Template talk:History of the Philippines

Japanese Occupation 1942-1945

Japan started bombing parts of the Philippines in December 1941, but did not land troops of "occupy" any part of the Philippines until 1942. They surrendered the Philippines to the Allies in 1945. Gubernatoria (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Although they surrendered in 1945, but the occupation already ended in 1944 with the restoration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Tributary State" =/= "Sinified State" (?) -- A Discussion

A relevant discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:Ma-i#.22Tributary_State.22_.3D.2F.3D_.22Sinified_State.22_.28.3F.29_--_A_Discussion. I initially put it here, but I concluded it was wisest to move it, since the discussion makes more sense there. - Alternativity (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Consulting the community re: the "Legendary" polities section and instances of WP:OR on the template

Hi all. Just informing the community that I've changed the organization of the "Archaic Epoch" section of Template:History of the Philippines to reflect geographical location (established or theorized), instead of politico-religeous (disputed in many of the cases). I'm also seeking community input about the section on "Legendary" polities. Many of those are based on Fringe theories, and I have to wonder if the subsection should actually exist at all. Also, I feel some content in the rest of "Archaic Epoch" needs to be tagged for WP:OR or WP:Fringe concerns. But I'm unsure how welcome such tagging will be on the template itself. So I'm bringing the matter up here for discussion. What are your thoughts on keeping/removing the "Legendary polities" section, and how exactly do we deal with glaring WP:OR on the template? Thanks and cheers! - Alternativity (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

Greetings. I would just like to add the link to the article "Spanish–Moro conflict" to this template in the Colonial period (Spanish era) section. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Darwgon0801, Where in the list? It appears to be in some kind of chronological order with the last few entries in the Spanish Era section obviously presaging the switch to the American colonial period. I'd guess this item needs to come before those, but where? Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest replacing "Sulu Sea pirates" with this one. The Piracy in the Sulu Sea article starts with the 1840s, making this a "sub-war" of the Spanish–Moro conflict which started in 1565. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done No more comments forthcoming, so I have followed the suggestion of Howard the Duck — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Switch American capture of Manila and Declaration of Independence

The American capture of Manila happened on August 13, 1898, while the declaration of independence was on June 12, 1898. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for spelling correction

I have noticed that the template uses the spelling "Sa Huyun" twice, but links to the respective articles with the correct Vietnamese spelling "Sa Huỳnh". Basically, "Sa Huyun" is a misspelling, but even if it has become a kind of alternative spelling due to increased (WP-driven?) prevalence on the web (but not it academic research, as far as I can see), the Vietnamese site deserves to be spelled correctly in this highly visible template "History of the Philippines". –Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

per Talk entry from 15 June 2019 above. –Austronesier (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

I'm requesting that the Mount Pinatubo eruption pipe be changed to 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Volcanoguy 17:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Kiram-Bates Treaty

Hi! I am requesting that the Kiram-Bates Treaty be considered to be added under the Colonial Period, if you think it is befitting, under the "American colonial period" part. DivineReality (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, I'd also like to request that the "American colonial period" be linked to Colonial history of the United States instead of just the United States. DivineReality (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Please correct the links of the following:

• History of the Philippines (1521–1898) → History of the Philippines (1565–1898)
• History of the Philippines (1946–65) → History of the Philippines (1946–1965)
• History of the Philippines (1965–86) → History of the Philippines (1965–1986)

—hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• You guys want to change the time periods to 1946–72 (July 4, 1946 to September 20, 1972), and to 1972–86 (September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986)? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor HueMan1:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Please replace

[[Category:History navigational boxes by country|Philippines]]
[[Category:Philippines templates]]

with

[[Category:History sidebar templates by country|Philippines]]
[[Category:Philippines sidebar templates]]

—⁠andrybak (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor ­andrybak:  done, and there is now an unprotected /doc page. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

Please add this in the Contemporary history (1986–present) section:

[[COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines|COVID-19 pandemic]]

ApprenticeFan work 23:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Remove "Society of the Igorot", which was recently deleted as an apparent hoax. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ionmars10:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)

Please remove Society of the Igorot, a bogus page that has been deleted Glennznl (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Glennznl:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Under the "Archaic epoch (900–1565)" section under "Events/Artifacts" Please add link to:

• Ticao Stone Inscription

to

• Ticao Stone Inscription

--Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

Kindly add a link in the Archaic perioid to the state of Kedatuan of Dapitan, the article about that state was once deleted due to inadequate sources but was once linked in the template but now the article has been restored using proper citations, so it merits a restoration in this template too. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The recreated page Kedatuan of Dapitan again suffers heavily from bad sources failing the requirements of WP:HISTRS (blogs, news sites etc.), and needs community vetting before being included in this highly visible template. –Austronesier (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential changes

