'll spare us a lot of headaches.
As for the decisions, it would be better off in any articles about notable cases. --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

SM City North EDSA needs cleaning

SM City North EDSA article is too messy. Need your help cleaning this one. --Exec8 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I try from time-to-time, but I honestly think some WP:COI editors are responsible for the constant re-clutter I find in the mall articles. Too many unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL stuff that only people involved with the actual projects are really sure of - which hints towards the editors actually being part of the mall's marketing team or something like that. Shrumster (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Did some cleanup. TheCoffee (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact that they just recently opened a brand new expanded annex that made it the Philippines' largest mall (shockingly displacing SMMoA), might have a lot to do with the recent spate of edits to that article. --seav (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, guys. Trying to help as well. Freaking hard to make it not sound like a promotional page, probably complete rewrites of most of the sections needed. Starting with the first few paragraphs, trimming probably unnecessary detail, etc. Shrumster (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any shopping mall article that has achieved Good article status? We could get pointers there on how to reorganize the SM article. --seav (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
To answer my question, there's Merle Hay Mall, but it's not a good template. --seav (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally went to SM North EDSA Annex last friday, its soft opening. Its really, really, big. The design is far far better than the demolished Annex. Eventhough TriNoma and annex is there, SM North is still crowded during weekends. --Exec8 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic: Went there last weekend, got some low-res pics that I might upload. Very impressed. This is the first mall where I actually felt queasy looking down at the basement from the top floor. :P Shrumster (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Just thought some of you might want to know. Floro posted quite a lot of real-world information about some of us here on his blog [5] which might be a breach of privacy. Couldn't figure out how to email blogspot to complain/have the post taken down so telling you guys about it so maybe some of you can do something about it if you think it's a privacy breach. :P Shrumster (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tips

I had been in Meycauayan am 10 years older than Floro. My friends are the Valencia's of Hulo. Its river contains one of the best wonders ever, get into it. I also studied at the old Poblacion St. Marys, with the Laurels and Bordadors. Mrs. Baby Bordador was our teacher. I had been singing in the Choir with Fr. Nocom. Opening the blog is of course amazing, since the pics reveal gays. Today, most of you in Tambayan pics are gays, and that is good, since our Constitution and many US courts protect this even the gay marriage. But gay sanity is curable. Every night you despise yourselves saying at age 36 you have no bibes not ducks but owls. So, when Fr. Jaime Bulatao was our professor, we were told that homosexuality is a psychological disease. And so, here, in Tambayan, it is obvious that you must throw your rage at someone, stalk chase and perturb nah. I am neutral and I do not judge anyone of you nor Floplo. He is psychotic said the Courts. But now, who cares, he is banned. Do not blame your tragedies to this guy, who just talk and talk nonsense. Stalk him and cure your diseases. Just telling my opinion. Had seen this and I was perturbed by madness.--124.106.80.18 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well at least he showed a cute picture of yours truly. –Howard the Duck 07:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. A complement of the Chirstmas seasons, but Taiwan had culled 18,000 poultry including these kinds.[6]--124.106.80.18 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The bitter fool seeking another avenue for revenge...--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but who would care? Floro is insane, and all hate this idiot. Please do not believe in his dire curses, they are just bluffs to threaten you. I had seen this guy in the Ateneo last 2004, we professors just poke fun at him. All his sayings are just coincidences. Bother not. Fly like an eagle.--124.106.80.18 (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Jesus goddamn Christ Floro, could you stop posting? We all know that this is you; you are completely unable of impersonating anyone other than yourself, and that makes your walls of text painful to read on so many levels. Stop trying to fit in by claiming to be someone else while at the same time coming from the exact same IP and talking about the exact same topics. You are not fooling anyone and your vain attempts to fit in by insulting yourself just make an even stronger case for you to be kept off Wikipedia forever. --Migs (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Kung sa bagay, Floro really did what in psychology terms would be projection...and some of his latest ramblings are true, like one, 'Floro is insane and all hate this idiot' is close to home because practically every Tambay reviles him as much as that showbiz sockpuppet guy, and two, 'He is psychotic said the Courts' just drives attention to what his real history is. This guy is one of a few Wikipedians who have annoyed me this past year, and I hope that when WMPH is established, he will be virtually excluded from all activities (as much as we want to welcome more Pinoy Wikipedians). Outing Tambays here in some blog and trying to make them disclose their real names in the guise of another editor who claims to represent some group of Atenean alumni helps nobody's cause. Thankfully, I respect WP policies such as WP:NPA, or I would pepper him with so many epithets. I don't want to foster WikiHate, but I think I speak for everybody else here when I say we don't want to hear from you ever again in any shape or form, Floro...and neither does Wikipedia.--Eaglestorm (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I intend to be independent of the issue, and I intend to keep WMPH independent of the issue as well. I don't want another Emir214 incident despite the fact that we are welcoming him back with open arms even with regard to his current status. Exclusion is detrimental to any community unless there is compelling evidence to do so. While there will be some people who will be appalled by my decision and my context of the situation at hand, I'm being realistic here: you may hate him now, but will that mean that you can't appreciate what he has done in spite of his various intricacies? Sure, I may get annoyed over Justice Floro's tactics and editing oddities, but instead of always focusing on these negatives, we should strive to look for positives as well. It is high time for us, especially since we are Filipinos, to move beyond this "dot-and-circle" mentality and look at things from a more objective angle. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gook

I created a new article providing information on the origin and history on this word. I don't know what WikiProject it should come under, but I thought of the Philippines after looking at the traffic pattern.[7][8] Kauffner (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting article. Always thought the word just referred to the Vietnamese. Hope you don't mind, I nominated it for dyk. Shrumster (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New RfB at Tagalog Wikipedia

There is also a new RfB (Request for Bureaucrat) at Tagalog Wikipedia. The present candidate is Sky Harbor (see also Sky Harbor). Your participation at Wikipedia:Bagong nominasyon: Burokrata will also be highly appreciated. Thank you once again. - AnakngAraw (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sky Harbor is now also a Bureaucrat at Tagalog Wikipedia. Congratulations! A new chapter begins... Thank you for those who participated in this election. Happy Holidays to all! Keep on propagating Peace and large pieces of Knowledge. - AnakngAraw (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys for supporting my nomination. Merry Christmas! --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:SOCCSKSARGEN

I just had to roll my eyes at this conversation. Anyway, I'd like to get the opinion of the tambays here. Am I right or am I wrong? Second and third opinions are very much welcome. --seav (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an ungraceful acronym, but like it or not that is the proper name. TheCoffee (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 Merry Christmas to all WikiPedians! --Efe (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you'll have a merry Christmas. --Efe (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maguindanao maps

Where could I find municipal or barangay maps of Maguindanao? I cannot create an updated map for Maguindanao without a basis. The only one I could find is the one for Upi. The rest: none. Thank you. — Felipe Aira 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? The town articles have locator maps. TheCoffee (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I mean new locator maps. The current locator maps for Maguindanao are already obsolete. Upi, Maguindanao was splitted into two. Kabuntalan, Maguindanao was splitted to form Kabuntalan and Northern Kabuntalan, Shariff Kabunsuan. While Buluan, Maguindanao was divided into three: Buluan, Mangudadatu, Maguindanao and Pandag, Maguindanao. Also a town was created from the adjacent towns of Talayan, Maguindanao and Talitay, Maguindanao. All in all there are 5 new towns created in Maguindanao on 2006 by plebescite while there are a lot locator maps to be updated.
I tried going to the ARMM website but their are no contact details, and the site was last updated years ago. I cannot find any official or unofficial website of Maguindanao. The town of Buluan's website contains no maps. While another town also has the same case, and worse - no contact information. None of the new towns have their own websites.
My solution: I just approximated.
The only precise boundary that was created was the Upi-Datu Blah Sinsuat boundary since the website of the Upi municipality has a municipal map on their website that shows the precise border lines of each barangay. And since I know which barangays were separated to form Datu Blah, I simply created a border following the border lines of the separated barangays.
In the case of Kabuntalan, since the name of the new town is Northern Kabuntalan. I just divided the municipality almost horizontally with the larger part to Kabuntalan since Kabuntalan is 1 barangay larger than its northern counterpart.
In Buluan, I just divided it into three also almost horizontally since I know that it lost its coast line to one of the new towns.
In Talayan-Talitay, I just approximated basing on how many barangays were lost to the new town.
Also I notice that many of the Maguindanao municipalities which were once parts of Shariff Kabunsuan still are under the article name "town, Shariff Kabunsuan", and it still reads that it is the part of the SK province.
Lastly as a plus point: while finding information about Maguindanao municipalities in our big school library, I found these old (old that the paper is already yellow, but it seems that no body's reading since the pages are still flat - mint condition) books entitled "The Philippine Islands". There are more than 20 volumes spread across a dozen+ books the size of Magandang Balita Biblia. In those books are the letters of the different conquistadors to Felipe II and Carlos I think, and other letters, and a few journals by other people (like priests); it's translated into English. I even found the declaration of the establishment of Manila (in the book Manilla; maybe a typo). A letter of an Agustinian priest to the King whether it would be fine to wage war against the Zambales, and a letter describing the first contact of the Spanish with the Tagalogs (Tagalos in the book) [social roles:slavery - aliping guiguilir and the aliping namamahay, and the dato. The letter was written by a Franciscan named Placencia (forgot his first name). My point: I'll try to find something about the Luzon Empire if that would help. PS The Franciscan did note that there was strong Chinese trade relations.
— Felipe Aira 11:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I've moved all the Shariff Kabunsuan towns to "Townname, Maguindanao" format and updated their pages. TheCoffee (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Try to check www.mapcentral.ph for barangay maps. I cannot ascertain its accuracy though. I was able to trace Northern Kabuntalan, Pandag, Mangudadatu maps using that site. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful! You don't know how big of a help is this to the accurate creation of the map. Thank you! Really! Thank you! — Felipe Aira 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Basilan maps

Just as an update to you all. I am now doing Basilan, and I'll be finished by the end of this week or at least the beginning of next week. Also I did not and will not create a separator boundary for Shariff Kabunsuan and Maguindanao. I included the SK towns to Maguindanao. Why is that? I'll follow what the SC has said that the ARMM government has no power to create provinces. — Felipe Aira 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

At last

Here the map is 100% done (PNG and SVG). Those are the municipal maps of the whole Philippines. It includes the newly created towns and provinces. I know it seems blank since the borders are the ones with colour. It is also more accurate than TheCoffee's maps since it is based on Google's maps which are more accurate. I just used TheCoffee's for bases of the maps' borders. It also includes the Turtle Islands, Scarborough shoal and the Philippine-occupied parts of the Spratly Islands.

Don't worry I'll create more maps. Expect them all on the next 2 months.

  1. Locator maps. Updated and corrected. Coloured.
  2. Statistical maps. Coloured.
  3. Congressional District maps. Coloured.