Some changes both from unimplemented suggestions above and my own observations, a mixture of cleaning up and improving accuracy and helpfulness to readers, for discussion:

• Paleolithic age, and its two redlinks, should be removed.
• "Arrival of the Negritos" should be removed, it's just a link to Negritos.
• The "Neolithic Age" and "Iron Age" subheadings should be removed, they're not related to the Philippines and are oversectioning.
• "grave goods" should have a capital G in grave.
• "Prehistoric gems" should be renamed "Prehistoric beads" per article title.
• "Sa Huỳnh-Kalanay Complex" should be depiped to "Kalanay Cave".
• "Archaic epoch" should probably be renamed. Default would be "Precolonial period".
• "by geography from" can be removed.
• "Samtoy chieftaincy" is an WP:EGG link to a province and should be removed.
• "Rajahnate of" should be removed from Maynila, Butuan, and Cebu per article titles.
• "Chiefdom of Taytay" is another misleading EGG that needs to be removed.
• The "Legendary" articles. They should be removed, as they are not history, and only tenuously relate to the Philippines. The single potential exception, "Ten Bornean Datus", is already in the next section as Maragtas.
• "Limestone Tombs" should be expanded to the full "Limestone Tombs of Kamhantik", or perhaps "Tombs of Kamhantik" if that is too long.
• "Golden Tara" should be depiped to "Agusan image".
• "Gold Kinnara" is another EGG and the link doesn't work anymore, needs to be deleted.
• "Ticao Stone Inscription" should be depiped to "Monreal Stones".
• "Buddhist art" should be deleted, far too tangential.
• "Brunei War" isn't even a link and should be deleted.
• The current "Colonial period (1565–1946)" is WP:SEAOFBLUE. It should be removed, and its two subheaders upgraded to collapsible header level per the current article split. This would mean "Spanish era" becomes "Spanish period (1565-1898)" (new piped wikilink) and "American colonial period" becomes "American period (1898-1946)" (new piped wikilink).
• The current "Voyage of Ferdinand Magellan" should be replaced by a simple link to Magellan's circumnavigation.
• The pipe behind "Voyage of Miguel López de Legazpi" should have "#Expedition to the Philippines" added to it: Voyage of Miguel López de Legazpi.
• The order of "Captaincy General" and "Spanish East Indies" should be switched to fit a larger->smaller order starting with "New Spain".
• "Chinese invasion" needs to be removed, it's a gross misrepresentation of the event.
• "Dutch invasions" is less gross but still a misrepresentation. I would remove this as well.
• The order of "American capture of Manila" and "Declaration of Independence" should be switched for chronology.
• "Zamboanga Republic" should be removed, it's got almost nonexistant sourcing.
• "Fall of Bataan and Corregidor", a SEAOFBLUE, should be split into two lines and depiped.
• "Liberation of the Philippines" should be renamed to "Philippines campaign".
• "Post-colonial period (1946–1986)" is another sea, and should be split into two headers at that level. My suggestions are "Third Republic (1946–1965)" and "Under Marcos (1965-1986)".
• "Third Republic" should thus be removed as a listed item.
• "New Society & Fourth Republic" should thus also be removed as a listed item. All current items below this entry would fall under the "Under Marcos (1965-1986)" section.
• "Contemporary history (1986–present)" should be renamed to "Contemporary period (1986–present)" for consistency.
• "2000 All-out war against MILF" should be renamed to "2000 campaign against the MILF".
• "2001 EDSA Revolution" should be depiped to "Second EDSA Revolution" for consistency with other entries.
• "List of" should be removed from "List of Queen Consorts" for consistency with other entries.
• "Communications should be piped to Telecommunications in the Philippines#History: Communications.
• "Transportation" should be removed, no history section at all.
• "Filipino Americans" should be removed, ethnic history not history of the country.
• "Economic" should be added to the By topic section, perhaps before "Military".

Aside from those immediate concerns we could consider the addition of Filipino nationalism (a history article despite the name), Land reform in the Philippines (mostly a history article), and Demographics of the Philippines#Population history to the By topic section. CMD (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This has too many entries, and even has some red links and legendary stuff. Can we stick to actual historical events here? There are even things such as artifacts. Some sections are ordered from north to south instead of chronological. A sad mess.