— Felipe Aira 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Incredible work. The municipality borders at the east part of Basilan look weird though... I know they chopped up some towns there to make new municipalities, but are the borders really erratic like that? I'm thinking mapcentral got it wrong somehow. TheCoffee (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
¡Sobresaliente Felipe! That's the main reason I cannot really ascertain mapcentral.ph's maps accuracy. The ARMM Local Government code also provides municipalities or barangays it creates should be contiguous unless composed of 1 or more islands. I raise the same concern with Datu Anggal Midtimbang, Maguindanao which seems to be scattered. I don't know if this Image:Basilan04.jpg will show a little more accuracy. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know the Basilan map are so weird. Akbar, according to MapCentral, has three exclaves. Datu Anggal has two. The original town has two also. A very weird way to divide a town. Perhaps it's correct just as how Kalookan is exclaved. But the rest appears fine. The new Tawi-tawi and Maguindanao municipalities are divided normally. And used the same method on all three (Maguindanao, Tawi-tawi, Basilan). Perhaps that's really how it's divided. Expect the coloured version around two to three days from now. And thank you for the positive comments, I really put off a lot of work on that thing. Imagine 6 months! From July 4 to December 5! Man, the Philippines is big! — Felipe Aira 11:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one suggestion: Population density map. Take the 2007 population of each municipality, divide by the area, then convert to a color value. --seav (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any site that lists the population of all the towns though. TheCoffee (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean area? --seav (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I mean area. By the way, here's a spreadsheet with data (1995/2000/2007 populations, barangays, alternate names, etc.) on all the cities and municipalities. I compiled it a few months ago using data at the NSO and PSGC sites. May need to be modified to factor in some changes in the past few months (Shariff Kabunsuan nullified, cities nullified...). Hopefully this can be useful somehow. TheCoffee (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what is the map's projection? I'm assuming it's the spherical mercator projection Google Maps uses? --seav (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Projection? Do you mean scaling ratio? I'll indicate that on the coloured maps. — Felipe Aira 11:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The scale is approximately 3.5 km is to one pixel on the SVG version; it is scaled to 5.34 km is to one pixel in the PNG version. — Felipe Aira 12:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not the map scale, the map projection. I'm quite sure you're using a cylindrical projection. I'm just not sure if it's a regular Mercator projection, a spherical Mercator projection, or a plate carree projection. But since you've mentioned Google Maps several times, it's probably the spherical Mercator one. --seav (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if I'm correct that the projection is one of the two Mercator ones, then the map scale is not constant throughout the map. The east-west scale at the northern part of the map is larger (maybe more than 5.34 km per pixel) and the east-west scale at the southern part is smaller. If it's a plate carree projection, the north-south scale is constant while in a Mercator projection, the north-south scale increases as you go north. Also, you cannot have a pixel-based scale for the SVG map since SVG is by definition a vector-based graphic and has no concept of "pixels". --seav (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it is mercator, probably since my basis is using mercator. But I don't think that would be much of a problem since the Philippines is very near to the equator and the distortion could never be that significant. What I meant by "pixels" is the pixel at its nominal size. — Felipe Aira 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The scale (5.34 km on the PNG) is the scale at the bottom most part of the map, and could never be smaller even if it is mercator. The scale is actually based on the Tawi-tawi scale. I'll check the scale of Batanes this night or maybe tommorow, since I am using another OS right now, and see if there's really much significant distortion; I doubt it though. — Felipe Aira 03:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a cylindrical projection, it's quite easy to compute the east-west scale difference. Tawi-Tawi is at around 5°N so the scale there relative to the equator is 1/(cos 5°) = 1.00382. Batanes is at around 21°N so the scale there relative to the equator is 1/(cos 21°) = 1.07114. So the relative difference is 1.07114/1.00382 = 1.067 or 6.7% larger. Depending on your usage, 6.7% may be large or small. It's actually a good thing that the Philippines is near the equator since we can get away with using cylindrical projections. In the United States, cylindrical projections distort the shapes too much, so they usually use a conical projection. --seav (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New maps

Here are the coloured versions(PNG & SVG). Also expect my inactivity until the end of the school year. — Felipe Aira 12:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And also this (File:PhilippinePresidentialSeal.png) might need updating. The stars in the background should reflect the number of Philippine provinces (81). A handfull provinces have been created since this was uploaded. — Felipe Aira 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean 80, right? Shariff Kabunsuan technically does not exist anymore, and I'm unaware if they appealed. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It's 80. But still the image has to be updated. — Felipe Aira 05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The nullity of Shariff Kabunsuan is on appeal, that's why they still exist. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Errors

I found an errors on the old locator maps. They share the same location in the map. I tried to find the correct one at Santa Catalina's site but they use Wikipedia's image, so I cannot verify. As a side topic I found that they use our content without permission. I'll note that on the Copyright violations notice board. Please patronise the noticeboard. Report there these copyvios. I'll also try to contact them, and urge them to cite. — Felipe Aira 10:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it know. The Santa Catalina map is the one which is wrong. By following the geopolitical descriptions of the Vigan City site, I verified the truth of the Vigan locator map. Santa Catalina should be the municipality northwest of Vigan, and northeast of San Vicente. — Felipe Aira 11:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed :) TheCoffee (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exemption Doctrine Policy

Okay, as one of my projects leading up to 2009 (or beyond) and as one of the major sticking points that we should all pursue and fix when WMPH comes to fruition, I began drafting an Exemption Doctrine Policy for the Tagalog Wikipedia. For those of you who do not know what an EDP is or does, it's a policy that governs the use, uploading and deletion of fair-use images on a given Wikipedia. EDPs are governed by a WMF resolution on media licensing that was issued on March 23, 2007.

If you remember earlier this year, I mentioned the possibility of making an EDP that would apply to all Wikipedias that are under the jurisdiction of WMPH (except the English Wikipedia). Currently, no Philippine-language Wikipedia has a definite policy on fair-use images, and this has led to users wantonly uploading fair-use images without rationales or without consideration for the replaceability of the pictures concerned. As much as we should not fault users for their uploading of pictures (and in fact we welcome it), current policy requires that such images be deleted within 48 hours of upload. These provisions are currently not enforced on the Philippine-language Wikipedias, if there are any active uploads there. As such, in order to avoid the massive collateral damage that can result from an en masse deletion of invalid non-free content, and in consideration of the fair use situation in the Philippines, the EDP is being drafted.

The basis for the EDP on the Tagalog Wikipedia is WP:NFCC, with certain modifications to take advantage of looser fair use provisions (and the more liberal fair use climate) in Philippine copyright law. The draft EDP is in Tagalog, but since the basis of the EDP is the English policy, feel free to look at that one. All comments will be appreciated. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit tangential: I suggest leaving WMPH out of this topic. Saying things like "all Wikipedias that are under the jurisdiction of WMPH" is not correct. Chapters do not have any jurisdiction over the Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia projects are all under the direct purview of the Wikimedia Foundation and no chapter (in itself) can enforce policy on each wiki project (e.g., WMPH cannot dictate EDP: it's up to each wiki's community how to determine their wiki's EDP regardless of whether the community members are WMPH members or not).
I agree that we should loosely define the Philippine-language wikis' EDPs after the English EDP (the German EDP is too strict [no fair use at all]). --seav (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, the use of WMPH as a reference suggests a common EDP to all Philippine-language Wikipedias. Since WMPH is not incorporated, it isn't the legal entity which is pushing for the formation of a common EDP; rather, it's the concerted effort of all concerned projects to establish fair use guidelines which are amenable to all Wikipedias, since we all cater to the same country anyway. It wouldn't be fair for, let's say, the Tagalog Wikipedia to have freer guidelines than the Cebuano Wikipedia, or vice-versa. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfair? Each Wikipedia is autonomous from any Wikipedia. Why should it be unfair if it was the community's decision to have freer guidelines in the first place. It's not right that Wikimedia Philippines as a body having anything to do with this. WMPH's mission is only to promote. — Felipe Aira 07:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to play the role of comparison, but it would be wise to say that there must be some level of consistency among the Wikipedias if we all use the same types of files and we all have roughly the same behaviors and attitudes with regard to fair use images. To be honest, the vast majority of Filipinos are completely unaware that we have a fair use doctrine, and they copy-paste willy-nilly without any credit at all (not meaning to generalize). As I've said earlier, I'm not dragging WMPH into this, but rather I am dragging the entire Philippine Wikimedia community into a broad consensus as to how we can build either a common EDP or an EDP with a common base but tailor-fit to each Wikipedia. Obviously, I'm not stopping individual Wikipedias from making their own EDPs, but it would be a good thing if we actually build a consensus in order to ascertain the level of acceptibility images may have among the community. Remember: we may be factioned into different languages, but we are still one community. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Now that I finished the guidelines, we can move on as to how the EDP should be enforced. I was hoping to begin implementation on January 1, but we can change the dates so we don't rush into conclusions. I proposed the following on the Tagalog Wikipedia:

  • All users who have uploaded non-free images without rationales (lacking completely or improper) will have until March 31, 2009 to provide a proper fair use rationale. Beyond this deadline, if no such rationale exists or such rationale fails the EDP criteria, administrators have the right to delete the image or media in question.
  • Starting April 1, 2009, any non-free content which does not meet the EDP criteria will be deleted within 48 hours.
  • Non-free images of living persons may be uploaded and used only for living persons in the Philippines (residing). As much as possible, a free-use version should be uploaded. Once such free-use version has been uploaded, the non-free image shall be immediately deleted. Non-free images of living persons outside the Philippines, on the other hand, are strongly discouraged, especially if the person is prominent or from a developed country.
  • Non-free images of existing buildings are not allowed. We should strive to take pictures of these buildings ourselves.
  • Philippine government seals and emblems may be incorporated into an infobox in accordance with policy. However, should such use be deemed in violation of policy (for example, an infobox in userspace), such item should be removed.

It's a start, but I hope everyone's amenable to it. Feel free to comment. Merry Christmas! --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

suddenly my wikipedia fonts are huge...

Er... suddenly my wikipedia fonts are huge. And it's only on wikipedia. Is it just me, I wonder? Or some problem with wikipedia's programming? -- Alternativity (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? Maybe you CTRL +'ed a couple of times. Try a few CTRL -'es, might fix it. Shrumster (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
My font size appears fine whether on IE or Firefox. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! That did it! -- Alternativity (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PEx userbox

PExThis user is a PExer.

While finding credible sources on Takipsilim to aid its AfD, I was struck with the idea that I want to make a userbox for a very particular reason. Seeing that there are Wikipedians in PEx and vice-versa (you know who you are...), I decided to make the userbox at the right, only it isn't in template space yet. What do you think? --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Peso

₱

This peso sign will only work if you are using the Segoe UI font.
To add the peso sign to an article, add this script before the number. 

<font style="font-family: Segoe UI;font-size: 115%;">₱</font>
Example:
₱ 1000.00

So if you are making reports, copy the symbol above and paste it on MS Word, Excel or Powerpoint. Make sure you change the font. My professor got stunned when I submitted the financial report (in word) and a presentation (in power point) with those peso signs. --Exec8 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why depreced font-tag is used here? :/ Please use span instead. :) btw. you use Unicode at Philippines? --84.44.178.27 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

JC Tiuseco

Please help me in editing this. It's riddled with POV and blog sourcing (actually just one blog, ultimatepinoyhunks.com). Starczamora (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'just one blog'? You ought to take that out because it violates WP:EL.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Philippines (Kapampangan)

Hello! I've just created a new section of Wikimedia Philippines Kapampangan for Kapampangan contributors. So I'm looking forward for the Kapampangan speakers to help me out build this newly created page by me. Thanks. - Lee Heon Jin - 3 January 2009, 10:48 (GMT +0800)

Try campaigning on the Kapampangan Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Boga (noisemaker)

Here's a stub guys; maybe someone here owns one of these boom tubes... take a pic and slap it in. Happy New Year, mga tambay! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should submit this to DYK. (I can't devote that much time in wiki for now). And Happy New Year too.--Lenticel (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been done. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 09:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:SMPH

Take a look at this template, mga tambay... see all those external links in the bottom-most nav box (SM Prime Holdings)? Is this allowed? Smells like soapboxing to me. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 09:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think external links should be in templates. Shrumster (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse my being pedantic here—a bit of background might be useful, I think. It appears to me that WP:CLN#Navigation templates (an editing guideline) describes navigation templates as containing only wikilinks ("Navigation templates are boxes with links to other related articles"). The description in WP:NAV (only an essay) could be read as suggesting that external links are allowed as well ("A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles"). WP:CLN, does however, instruct readers to follow "... the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems (see [...], and WP:NAV)."
As to whether a particular article should present endmatter links to related material in (1) the See also section for wikilinked articles and/or the External links section for external material or (2) by including one of the numerous navigation templates, that is a decision to be taken on an article-by-article basis.
Taking a look at a few of the 60+ articles which use Template:SMPH, I don't see anything which I would call unreasonable. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of articles that might need some checking on

Just randomly clicking around, I came across a few articles within our scope that you guys might want to deal with. Good Times with Mo looks like it needs cleaning up/de-poving. Karen Pamintuan might need a date with the AFD process. Shrumster (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As fraking hot as she is, Karen P really needs much cleanup or like you suggested Shrumster, AFD (even with the sources) --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Zobel de Ayala family article seems to need some de-pov'ing and uncrufting. Shrumster (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just came across LGBT culture in the Philippines. Some of it seems like OR/Synthesis. It kinda reads like a paper/essay. Combined with the suspicious lack of wikilinks, I'm thinking it might also be a copyvio, or the writer uploaded the entire doc. The arrangement also leaves much to be desired. But honestly, I have no idea what to do with the article. :P Shrumster (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Palengke

Hey guys, just decided to start an article on palengkes out of the blue. Crossed my mind that we didn't have an article on palengkes, but they're so freaking integral to classic pinoy culture (and to my knowledge, unique when compared to markets out there in the world). So far, so good, but needing more sources, especially on history, etc. If you know of any, mind if you throw some my way? Feel free to whack around with the article as well. Shrumster (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting start of an article! Kudos! I would've thought that this would be better as a section under public market but it seems that there's enough material to have a separate article on its own. I wonder when the Mar Roxas fans would start an "In popular culture" section there linking to Mr. Palengke? Hehehe. --seav (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards preferring that the info there merged into the public market article. Related thought: Is the palengke a type of public market in the Philippines, or is it simply a public market in the Philippines. TheCoffee (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, my internal mind's library just thinks of palengkes as simply public markets in the Philippines, imbibed with Filipino culture. For instance, the "Palengke ng Sta. Ana" can be correctly translated to English as "Sta. Ana Public Market". --seav (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'd like to get a second/third opinion on edits by Pardocebu (talk · contribs) on Cebu-related articles. His edits are good-faith edits but he replaces mentions of the word barangay with an additional mention of barrio. I think this makes things imprecise since barangay is the name of a functional government unit while barrio is simply a Spanish-language-influenced term for a rural village, which may or may not have a government. I do not want to get into an edit war with this new user. --seav (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Barangay is the correct term, "barrio" is deprecated (still used colloquially sometimes, but "barangay" is more common, even in Cebuano). He has also been replacing the word "barangay" with "district", which is just wrong. TheCoffee (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
He's at it agaaaaaain... Shrumster (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just reverted a bunch of his edits (around 10-15 lang). Sigh, we probably need a bot for this or something. If he keeps on with this, a trip to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring might be in order. Shrumster (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How about putting it like this: "YYY is composed of XX barangays (also called baryo in Cebuano)." Note that it uses the local spelling. --Bluemask (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maria Clara Belen "Mabel" Sunga Acosta

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maria Clara Belen "Mabel" Sunga Acosta, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

City council member of a large city in the Philippines, does not adequately reference achievements, includes way too much unencyclopedic material, what is there doesn't establish Wikipedia:Notability (people). Reads like spamcruft or a novelty-biography. Even if she were notable this article would have to be rewritten from scratch to distill out the encyclopedic content.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

If this person does meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) please improve the article and remove the spammish content and replace it with something encyclopedic before removing the {{dated prod}} tag. If she's not wiki-notable let the PROD expire but watchlist it in case it goes to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

you ought to go AFD on that. and i agree with your rationale. Who the hell is she, anyway?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to deprod and take it to AFD if you like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thing is, I don't know how to do it.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. :P Shrumster (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It's like an online curriculum vitae. Hehehe. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Iskul Bukol 20 Years After

Happy New Year Tambays! I've created the article with blank sections ready for expansion. ANyone who wants to help with the article, just dive in. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bam, it's all complete. Shrumster, thanks for the DYK. I think the refs I put in hold their own...unles s they linkrot. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Shopping mall articles

Finally found a bunch of GA mall articles, (108 North State Street, Merle Hay Mall, University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas) and Walden Galleria. and I've gotten to thinking. We should de-cruftify the local ones. Too many of the local mall articles are full of unencyclopedic content. Sad thing is, it's so freaking hard to find good sources for our mall stuff. Is there a repository of something like MB, Star and/or Inq articles online? Shrumster (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquirer has its own archive at their website (until 2004 only), MB can be searched by google but suffers from linkrot. PhilStar articles is harder to find and is usually hosted by 3rd parties.--Lenticel (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn, kainis. Sana our local news would like, archive their entire content farms online. :P Which libraries kaya have issues in microfilm? Shrumster (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Philippine Star has archives but you need to register, and you can only search them by title. By the way, a good article to get to GA (or FA?!) is SM City Cebu... I gave it a good start, it's well referenced so far, good pictures, and cruftless. TheCoffee (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The news archive section of the main library in UP diliman has MB microfilms.--Lenticel (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto the Lopez Museum beside Tektite. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Xavier University (Cagayan de Oro)

A little help on this page please. Thanks -- Kleomarlo (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, User:Nash16 seems to keep adding in stuff that gets reverted. I'm thinking a copy-paste job or a copyvio. Especially since most of it isn't wikified/in an obviously different format. Shrumster (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeech. I've chopped off about a fourth of the article that was just crufty stuff. Personally I think you could still simply delete half of what remains. Or start over from scratch. :p TheCoffee (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Shrumster, you're right, a lot of it is pasted from the university website. I'm removing it. TheCoffee (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It's cleaned up now. If someone's gonna build up the article again they'll have to do it properly. TheCoffee (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have the feeling we haven't seen the last of him. Looking at the article history, he's been plugging those copyvio edits in since October 2008 as User:Nash16. And I suspect he's User_talk:210.4.62.239 and User_talk:58.71.68.252 both of whom have been putting in the same stuff since mid-2008. Not sure which board to report to though. AIV or Admin's Noticeboard? Repeat offender kasi. Shrumster (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
He has never been warned before though. I gave him a message on his talk page. If he persists with copyright problems, we can give him a more stern warning, then consider blocking. TheCoffee (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
He added fresh data just now. I undid it all because he needs to talk things first. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maja Salvador/Kerr Rebullo

Is Kerr Rebullo the same person as Maja Salvador? According to their respective pages, they have the same birthdates, same progeny and same credits. The only difference between them is their different places of birth. I've only heard of Maja Salvador before, but it appears that Kerr Rebullo has her own IMDB page. At the very least, it appears that the Kerr Rebullo article has a WP:SELFPUB issue. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the same IMDB hits from google and some. She's also in Impostora? --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably different. The creator of the Kerr Rebullo article probably used the Maja Salvador one as a template, then forgot to trim details that didn't apply. Shrumster (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My own suspicion was that Kerr Rebullo was a hoax, a Bizarro World version of Maja Salvador for god knows what reason. Most striking is the reference of an apparently fictitious TV station, "KTV-3", in the Rebullo article. However, I don't know how she got on IMDB, so I could be wrong. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the IMDB page, I dunno, but there's also an "entry" for Gerald Gonzalez in that site, raising my suspicions that some "papansin" people are making up IMDB profiles in vain, since I haven't seen or heard of them in mainstream TV. Same for KTV-3. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case, IMDB should be informed that there are fake entries. Hell, there's even that guy who passed himself off as an associate producer for MGS4 when he is not even mentioned in the game credits (I mentioned it before in that conspiracy-whining architect fan's thread last September). As google hits go, I'm seeing a friendster profile, a wapedia page on Totoy Bato, and a Wikirage entry among others. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You are aware that Gerald joined the Friendster group, right? I hope that will prove to be something more constructive than destructive. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
First time I've heard of it, since I'm not part of the list. I think ian's requirements are in the archives. That sockmaster in the group? I sincerely doubt he can be of good use after the headaches he has given us. As a WP policy whose title i can't remember goes, rebuilding a reputation in one profile is much better than establishing a new account. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SC rules Shariff Kabunsuan is no more

The Supreme Court said only Congress had the power to divide and create new provinces and not offices like the RLA. ARMM officials sought reconsideration of the high court’s decision, arguing the RLA was empowered to subdivide and create new entities under the ARMM charter. But the Supreme Court denied their motion with finality, saying it found no compelling reason or “substantial arguments to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.” --Exec8 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated the article and did some cleanup as well, but the infobox needs fixing. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Baler and Katagalugan