Ideally this template and the History of the Philippines should be aligned. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Red links and legendary stuff should be fully fixed by the bullets above. It should also become more aligned with the Main history page. There is scope for more change, but I think the above bullets are enough to deal with first. CMD (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked everything, but I suppose the changes you propose are valid. I'm just picky we an article having this title, then us calling it completely different here. I suppose the Third Republic/Marcos era examples of these, since the Third Republic didn't end until September 23, 1972, and I would've preferred for it to be disambiguated using the years it encompasses. (I'm still picky with how the history subarticles are divided in this period, preferring a split of 1972 instead of 1965, but that's another discussion.) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What would be a better title for the pre-Marcos independence period? "Two-party period"? "Early independence period"? CMD (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just use the actual title "History of the Philippines (1946–1965)". I'd also recommend on using this format on other subarticles of this series. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be too long and very redundant. Just using the dates would look odd. Sample here: CMD (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I can live with from "History from 1946 to 1965" and similar, but that's just me. If you guys insist on using "Marcos era", or "Spanish period", I'd suggest on renaming these articles into "History of the Philippines under Spain", etc. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I am insisting on here is that the template doesn't repeat the word "History" eight different times. There should be something for context however, as there is no article title to introduce each dropdown menu. This isn't 1:1 with article titles because article title's must stand alone whereas these are together in a single template. CMD (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it as "Under Marcos" for now (have adjusted the bullet points above). Let's take another look once all the other changes have been made. Requesting a template editor to implement. CMD (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Created Template:History of the Philippines/sandbox with the listed changes, can be copy-pasted. CMD (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You could call 1946-65 as "Post-independence" (Well everything post 1946 until today is, until China conquers us.) Howard the Duck (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Done in the sandbox version. CMD (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions. I hope it's not too late to suggest. The Philippine–American War should be listed as under the American period together with those nascent republics and not under the Spanish period. The war obviously broke out after Spain already ceded PH territory to US thru Paris treaty. Also, the First Philippine Republic and Malolos Congress must be its own distinct period following the structure presented in the main article of History of the Philippines itself. What's missing in the template is the Second Philippine Republic also. Not sure where best to place it under, but maybe American period under World War II or World War II having its own separate period. The 2nd PH Republic is important as Laurel is officially recognized as a president. Post-independence, i believe it's best to present them according to our political periods, the Third Philippine Republic, followed by Fourth Philippine Republic instead of "Under Marcos." And finally the Fifth Philippine Republic covering the contemporary period. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be best to keep periods broad, I split above where I did because that was the highest level the overarching history levels went. Agree with Philippine-American War move, and agree the Second Philippine Republic would fit in with the other WWII articles. An issue with splitting by Third/Fourth Republic was raised by Howard the Duck above, in that the current History articles are not split by that distinction, but by Marcos, who was President under both Republics. However, I suppose that could be looked past so long as it is explained in the articles themselves. CMD (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to split and reorganize those historical period articles to suit the prevailing periodization of PH contemporary history. It is just a matter of knowing which events fall under which according to the different regimes or republics created under different constitutions or circumstances. The usage of Third, Fourth and Fifth Republic is widespread in this wikipedia btw, a reflection of their popularity in RSs and conventional literature. The presidents and congresses are split according to these periods for example. We need to initiate this shift to those common periodization. As for the tricky historical periods following the Spanish regime, with different successor republics and overlapping authorities all of which have been recognized by the PH academia and state, IMO it is best to present them individually so that all sovereigns of the PH at any given time are listed. The period History of the Philippines (1898–1946) has to go to give readers a more accurate picture of who actually governed in that period between the Philippine Revolution and the end of World War II. Broad periods is oversimplification. They have to go. See suggestion below. ;) Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Prehistory (pre–900)
• Precolonial period (900–1565)
• Captaincy General of the Philippines (1565–1898)
• First Philippine Republic (1898–1901)
• United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands (1898–1901)
• United States Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (1901–1935)
• Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946)
• Second Philippine Republic (1942–1945)
• Third Philippine Republic (1946–1972)
• Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos/New Society (1972–1981)
• Fourth Philippine Republic (1981–1987)
• Fifth Philippine Republic (1987–present)