  1. Any local sources for Baler? No, I didn't watch the movie. ;-)
  2. I have gotten hold of a juicy academic article by a UP professor which asserts that A. Bonifacio was the first president of the Philippines, through the Republika ng Katagalugan which was basically the Katipunan reorganized. M. Sakay reused the name for his government since he was one of the "old guard" Katipuneros. In fact some of its points (surviving Spanish documentation, etc.) are already in the Bonifacio and Philippine-American War articles. This was recently covered in a TV special, I think. I'm sure, given the general state of history education in the country, this is not the generally accepted view. How to integrate this info/view? What to do with First Philippine Republic? Perhaps that should be moved to say, Malolos Republic or Republica Filipina (or not?) and let the articles should speak for themselves. Uthanc (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Number 2 above relates to some changes I've made in articles about the Philippines (see explanation here). I'm not sure what to suggest. I'm a non-Filipino living in the Philippines, and my understanding of Philippine history comes from what I've picked up since moving here. I have the impression that my understanding doesn't relate closely to what is taught in primary and secondary schools here, nor to the popular view in the Philippines of Philippine history. In particular, this 1st thru 5th Republic business is very confusing to me. Was the Republic of Biak-na-Bato the Zeroth Republic? If the RofBnB was a non-Republic, how was it moreso "non" than the 1st Republic? Were there other, earlier, (non)Republics? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. I watched the movie :). Try to obtain some books on the Filipiniana section of the Main Library of UP Diliman.
  2. Some information on Bonifacio can be obtained in Ambeth Ocampo's published works which is available in National Bookstore outlets --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, and also as a follow-up to Lenticel's comment: I've read almost all of Ambeth Ocampo's books and I think this bit of information is scattered across some of his books. In case you're buying the books, here's a tip: most shelf copies of the books aren't plastic-wrapped anyway, so you can skim through the book first before heading to the cashier. Powerbooks, A Different Bookstore and Fully Bookes are more friendly to buyers who actually read the book first before buying them ;-) -- Tito Pao (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Also (and I hope it isn't too late)...do please check out Carmen Guerrero Nakpil's article on the Philippine Star. It is a good article on the siege of Baler. (I'll go try look for the online version. Here ya' go :)) --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That was a very enlightening and fascinating article. :-) It's a bit on the Filipino POV (pantayong pananaw), but I think parts can be incorporated into various articles, primarily the Siege of Baler. --seav (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, but I haven't used them yet. Found a print source. Article better. Uthanc (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia article is quite long. Anybody who understands Spanish who wants to mine information from there? :-) (See es:Sitio de Baler.) --seav (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You could try Google's Google Translate (but be ready to translate the resulting English version :)).--Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Can someone please help at Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. User:Truth222 insists on this edit, and while there may be traces of salvageable content in there, it has multiple issues with point of view and encyclopedic tone that make it unacceptable. TheCoffee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, most of the stuff doesn't even belong in the GMA article. Maybe in the EDSA II article or whichever topic the info is relevant to, but in the GMA article, no. And that's not even addressing the POV issues. Shrumster (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the diff's edit really had much POV going for it. Can somebody tell him to seek consensus first? This is not the first time he's come under fire for POV-pushing, as his talk page shows. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page, user seems to have some serious POV and AGF issues. Especially his almost going ballistic over the "fake page" issue. Shrumster (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is actually a one-issue user, the account was created to make these sort of edits to the Arroyo article after it was semi-protected. He previously edited anonymously. TheCoffee (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If this weren't a BLP article, I'm almost inclined to leave it alone except for vandalism cases until Arroyo steps down (presumably) in 2010 since it will attract these kinds of edits while she is in power. --seav (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There, he did it again. Someone, please. TheCoffee (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid it already. Have you tried taking this up at the Admin noticeboard? it seems Tambay powers are not enough to stop this guy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary Ejercito vs. Doña Mary Ejercito

23prootie moved the article on Mary Ejercito to Doña Mary Ejercito. I objected since per WP:NCP, qualifiers such as honorifics are not to be used unless necessary for disambiguation. 23prootie reasons that Doña Mary is her most recognizable name. Raising this point here to generate wider consensus on what should be done. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think A. N. is right. However, Dona Mary as a redirect won't hurt.--Lenticel (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
But the media (Kapuso and Kapamilya) uses the name "Doña Mary" not Mary Ejercito nor Maria Marcelo and besides her son is a celebrity so, by default, so is she. In my opinion, the name that should be used is simply "Doña Mary" since it is her most recognizable name.--23prootie (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Celebrity status is not "inherited" by default. It's a logical fallacy to say that being the mother of a celebrity makes one a celebrity too. --seav (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am just a bit inclined to 23prootie's side. I've checked Google News and searched for articles about her prior to 2009 (so that the current media frenzy over her death is ignored), and I see the "Dona" used almost always, and per WP:UCN, it's the most common name for her. I would venture to say that the "Dona" no longer functions as an honorific and has now become part of her "common name". --seav (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree that Doña Mary is the most common usage. In fact, when I myself composed the original article sometime last year, I had begun to write under "Doña Mary Ejercito", shifting to Mary Ejercito only after consulting the Manual on Style on honorifics (with "Doña Mary" as a redirect). A valid argument for Doña Mary is that Wikipedia uses Pope Benedict XVI instead of "Benedict XVI" (though Jaime Cardinal Sin is Jaime Sin). I'm not too invested in this issue, but my only strong concern is if Doña Mary were allowed in this case, questions may arise about other Filipinos from an older generation who also were often called Don or Doña (Don Claro Recto, Don Chino Roces, etc.). --Anyo Niminus (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The name used should be the name that made a person notable, besides "Mary" isn't even her real name.--23prootie (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidestep

Still related to the topic but not the situation. What are Mrs Ejercito's other claim of notability aside from being a president's mother? --Bluemask (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

She was the reason invoked why a former Philippine president who had been sentenced to prison was ultimately pardoned, an event that changed the political situation in the Philippines. She also was the reason for the various furloughs extended to President Estrada while in prison, a privilege which is otherwise not extended to other prisoners. The fact that much of her notability was derivative, and thus perhaps undeserved, does not negate the media coverage she received towards the end of her life and the front-page obituaries in local papers upon her death.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles Needing Help

  • Irayang Solong: do you think this artic needs to be speedy deleted, or work upon further? There is no consensus that a barangay-article should be retained, right? Unless the barangay garnered notability itself. The artic seems advertisement. I will put it in speedy deletion.

Axxand (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Irayang Solong article is vain enough to be deleted. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The Irayang Solong's speedy deletion was denied. Axxand (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Berbalang (legendary creature)

I have to do a preliminary search on this one first to find sources, but I've tagged it already. :-D

Ow its alright! Axxand (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of WMPH by-laws

With the just-closed vote on our bank, and since our incorporation has moved into overdrive, I'm planning to overhaul the WMPH by-laws into something more comprehensible and more palatable to both members and the ChapCom. Anyway, proposals will be implemented here and there, and we will need to address all those comments over the previous summer. Of course, we will need the template for by-laws of non-stock corporations, which can be found here. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't wanna open the official language issue again but maybe we should opt to register as Wikimedia PH. This is what the Wikimedia Chapters covering multilingual multiethnic countries have done (Wikimedia RU of Russia [russian, rusyn too many to enumerate], and Wikimedia CH of Switzerland [French {mostly}, German, Rhaeto-Romansch, Italian {Minority}]). Don't worry, I think it is ok that the Wikimedia chapter would be registered as Wikimedia [country code] just like the operating name of Wikimedia UK and the would be Wikimedia DC. — Felipe Aira 05:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
India is ostensibly multilingual but they're registering as "Wikimedia India". Wikimedia Czech Republic uses the Czech and English versions of their names respectively in proper correspondence. For all I care, we can request to be registered as "Wikimedia Philippines, Inc." and "Wikimedia Pilipinas S.A." respectively with the SEC. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:UAAP70.jpg?

Can an admin un-delete this? Apparently this had no FU rationales so this was deleted. –Howard the Duck 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on Charice Pempengco

I guess the kid's article needs some TLC and stuff; We all know she winded up as an Internet meme, but of course we don't want to riddle it with cruft, right? Blake Gripling (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish as the "original national language of the Philippines"

Please check out this discussion.

I've already checked the text the first two Constitutions of the Philippines, and neither legally proclaimed Spanish as the national language. Bill and I have since been accused of purposely misinterpreting the text to suit our own views.

Is it possible for anyone here to present a more accurate interpretation of the language provisions in the mentioned Constitutions? For all I know, I might be wrong. Thanks. --Pare Mo (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WMPH funding and 2009

Since this section will be archived soon, I transferred the discussion here. --Jojit (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Filipino language to Wikang Filipino

User:23prootie has been pointy in redirecting Filipino language into Wikang Filipino, saying it is the official name a la Bahasa Indonesia, which by the way is also a redirect of Indonesian language. Starczamora (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) says to use the English form but also include the native name on the first line--Lenticel (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
For some reason (maybe because English is widely spoken here), "Filipino language" is the English name for the language known as "Wikang Filipino" in the Filipino language. Meanwhile, the English name for the national language of Indonesia is "Bahasa Indonesia" or simply "Bahasa". It's like German language and Deustch or however it is spelled in German. –Howard the Duck 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag Revisions-Response; Flame wars; Encyclopaedia Britannica tests Wikipedia UGC

We have until January 29, says Jimbo Wales talk page to submit comment on UGC:

User: 203.111.235.50

Hi! Please help me verify the edits of this anon user, especially to his edits to several PBA related articles. He keeps on changing the head coach of San Miguel to Frankie Lim and keeps on adding retired players to the Ginebra active roster template.

Kindly assist. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's been warned enough on his talk page. I've blocked him for a week. TheCoffee (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
He is at it again. After the block expired, he continues to add hoax information on the same articles he edited previously. Please assist. -danngarcia (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I know this guy from CO:Hostname:acl1-1420bts.gw.smartbro.net - ISP:Smart Broadband Incorporated - Organization:Smart Broadband Incorporated-Proxy:None detected-Type:Cable/DSL -Country:Philippines-State/Region:B2-City:Cagayan De Oro-Latitude:8.4822-Longitude:124.6472--124.106.80.18 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Biak-na-Bato

Republic of Biak-na-Bato previously redirected to Tagalog Republic. I have replaced the redirect with a stub article on the Republic of Biak-na-Bato. Please improve as needed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandugo under GA review

Hello there, the article Sandugo which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few cleaning-up as have others, but this article still needs some internal peer review especially from the historically-minded Tambays. The prose is kinda poor for one thing. --seav (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

I've created the article List of national parks of the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

GMA again...

User:Loloige is making a truckload of edits to the article as much as Truth222 did in recent months, and thinks TheCoffee's some admin who doesn't know what he's doing because he undid all of his edits last January 27. just a heads-up. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Versomina

New article, may need retoke. Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest deletion. While I'm familiar with the issue mentioned in the article, no reliable sources have covered this company. --seav (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I already filed an AFD. Starczamora (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Us versus the PR machine

It seems that Wikipedia's PR efforts locally are no match for WikiPilipinas' offerings. In addition to a Friendster, a Multiply and a Facebook (admittedly though, we have a greater online presence than they do), we now have to contend with this:

The official WikiPilipinas video on YouTube.

Okay, it only received 800+ views, but let's try maximizing our own PR machine. Or maybe, we should finally start moving towards making WMPH a reality. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be too bothered. They now have around 57,000 pages of which only about 25,000 are determined to be actual articles by the software. Note that their biggest growth was the mass importation that was done from March to May 2007 (about 18,000 pages). I do agree however regarding WMPH. The Philippine chapter should be set up and recognized by the end of 2009 by hook or by crook. --seav (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Panatang Makabayan

The article has been moved to Patriotic Oath. However, I don't think its descriptive enough (there are many patriotic oaths, I guess). I suggest moving it to Philippine Patriotic Oath. Ideas? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance (Philippines) then redirect patriotic oath to Oath of Allegiance.--Lenticel (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather keep it at Panatang Makabayan. TheCoffee (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I second the motion. If I could do so without breaking netiquette I'd be shouting in caps and boldface and itals. And if it weren't OA, I'd be seconding thirding and fourthing. Has it ever been officially known as anything else? Even in official documents, don't we refer to it as panatang makabayan? I agree I agree! Panatang Makabayan is where it should be! (BTW, will anyone ever make an article that explains what we mean by Lubilubi?). - Alternativity (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
but Manual of Style is Manual of Style :(. Sad but we could do our revenge on the tl wiki and make them all in Tagalog legally :). Lubi-lubi seems to be a term for the Deadly Nightshade in Tagalog, Bicol and the Visayan regions.--Lenticel (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold in moving back the article to "Panatang Makabayan". If we read WP:UE carefully, it says that the article should use the English title, but should be in reliable sources. Technically, the oath is titled the "Patriotic Oath" in English (according to a very long book on the 1987 Constitution written by Jose Nolledo), but the oath hasn't been recited in English for so long that people have gotten used to the idea of calling it the "Panatang Makabayan", even in English. Take note that the Panatang Makabayan was originally written in English in 1955, and was translated into Filipino later, NOT the other way around as it is currently implied in the article. I'll add the citation later, but I will revert most of Boracay Bill's edits that imply that the PM was written in Filipino first (and as such was translated into English), despite it only being true for the current Panatang Makabayan. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(OT) Sky, I think you meant Atty. Jose Nolledo? :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Corrected. I couldn't recall, and I had no copy of the Constitution at the time. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's 106 unassessed pages there.--Lenticel (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I marked International British Academy for speedy deletion. The original author reeks of COI... Blake Gripling (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of those pages are not Philippine-related, like the List of ibuprofen brand names article. I've removed the project banner from the talk page of these article. --seav (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:AnakngAraw is the one who is gleefully tagging these articles without assessments. :-) --seav (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate her enthusiasm and she also means well. Perhaps you could help her on what or what not to tag. I guess we just have to sort it out faster. By the way it is up to 200+ now. --Lenticel (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quezon Provinces

Please take a look at these: Quezon del Norte and Quezon del Sur. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I support a merge to the province's article.--Lenticel (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to a new article called Quezon division plebiscite, 2008 Quezon del Sur creation plebiscite, 2008 created in the style of Shariff Kabunsuan creation plebiscite, 2006. There should also be a Dinagat Islands creation plebiscite, 2006 article too. –Howard the Duck 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that such articles exist so I'm okay with your idea.--Lenticel (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I just created Dinagat Islands creation plebiscite, 2006. If anything, we should limit these creation/division/merging plebiscites into creation/merging/division of provinces. –Howard the Duck 05:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I created Quezon del Sur creation plebiscite, 2008, redirect Quezon del Norte to Quezon, and redirect Quezon del Sur to the plebiscite article. –Howard the Duck 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Imho, might be a great way of adding bulk to a "history" of the Quezon Province article. Shrumster (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Asian machete-type swords

Hi folks. I've been having trouble with swords lately, so I've brought the matter up with Wikiprojects Martial Arts and Cutlery, and I'm bringing it up here, too.

The problem: So many S.E.A. swords are essentially Machetes. That is, single-edged swords at mostly 20-14 inches in length. But a sword from the Visayas (say, the Talibong) and a sword from Mindanao (say, the Pinuti), both Machete-types are not the same because of cultural and historical differences and some design elements. (The Pinuti, for example, is distinguished by the color it takes when freshly sharpened!)

Now, this is fine so far, as we're dealing with clearly different swords. It gets complicated when you start talking about broader categories. Take the terms Machete, Bolo, Itak, Golok, and Parang, for example. My understanding is that these terms refer to a broad range of swords. What would be called a Machete in the west would be referred to as a Parang in Indonesia, and a Golok in the Philippines. Or... would that be accurate? Would it be accurate to say that Parang is the Indonesian term for Machete, and Golok the Philippine Term? If so, do they deserve their own articles? But even that is easily resolvable. The problem is more confusing than that because in the Philippines there is another, more popular term, Itak, which means the same thing in the same languages. Some say Golok is simply an old term. BUT there are those that say that there's a difference between the two - that the Itak is a pointy-tipped Golok.

AND, the term 'Bolo' is used interchangeably with both Itak and Golok.

What makes it worse is that when these swords are commercialized in the west, two swords of essentially the same design are marketed side by side under different names. The big problem here is that western commercial websites are often the only citeable online sources for these weapons.

So at this point I'm thoroughly confused. The Kampilan, Kris, Kalis, Barong, and even the Panabas are okay, but all the Machete-type Southeast Asian sword articles and future articles, it seems to me, are hopelessly confused.

On top of that, I have to ask... what would be more accurate: "The Pinuti is a type of machete from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-type sword from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-like sword from the southern Philippines"? Or shall I just go with "The Pinuti is a single-edged sword from the Southern Philippines typically avergaing 20-24 inches in length."

We don't have the sword category types that have been developed by anthropologists for European blades. At least, I don't think so. So are we saying that sword article categories for Southeast Asia (taxonomy/typology) is always going to be a matter of editor's opinion?

HELP! -- Alternativity (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As a weapon enthusiast and a martial artist familiar with melee weaponry...I am utterly confused. Good point on the whole issue...too many colloquial names for the same essential thing. Waaah. I have no idea how to deal with the issue as well, since each "name" probably has a fair bit of history involved with each one. This is going to take some complicated etymological history analysis. :P Shrumster (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the Weapons of the Moroland shield that once hung in our living room. PErhaps we could create a sourced List of Philippine melee weapons?.--Lenticel (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Eager to see more and more credible materiel on these weapons, I would certainly welcome that development! :-D I initiated the Weapons of Moroland wiki last year, I think. - Alternativity (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction on Davao Region Languages - Davaoeño

Davaoeño - On the Davao region page under languages, it states that the Davaoeño spoken in Davao Region is a dialect of Chavacano. However, the Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=daw states that

Davawenyo (note this is a different spelling) is "Different from Davaweño which is dialect of Chavacano." The Ethnologue locates Davawenyo in Davao CIty and the east coast of Davao Region.

Recommendations: break link to Chavacano, insert : "not" before Chavacano in languages section. Add citation to Ethnologue.

I am a new Wikipedian. Is this an appropriate way to handle this concern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suila (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help identifiny a Philipine artist

I have an old painting that is signed...

ORIGINAL BY FLORENTINO HENSON PHILAPINES '68

And another signed... iE Song

Can anyone tell me if one or both of these are related to the Henson=Hizon House... Juana Henson~Florentine Hizon

Or anything at all about the artists?

Thank you, Missy3molly (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Valenzuela City

New article History of Valenzuela City, some section are not yet done, need some checks for grammar, etc. --Johnlemartirao (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list of cabeza de barangays since they do not pass WP:POLITICIAN and they're not backed by WP:RS. The list also only comprise one baranggay and providing a list for all of them will swamp the article. I think this list is better created as a "List of Polo cabeza de barangays" in WikiPilipinas.--Lenticel (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. That would be a good idea I think. --Johnlemartirao (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jose Ma. Panganiban and Felipe Buencamino

Anybody among you know Jose Ma. Panganiban? He was one of the propagandists during the movement Philippine Propaganda for independence before the revolution, he had his nickname (actually, a pen name) Jomapa. I think he is an important figure in our history, so maybe an article should be pulled out featuring him.

Also, Felipe Buencamino is an interesting figure of Philippine history. At the University of the Philippines some professors thought that he is a doble-kara, actually not doble, more than twice, of during the revolution. As far as I can remember, during the height of Philippine revolution, he opposed the growing arms against Spain, in fact, he traveled Spain during that time. When Aguinaldo announced Philippine independence and the first republic, he chose Buencamino one of his cabinet maybe because of his (Buencamino's) elitist position on the society. At Filipino-American war, he asked fellow Pinoys to join and give up resistance to US. At the time of independence missions and of Commonwealth, he led some of independence missions to US (some are asking from kalayaan, others for Philippine admission to US union). In fact, he became one of the cabinets of Quezon (again) and when US give liberty to Filipinos on 1946, he go with the Americans and lived as an American citizen to US.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedicab template and Pedicab article

Please take a look at the Pedicab article, it has multiple issues on it that needs to be fixed. In relation with this, the Pedicab template does not conform to the guidelines of a navbox template, please delete it or modify it. thanks -- Kleomarlo (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Pedicab}} template already formatted. --Bluemask (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Should not this be in disambiguation with pedicab the transport vehicle? Starczamora (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK list

I'm not sure how to add articles that were on DYK, but here's 4 more: Filipino Italian, Filipinos in the Netherlands, Filipinos in Qatar, Filipinos in Saudi Arabia. And if anyone would like to help me expand Filipinos in the United Arab Emirates some more, please feel free. SpencerT♦C 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done If you wish to try next time, you may check the date when the article appeared as DYK on the main page from the article's talk page (DYK template), then you can get the "http" link to the history from the history tab of Template:Did you know. - AnakngAraw (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ph seal abra.png

Please restore the file File:Ph seal abra.png here at en since the version at commons is already deleted.--Bluemask (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to restore it so I did the next best thing, re-upload from cached Google Image.--Lenticel (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also for File:Air21 Express.png. –Howard the Duck 09:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

done. Please check the FUR to be sure that I didn't mess it up.--Lenticel (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Konpeki no Kantai

I created this article a few weeks ago from out of my sandbox and it is now part of Wproject Anime/Manga. I'm watching the entire series on VEOH, but adding the links would hit the EL rule. Any tambays who are skilled in Japanese are welcome to help improve the article. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a few: Nanami I think can help. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll drop him a message but for now, magpapakasarap muna ako dito sa (I'll just enjoy myself here in) Baguio. Thanks Harbor. --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting History of the Philippines (Before 1521)

Hi. I'd like to solicit everyone's input first before making the final moves towards splitting Early Philippine History (History of the Philippines (900-1521)) from Philippine Prehistory, which would be created by renaming History of the Philippines (Before 1521) as either History of the Philippines (Before 900), or Philippine Prehistory, and then removing material from there which has already been put into History of the Philippines (900-1521).

Such a split acknowledges the existence of historical records starting with the Laguna Copperplate Inscription(LCI) in 900 AD, though that record might be sparse due to the local use of perishable materials for records. (The other written source materials about that period are from records from foreign contacts, the first being the contact between Mayi (Mindoro) and Song Dynasty in 982 AD... but then again, Pigafetta was a foreign contact too, so to select him as a starting point over the song dynasty records is sorta... I dunno, woozy?)

The setting of the beginning of Philippine History at 900 AD with the LCI has become accepted by orthodox authorities since its translation in 1989, but of course many of us took our elementary history subjects long enough ago that it wasn't part of the canon yet.

If we delineate history vs. prehistory by the existence of records, I'm also indicating here my preference for Philippine Prehistory rather than History of the Philippines (Before 900) because the latter, not actually being "history" in the strict sense, would be a misnomer... even though the former would be the more consitent format.

Of course by moving History of the Philippines (Before 1521) to a new name rather than simply creating a new article, we can preserve the page history. I just don't want to do that without first getting feedback first.

Can we discuss this over at Talk:History of the Philippines (Before 1521)? Thanks, everyone. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The best solution here is for the 900-1521 and pre-900 articles to be a subarticle of the pre-1521 article. –Howard the Duck 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to undertake that too, as I believe both the 900-1521 and pre-900 articles have a lot of room for growth considering the amount of available material in print sources, but I also feel that this would eventually make the pre-1521 article superfluous eventually and might lead to an afd on that basis... if that happens, we wouldn't be able to transfer the page history of the pre-1521 article to the pre-900 article later.... I'm sorta eager to get to work on pre-900, but there's plenty of work still to be done on 900-1521 so I'll do that and wait for further comments before taking any further action. I'd also like to call atention also to the fact that Geology of the Philippines (the logical next step backwards after Philippine Prehistory, geological history, as in the case of Geology of Britain and Prehistory of Britain), is an incredibly embarrasingly small stub. Hehe. If you don't mind, I'll also copy this conversation onto Talk:History of the Philippines (Before 1521), for the sake of other editors there, okay? -- Alternativity (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Something I wrote at the talk page there:
It's a nuance, but I'm starting to lean more towards Prehistory of the Philippines, which, at least to me, seems to indicate that its a prehistory of the geographic concept of the Philippine Islands or the Philippine Archipelago rather than the much more recent State entity. I'd like to get moving on this soon because the existence of both History of the Philippines (Before 1521) and History of the Philippines (900-1521) is going to lead to confusion. Also, the links to the "before 1521" article would have to be examined to see if they fall into the "before 900" or "900-1521" category, and I'd like to get to work on that soon. Still awaiting comments... I was hoping to act 24 hours after posting this note, and that has passed... but I think I'll give it a bit more time before I take such a dramatic action. -- Alternativity (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon_Dagalea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I need help to get this page of my friend's, to NOT GET DELETED. I worked extremely hard to make it! He's Filipino. Please vote to NOT get it deleted. If it does, please do everything in your power to move it to my userpage, clean of tags. Please and thank you! =)

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Dagalea

It's deletion discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Napoleon_Dagalea

Angdl (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bursting the bubble, but the article is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?)

He's notable in his city, one of your country's major cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angdl (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An article from at least one of the local newspapers will clear this up. --Bluemask (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a stub, thus other contrubtors could add the reliable references in the future. But, they won't be able to add any if it gets deleted. - Goldersthink (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This AfD is attracting a lot of new accounts. I've already seen five new accounts all created today whose only significant contributions are to the article and the AfD discussion. I think somebody is canvassing off-site for support. --seav (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on WP:AN perhaps a more Afd oriented admin can help us here.--Lenticel (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Or more probably - socking. Shrumster (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe the guy voted keep and distanced himself from the various accounts who appeared just for the AFD, claiming they are not his sockpuppets. Well, it's too late for that, as the decision outcome stated. Move along. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how long they'll let that article remain in his userspace. I can imagine it now..."hey look, my friend has a wikipedia page!" adn some people might actually fall for it, not knowing the difference between userspace and mainspace. Shrumster (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What the? (just saw the deleted article on the userspace) Isn't that against Wikipedia rules? Starczamora (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but for me, it seems he's too bitter about the AFD that he seeks to have WP purge everything even remotely connected to it and the deleted article.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Angdl deleting text from talkpage

Not sure if you guys missed it, or just let it slide, but User:Angdl apparently deleted the entire discussion about deleting the article he created on the page right here [9]. I'm not sure if this is allowed, encouraged, or just normal. Comments? Shrumster (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone ones to add to the discussion I think it can be restored. If not, it should be archived correctly. –Howard the Duck 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I just checked it Shrumster and his reasoning doesn't hold water. I've slapped a user warning on him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. AGF aside, I have a gut feeling that he wants all discussion on the deletion deleted so that he can show people the "article" on his userpage and hoping they believe it's valid. Shrumster (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blank/delete my userpage by all means.

Last time I checked, you guys wanted him deleted, now you want him back. Discussions about an already deleted article would defeat the purpose of being a discussion. It's like having a court trial of a thief that's already dead. If you're suspicious about my userpage, then fine, blank/delete it. Use oversight for all I care. If I restore it, which I won't, then ban me. I don't see why a userpage matters anyways since it's not an article. Geez, all this commotion for a userpage you could just blank, if you wish. It's my work, my hard work, if I want it deleted, why should you care? It's not your work, afterall. I don't want any loose ends left since I'm transfering to another wiki and I don't want pages like these to show up in any search engines. Besides, was it not you people who deleted it from the 1989 births, disambiguations, categories, etc? I'm just finishing the job, deletion. The only reason why I didn't blank my userpage because it's the SIMPLEST to delete. Other pages, such as this, are difficult to delete due to the issues attached with it. So, my userpage is my last priority. I could blank/delete it after all this OR you could do it for me. It's up to you. Angdl (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, we never said we wanted your article brought back. We simply don't approve of your asking WP to wipe away any evidence that the article was ever posted here and the related discussion because things didn't work out the way you wanted it. Now you want WP to delete your userpage's content for you? Why don't you do it yourself? You would have spared the tambays here of all the headaches by not insisting on the content to remain in Wikipedia, even if its in the userpage. The fact of the matter is, your friend's article got deleted because of consensus over notability and verification issues and posting it in the userpage doesn't help your cause. Now I know that user warning I gave you was justified. Just let go, boy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, we never said we wanted your article brought back

I was referring to this section, that got brought back, not the article.

We simply don't approve of your asking WP to wipe away any evidence that the article was ever posted here and the related discussion because things didn't work out the way you wanted it.

You don't approve of me asking to wipe it out? Who asked of your approval? I don't know about you, but I happen to live in a democratic country. Wikipedia can decline the oversight if it wishes to do so.

You would have spared the tambays here of all the headaches by not insisting on the content to remain in Wikipedia, even if its in the userpage.

I know the content shouldn't remain on wikipedia. What's wrong with wanting to delete content that's not appropriate for wikipedia? That's what I'm doing now, deletion of a name (such as this topic's header) that shouldn't remain in wikipedia.

Now you want WP to delete your userpage's content for you? Why don't you do it yourself?

Why didn't you do it youself if you felt my posting in the userpage was inappropriate? Plenty of you went into all that trouble putting a big sockmaster tag on my page, I'm pretty sure blanking it form all that inappropriate content would have been easier.

The fact of the matter is, your friend's article got deleted because of consensus over notability and verification issues and posting it in the userpage doesn't help your cause. Now I know that user warning I gave you was justified. Just let go, boy.

Who said it didn't get deleted because of those stated reasons above? Who said that user warning wasn't justified? Let go of what? Please clarify. I'm simply trying to delete inappropriate content from WP. Angdl (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse information about the article with the article itself. The article was deleted but it doesn't mean that the discussion about the article should also be deleted. --seav (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But this section with his name as the topic name is going to get listed in google searches! Besides, I started this section of the page and no one complained about me posting it, why should they care if I delete/rename the section? IT's inappropriate content now, afterall. Angdl (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. As far as I know, not all pages in Wikipedia are indexed in search engines. Check out the HTML source of this page; there's a meta tag there with robots=noindex,nofollow which means that search engines should ignore this page. So your concern that this will get indexed in Google or Yahoo! is unfounded. Again, don't confuse the article with discussion about the article: your friend's article was deemed inappropriate as a Wikipedia article, but discussion about that article is considered relevant. --seav (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Good thing he took down the stuff from the userpage. At last natauhan din (he came to his senses). --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did it because you couldn't. Besides, I had to, otherwise you wouldn't have stopped posting all your whinings? Angdl (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy

I recently purchased a book: Soledad Borromeo-Buhler (1999), The Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy : a Textual Analysis with Appended Documents, Ateno de Manila University Press, ISBN 9715502784, ISBN 9789715502788 (limited preview available online). The book calls into question the popular account of the start of the Philippine revolution referred to by its title. The author, Soledad Borromeo-Buhler, is the granddaughter of Guillermo Masangkay. I'll summarize the thrust of the book below.

Re events leading up to and the dating of the start of the Philippine revolution -- the event known as the "Cry" (of Balintawak or of Pugadlawin) -- the book says:

According to Teodoro Agoncillo in The Revolt of the Masses p. 149-150 and History of the Philippine People, p. 171-172

  • 19 Aug 1896 - Bonifacio secretly instructs messengers to summon the leaders of the Katipunan to a general assembly to be held at Balintawak on 24 Aug.
  • 19 Aug 1896 - Bonifacio and some others traveled to Balintawak, arriving about midnight.
  • 21 Aug 1896 - About 500 rebels travel from Balintawak to Kangkong.
  • 22 Aug 1896 - Discussions
  • 23 Aug 1896 - About 1000 rebels proceeded to Pugadlawin
  • 23 Aug 1896 - Bonaficio calls for shredding of Cedulas -- the Cry.

According the Borreno-Buehler book (p.7), the events were distorted by four developments

  1. Agoncillo used flawed methodology, ignoring all documentary evidence in favor of one source-the Pio memoirs of Valenzuela, which other historians had considered to be of poor credibility
  2. Agoncillo made a decision to interpret the phrase "Unang Sigaw" (Lit. "First Cry") to refer to the shredding of the Cedulas.
  3. Agoncillo apparently used an interview with Guillermo Masangkay without the consent of the latter. (the book goes into some detail about this)
  4. An important piece of evidence was removed when the 1911 monument to the "Cry" was uprooted from Balintawak in 1968 and transferred to the University of the Philippines in Dillman. Its original inscription, "los héroes del 96," as well as two smaller tablets with the dates 26 August 1896 and 3 September 1911 were removed and replaced with a "Cry of Pugad Lawin" inscription. The book contains a photo of the monument in its original location, showing the original inscription and the two smaller tablets -- see here.

Borreno-Buehler contends (p.8) that the so-called "Cry of Pugad Lawin" is an invented story. The contention also hinges on the fact that this version of the "Cry" story was put forth almost three decades after the revolution, by three former Katipuneros who left Balintawak prior to the first encounter, and on the fact that no corroborating contemporary sources have been found in support of this version.

Borreno-Buehler asserts (p.8) that many statements made by Valenzuela in 1896 before the Spanish Court are consistent with other sources while those in his memoirs are not.

Finally, Borreno-Buehler asserts (p.8) that in a statement to Jose P. Santos, Briccio Brigado Pantas practically nullified his previous claim about a "Cry of Pugad Lawin." (apparently referring to claims made in the 11 January 1930 issue of La Opinion in reply to a 6 December 1929 article by Guillermo Masangkay, these articles being requoted as Documents D and E in the Borreno-Buehler book).

Borreno-Buehler contrasts various assertions about the shredding of cedulas in a table:

Source When? Where?
F.Carreon[a] Kangkong
G.Masangkay 23b,24,26 Aug 1896 Kangkong
V.Samson 26 Aug 1896 Kangkong
P.Valenzuela 23 Aug 1896 Pugad Lawin
C.Pacheco Pugad Lawin
a b : clarified further in the Borreno-Buehler book.

Borreno-Buehler asserts, backed by supporting sources mentioned and/or requoted in the book, that, contrary to any impression that Bonifacio and the Katapuneros "fled in terror" to Caloocan on 19 Aug 1896 because of revelations to Fr. Marieno Gil by Teodoro Patiño, the main concern was to make a last-minute attempt to rescue Rizal from imprisonment and convince him to join the revolution; that Rizal rejected the effort at Muell de Industria (further described as "the pier on the Binodo side of the Punte de España, now Jones Bridge") on 21 Aug 1896, a day before Bonifacio and companions left for Caloocan. Discussions took place in Kangkong from 23 to 26 Aug. On 26 Aug Bonifacio, impatient with the discussions, called for a ballot on the question that day was the right time to declare a revolution against the Spaniards. The balloting was carried out, with dissenters being Plata, Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and one with the name Vargas. in favor were Francisco and Nicomedes Carreon, Jacinto, Masangkay, and the leaders of eight provinces. Bonifacio informed the Katipuneros who had been awaiting the ballot results that the council of leaders had agreed to fight it out with the Spaniards without more delay. After more discussion, the majority agreed that the uprising would begin on 29 August.

The book goes into much more detail than I've presented here. This looks like material which deserves mention in Wikipedia articles touching on this, but I don't consider myself enough of a historian to do that well. Also, I'm a non-Filipino and am not particularly interested in details about this.

I mention this here in case, considering the lead sentence at WP:WEIGHT, someone might be interested in picking up a copy of the book and working info from it into relevant Wikipedia articles (e.g., Philippine Revolution#Cry of Pugadlawin, and perhaps elsewhere). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, the more I look at this period in Philippine history, the more I'm convinced that editors working in this era ought to be empowered by wikipedia:be bold. Alas, I, too, am hesitant to edit anything regarding the Spanish colonial era, given how many conflicting accounts there are of many of the events of that time, and given how many different parties have given so many slants to the events. (I'm not talking about Wikipedia, but in the academe itself... part of the reason I prefer to work on articles before 1574 is that the conflicts between theories are relatively straightforward and easy to keep balanced.) I suppose we should all encourage each other to edit, and just be careful to maintain NPOV as much as possible, as far as this era is concerned. (Still, I find myself more enthusiastic about early Philippine history, and that's where you'll still find me working...)-- Alternativity (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for cities

Discussion has stalled, so i suggest it may be re-started. I think no one is opposed to the thought of moving all component cities back to <Cityname>, <Provincename> convention; the only points of divergence are what to to do with the ICCs and HUCs. Either to

  • Leave them as <Cityname> City. (ex: Pasay City)
  • Use the plain name. (ex: Pasay)

Also, I think everyone will agree to use append "City" when there are several LGUs named identically such as Cebu, Iloilo and Davao. The cities stay at Cebu City, Iloilo City and Davao City while the provinces stay at Cebu, Iloilo and 3 Davao provinces.

Another point of divergence is what to do with the cities in Metro Manila. I've suggested using <Cityname> City, Metro Manila but nobody liked it. I'm willing to go with the plain name. I'm just peeved with the situation of San Juan City.

I guess all new discussion should go at the LGU project talk page. –Howard the Duck 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Adobo, Adobo (Filipino cuisine), and Adobo sauce, oh my.

Er... following up on Ambeth Ocampo's article citing the indigenous origins of Adobo (whose name is taken from the spanish term for marinade), I created an article for Adobo (Filipino cuisine), since the Adobo article seemed to be mainly about a general phrase for marinated dishes among Spanish and Spanish-colonized countries. But I'm looking at the Adobo sauce article and I suspect it refers to that general category already, and the only thing in to merit a difference between it and the Adobo article is Adobo (Filipino cuisine). I'm starting to feel/think that Philippine Adobo ought to own the Adobo article, with the general term being sent to Adobo sauce. But I'm not sure, and I'm seeking advice as to the next course of action. -- Alternativity (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrés Bonifacio

I've tried to bring the article in line with recent scholarship. 222.127.219.100 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Philippines article

The article has been riddled with vandalism and it's content has gradually decreased in the past year, most notably the lead section, which is now 1/3 of what it was a year ago in length. There are also some good-faith edits that have decreased the quality of the article. There is also potential for edit-warring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.123.200 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AlvarezQz and $antander's edits to "Philippines"

Hello. I would like to get some opinion on what to do with the Philippines article. For the past year, since October 2008, a user named $antander had been editing the article on a daily basis. The edits are apparantly good-faith, but the user continually reverts any other contribution by other editors, which i think is a violation of WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:3RR. $antander usually put an edit summary: reverted back to last correct version, which is his/her version. $antander disappeared around January 2009, but in February, user AlvarezQz became active, displaying the same kind of behavior, and like $antander, reverts any edit not done by him/her. Again this could be an issue concerning WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:3RR. Both editors had done so on a daily basis, usually giving out any one of the following edit summaries:

  • Corrected information
  • revertback to last correct version
  • corrected article
  • Undid revision and reverted back to last correct version

The "correct version" being his/her version. Both editors used these summaries. Anything little detail changed, including the simple italicization of the name Republika ng Pilipinas (which I recently put in according to WP:MOSTEXT), is reverted.

Curiously, AlvarezQz on more than one occasion gave out this edit summary:

  • Removed Nuetral Point of View (NPOV) and corrected article

$antander later reappeared on the Philippines article and gave out this summary:

  • Corrected introduction and removing Nuetral Point of View (NPOV)

(Note the same misspelling of neutral ("nuetral") on both summaries, and how the said users want to "Remove NPOV" - which I assume to mean "Remove POV")

This could also possibly be a case of sock puppetry, or it could just be a coincidence. Both editors display the same kind of editing habits, and are advocating for a nearly identical/identical version of the Philippines page.

The fact the both AlvarezQz and $antander wanted to "Remove NPOV" could also indicate that they are the same person. However, I do not want to wrongfully accuse anyone, so that's why I put the matter up here for discussion. (BTW, Both $antander and AlverezQz have already been previously warned about edit warring by other users, though not about their edits on the Philippines article.)

Some pages to check out:

Issue recap:

I need suggestions on what should be done. I'm at a bit of a loss on what to do. I want to remain civil and do not want to get into an edit war with the users, or wrongfully accuse them. Thank you for your help! Mk32 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: New users User:DantePh and User:HZYrd have recently popped out, and providing the same kind of edits and edit summaries that AlvarezQz and $antander have been providing. Seems now that the since the accounts of "AlvarezQz" and "$antander" have been warned, it could be that the user decided to shift to an account that no one has warned yet.

Again pops out the line Removing "Nuetral" Point of View in their edit summaries, same as "AlvarezQz" and "$antander". Mk32 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest pursuing any appropriate line of action such as notifying an admin or something like that. Also, check out the two users recent edits, including moving Marcelo H. del Pilar to Marcelo Hilario del Pilar, plus several other possible wp:own issues with other Filipino historical figure pages. Shrumster (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest linking this topic at WP:AN and request for checkuser and semi-protection for the Philippines article since it's having a run of anons lately. Since I'm close to you guys and no expert in this matter, I can't directly help you as an admin.--Lenticel (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions! I have reason to believe that "AlvarezQz" and "$antander", as well as "DantePh" and "HZYrd" are all the same user (see new edit above). It seems the user does not want to be bothered by anyone trying to communicate with him/her, so the user might be using multiple accounts to make edits to various Philippine-related articles.
A trip to checkuser and whatever sock reporting places we have is in order. This is possible grounds for disruption. Shrumster (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I already put the Philippines article up for semi-protection a few days ago. It is semi protected for one month. Mk32 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few run-ins with $antander myself, I think with the Rajah Soliman article being the example Im most irritated by, but I'm afraid I had no urge to engage in a very nuanced edit war with him over it. (He preferred Suleiman, not Sulayman, among other things). I too don't know what to do. I haven't noticed him on Philippines, though. I guess I've never edited that article, as its not on my watchlist. Will add it now, although most of you will probably note that I prefer to focus on content development and outline restructuring rather than wikifying, isn't exactly my strength. (I do try, though.) Perhaps when we're done with Philippines we can explore this user's other edits? And those of his sockpuppets assuming they are? -- Alternativity (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran into $antander a few times, notably in Lapu-Lapu. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 03:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The dude gutted Andrés Bonifacio. Fixed. 222.127.219.100 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To 222.127.219.100 - The user has edited just about every Philippine-related article on Wikipedia.
To Alternativity - Would it be best if the Philippines article is restored to the version before $antander arrived and made all those "corrections"? The necessary revisions can be made from there. Mk32 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Philippines article isn't something I managed to follow over time, so I'm not sure. Have any other editors done substantial editing of it since $antander showed up? A) If so, it would be unfair to do so. B) If not, but the edits are done in good faith, that wouldn't be fair either. But C) if no other editing has been done and it's clear his work is revisionism, then I do think a rollback ASAP is a good thing. But it sounds to me like $antander isn't usually a clearcut case of C. Looks more like a bunch of us are going to have to work to get that article back up to speed... I'm on the verge of proposing a sort of "guardia civil" or "tambayan tanod" workgroup to watch out for intentional revisionism to Philippine history and culture articles. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On an off-topic note, 222.127.219.100 are you someone we know? -- Alternativity (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternativity - When I looked at the revision history of the Philippines article, the only other user to have substantially edited the article is the now blocked user User:Richard Relucio and sockpuppets. I am not sure if these have been reverted. Otherwise, it is only $antander and AlverezQz who have edited the article. I must say that the edits of AlvarezQz and $antander seem to be good faith. I don't see any deliberate attempt to sabotage the article. The only problem is, again, the user/s refuse to work with any other editors and will not accept any other edits except the ones made by the user, and the said user/s will edit war with anyone who tries to contribute. The behavior is disruptive, even if I think the user/s sincerely want to contribute to the article. Recently, AlvarezQz got blocked for a 24 hour period for edit warring. (see here and here). The "Guardia Civil"/"Tambayan Tanod" thing is a good idea. The Philippine-related articles, it seems, have been left unwatched for some time now. Mk32 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You know, quite aside from just getting people to watch top level articles for disruptive behavior, what I feel is really needed, as a function of that group, would be an establishment of a discussion page specifically for nuanced/in depth discussion of Philippine history and culture articles. Discussion in individual talk pages doesn't seem to be enough. This subproject (?) would help us all establish some sort of consistency ACROSS articles. This would have been especially helpful, I think, back during the Luzon Empire/Kingdom of Tondo fiasco. Sigh, come to think of it I'm still reeling from the thought of how much more work Culture of the Philippines needs, in terms of structuring. (Not that we're in bad company... lots of "Culture of..." articles aren't very well organized either. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PBA team articles and templates

Recently, the team articles (especially the section on depth charts) and the team roster templates have all been vandalized steadily and it's getting hard to keep up with the vandals. I'd suggest semi-protect on these pages for 2 weeks to see if it works:

–Howard the Duck 12:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the semi-protect! Mk32 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've hidden the depth charts (and I plan on removing them entirely) that caused the vandalism to drop off on article and template pages. I'll have to see if this can be sustained. –Howard the Duck 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I'm performing massive expansion work on the National Library of the Philippines, and just yesterday, I was able to finish its very comprehensive 108-year history. If anyone is willing to help me with expansion, that would be great! But for now, I'll gladly ask for a re-assessment from the Assessment people (it's a stub, but a stub no longer).

On another note, I will pay a visit to the Copyright Office of the National Library tomorrow. While I was doing work on this, I proceeded to borrow a 1984 booklet pertaining to Philippine copyright law (during the heyday of PD 49). The two librarians staffing the Government Documents section, of where the booklet was found, seem to agree with me that Section 8 of PD 49 (today known as Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code) is a very contradictory provision, and even the booklet says so: the primer explicitly mentions that Philippine government works are not covered by copyright, yet copyright-like rights are being enforced upon it. They suggested that I pay a visit to the Copyright Office when they open, and since it's a half-day tomorrow, I might just as well do that.

If the Copyright Office agrees with the librarians, it seems that the days of Section 176 will well be numbered (I hope). --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great article! Since it is more than just a "Start", I reassessed it at "C". --Bluemask (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I got word from the Copyright Office during that particular visit yesterday and although they don't interpret the law, one of their clerks told me that in order to prevent the undue profiting of private individuals from works not of their own (in this case, the government's), the provision was inserted. According to the clerk, Philippine government works are only in the public domain if they are used non-commercially, and, if I remember correctly, are copyrighted if used commercially (although technically, no copyright exists).
From my interpretation, the government seems to be keen on imposing a double standard on its works to make sure that it profits in the end. A most unusual money-making measure indeed. Any suggestions on our course of action? (N.B.: I want to consult an intellectual property lawyer about this.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The best way to change this is probably by having a congressman or senator to help you lobby the change in the IPC. You have to have a good case first though since these guys will only represent you but not necessarily help you argue or research. As for consulting, I could introduce you to some IP lawyers but I can't provide their contacts here. <bad influence>They're also UP faculty so I think it would be easier to solicit their help if you'll be studying in UP Diliman</bad influence>.--Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll give it a thought (maybe when I go to the Office of Admissions to submit some paperwork). Since I'm officially a pending case student in UP, and I don't know whether or not I passed, my heart is set on Ateneo for now. :P --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll defend the provision. The limitation takes effect only if the government work will be made use by a third person for profit. Generally, there can be no copyright on government works because they were not made for profit and they were produced by the government as part of its public service for the free use of the citizens. However, if a private person takes advantage of the absence of copyright and exploits such work with the intention of profiting from the labor of government employees (as opposed to similarly making use of it for the free benefit of all), then there is something morally awry about that situation. There may be solutions other than requiring the payment of royalties. But short of definitively banning the use of such works for profit, establishing the right to require royalties seems like the most equitable solution.
That said, I've never understood why Section 176 has been cited for prohibiting the use of unauthorized government works in Wikipedia such as logos or photographs. Since Wikipedia is non-profit, there is no need to secure permission to use such works in WP articles. It would be a different matter if such works are uploaded to Commons under a free license or CC license, since the works once there could be freely exploited for other profit-oriented ventures. But if they are uploaded on Wikipedia itself, for use in a specified article, Section 176 by itself is sufficient to justify the work without any accompanying fair use rationale. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia allows complete re-use of its contents, whether for profit or not, Section 176 of the code is interpreted in the Wikipedia sense as a non-commercial license, and as such is considered non-free because it does not meet the definition of Free Cultural Works as adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation. By extension, because the Wikimedia Foundation allows for the complete re-use of its contents, whether for profit or not, the same applies. Commons is not the only place where pictures can be freely re-used commercially; the same applies for Wikipedia, Wiktionary and any Wikimedia project where an image may be uploaded. As discussed before when this issue arose, Philippine copyright is weird in providing for a virtually unheard-of PD-NC license with respect to government works.
For further guidance and reference as to the issue surrounding Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code, please see this and this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. The Wiki group of course has every right to define its own policies on the use of government works in its various projects, so its opinion should be the final say. But for clarity, if the use of such government works in Wikipedia were challenged in Philippine courts, the uploader would win hands down. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Someday, I'd love to see that. If the intention of the government is to really make its works available to all persons without the restrictions of copyright, why must it be so concerned with its bottom line? If they explicitly agreed to remove copyright on their works, why must they be so worried with someone else profiting? This is all an issue of attribution. If the Philippine government is so worried people might pass off government-made work as their own, then they should have made attribution mandatory instead. If their main motive is to earn a quick buck so that their "labor" is recognized, then that's a very heavy burden they imposed upon themselves. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What can I say? Pinoys as a race are intrinsically greedy bastards. Shrumster (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not all of us are. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM for Libingan ng mga Bayani

There is a request to move Libingan ng mga Bayani to Cemetery of the Heroes. Over the course of this weekend, the move has been proven controversial. Input would be appreciated on the matter, and pertinent discussion can be found at my talk page ( here), here and here. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up my response here too, as it seems to me it would raise a general concern for terms using the Filipino language. Copied from Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move:

  • Don't Support (conditional) In my mind the question here is not whether we should use the English term - the policy is rather clear on that matter. If this were the only argument, I would favor using the English term, although I suggest Cemetery of the Heroes (Philippines) rather than plain Cemetery of the Heroes. It strikes me that Cemetery of the Heroes is a rather general term which would be confusing if allowed to exist on its own as an article name. However, I submit that the argument against making such a move would not be one of policy, but one of equivalence. The Libingan ng mga Bayani is a single specific cemetery with a specific name, "Libingan ng mga Bayani" which to my knowledge is not translated into English when used in official documentation. The usage for the term "cemetery of the heroes" I have seen does far tends to be more like "He will be buried in our cemetery of the heroes, the "Libingan ng mga Bayani". (Whereas official language will refer to a City of Manila rather than Lungsod ng Maynila, and so we use Manila in English Wikipedia.) By the same argument, the specific policy perestroika is not entered in English Wikipedia as "economic restructuring." The translation of the term into English by media does not equivalence make. If we have a news source that says perestroika means "restructuring" (it literally does, doesn't it?), that does not mean we automatically prefer the article name "Restructuring (Russia)" instead. Now, if there's an reliable source that says the official name of the specific cemetery is "Libingan ng mga Bayani" AND "Cemetery of the Heroes", i would support a move towards Cemetery of the Heroes (Philippines), as I explained earlier. Until then, my position is don't support. But I'm not unreasonable in that regard and do think there's room for argument here. As it turns out, for example, Oath of Allegiance (Philippines) was written in English first, when I had thought all along that the oath's only proper name was "Panatang Makabayan". Having said all that... can someone please pore through the relevant legislation for the Libingan? Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose until RS says that this is the real English translation. I pulled up two republic acts, [10] and [11]. Both call the site Libingan ng mga Bayani despite having the acts written in English--Lenticel (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lenticel, please do copy that onto the conversation at Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move... I just brought it up here for discussion of the matter in principle. :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a notability guidline in the tagalog wikipedia?

I have seen many articles about Bea Alonzo and Piolo Pascual that did not even have any references and did not have any links as to prove it's notability. If you have a link to the tagalog wikipedia's notability guidelines, please post the link here under a different header name below this header. —Preceding unsigned

There is no specific notability guideline on the Tagalog Wikipedia, and we use the English guidelines wholesale. However, we tag articles as unsourced. If you want to propose a guideline, or guide the community in formulating such, then you are free to do so. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition, if you have any concern about articles in Tagalog Wikipedia. You can post it at the Kapihan discussion page. --Jojit (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd fixed Piolo Pascual's Tagalog Wikipedia article, although, there is still no reference list. For Bea Alonzo's article, I don't see any unreferenced content but it needs expanding like the most of artista articles in the Tagalog Wikipedia. ;-) --Jojit (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help on User:121.54.32.39

121.54.32.39 (talk · contribs) has been doing strange edit regarding the status of Palawan vis-a-vis MIMAROPA and Western Visayas. He's ignoring the messages left on his talk page. --seav (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines

Please help expand this article. Thanks --Kleomarlo (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

translation

Could somebody please translate de Tagalog sentences on this photo for me? More specifically I am looking for the meaning of:

  • Tagapaglabag ng karapatang pantao
  • Pang - hold up o pag sunog at pag patay
  • Pagpapasara sa mga pabrika at pagawaan
  • Pananabotahe sa globe cell site at mga infrastraktura
  • Gusto'y kaguluhan at karahasan
  • Iparalisa ang ekonomiya ng gobyerno
  • Kusog Kontra Terrorismo

Thanks, Magalhães (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the following:
  • Violator of human rights
  • Holding up or arson and murder
  • Closure of factories (pagawaan and pabrika both mean factory)
  • Sabotaging Globe Telecom cell sites and other infrastructure
  • Wants chaos and violence
  • Paralyze the economy of the government
  • Move (?) against terrorism
Hope those help. Also, I had to correct some of the Filipino terms listed above. (N.B.: Whoever wrote that poster should note that the Filipino word for infrastructure is imprastraktura). --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Sorry for the typo's in the Filipino terms. My knowledge of Tagalog is limited to a few word only. Magalhães (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Kusog is a Cebuano word for "strength". --Jojit (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
oh, okay, thanks, Magalhães (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_20&oldid=1133437083"