Such a setup just furthers the existing recentism, and by separating items happening at the same time it detracts from the purpose of conveying history. We don't even have history articles for most of those new periods. CMD (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, it is not recentism when major political and historical sources from at least the 1990s all say the same thing. The articles First Philippine Republic and Second Philippine Republic have been around for a while now. It is just a matter of continuing and completing those republic series articles to show that the PH did not stop being a republic after the second and prior to the current republic we have now. The Third Philippine Republic, Fourth Philippine Republic and Fifth Philippine Republic articles are currently redirected to those broad period articles. If we can manage to sort out and reorganize this category, those three articles can stand as their own articles with just a minor redistribution of content. I understand your concern for chronology and overlapping timelines, particulary for the First Philippine Republic and United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines and Second Philippine Republic. But as i said this could be addressed by breaking this period down further. If conflicting timelines is too much, i propose splitting History of the Philippines (1898–1946) into these: History of the Philippines (1898–1901) to cover both the First Republic and US Military Government, as well the PH-American War; History of the Philippines (1901–1935); History of the Philippines (1935–1942); and History of the Philippines (1942–1946) to cover both the Commonwealth and Second Republic. We can even leave them without labels just like in Template:History of the United States. And the Third, Fourth and Fifth republics can also just be displayed in years.--RioHondo (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to about the sources, the recentism comes from going from a division spanning over 300 years to a division spanning less than 3. It feels like a significant due/undue issue, and further breaking it down exacerbates this more (and creates tiny dropdowns, as it is Marcos is tiny but that is the current article structure). The First and Second Republic articles are not history articles, but articles about those particular historical states. (Note in the US template how the included articles are all history articles.) Splitting the actual articles is a different proposition, and we should keep in mind the article hierarchy for this template, but this isn't the best place to discuss article splits. CMD (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Having History of the Philippines (1898–1901) on top of First Philippine Republic would be no different from History of the Philippines (1565–1898) that just basically mirrors the timeline of Captaincy General of the Philippines. But you're right, this is no forum to discuss those article splits, but seeing as this is the only active discussion on PH history right now, i just thought i just let it out in the open and share my observation and proposals for future guidance. But i will continue to contemplate this before starting anything. Btw, i dont see any issue with 300 years transitioning to 3, just as the 200 plus years of US colonial period followed by only 13 years of US independence and confederation period. It's all about managing the inclusion criteria for the most significant historical periods, and the 3 years of First PH republic are IMO most qualified for it. The prevailing historical periodization has the First PH Republic as a distinct period in between two colonial episodes, and that is reflected in most history books i read from high school to university.;)--RioHondo (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Luis H. Francia's "A History of the Philippines" divides it this way:

1. "The Islands before the Cross, pre-1521"
2. "Expeditions, Entrenchment, and Spanish Colonial Rule, 1521-1862"
3. "From Indio to Filipino: Emergence of a Nation, 1862-1898"
4. "Americanization and its Discontents, 1899-1946"
5. "The Republic: Perils of Independence, 1946-1972"
6. "The Republic: The Strongman and the Housewife, 1972-1992"
7. "Quo Vadis, Philippines" (1992-2010)
8. Afterword (Aquino III presidency)

The book can be viewed in Google Books, you can see it for yourself. The point is that broad eras are used for major chapters of Philippine history books. I believe this is also what was used in high school history textbooks, but I dunno if that's still the case today. We could probably divide the Spanish era into two: with the cutoff either at 1821 when Mexico became independent, or at the 1860s when at first Propaganda Movement. There's some dispute on when the Spanish era began: it could either be at 1521 when Magellan came, or in 1565 when Legazpi conquered the country. The First Republic is usually grouped with the Spanish era, and the Japanese Occupation and Second Republic are grouped with the American period. AFAIK, only Wikipedia splits post-independence history at 1965 instead of 1972. Filipino nationalism, which is sorta different topic, divides it differently. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As another data point, History of the Filipino People from 1990 has "Precolonial Philippines" (4 chapters), "The Spanish Period" (3 chapters), "Reform and Revolution" (7 chapters), "The American Period" (6 chapters), "The War Years" (2 chapters), and just "The Third Republic" for the last 9 chapters ending with the EDSA revolution. CMD (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from both books, the one posted by CMD being the main reference used in DepEd modules for PH history in high schools, that the Philippine Revolution and by extension the First Philippine Republic, is a distinct period which always has its own dedicated chapter in between the two colonial chapters. It is therefore logical for WP to follow this common periodization of PH history as i have pointed out earlier and as indicated in the main article with its dedicated section. The only question would be where to make that split. Basically the reform movement of Ilustrados and the Philippine Revolution all transpired during the few remaining decades of Spanish period so it would be tough to make that cut somewhere there and give an incomplete picture of the Spanish reign. 1821 is just a mere transfer from viceroyalty to direct Spanish control. The year 1862 could also be arbitrary as earlier reform movements and revolts could also vie for inclusion which would make this chapter and timeline problematic. 1898 is what i see as the most significant turning point that merits its own chapter, this brief period of selfrule coming right before Gov. Taft and the Insular Govt came into power in 1901 which would be the "indisputable" start of US colonial period. This History of the Philippines (1898–1901) would be the best article to discuss the brief background of the Philippine reform movement and revolution, with the main topic being the establishment of both the First Republic and the US Military Govt in Manila, which eventually led to the PH-American War and ultimately Aguinaldo's surrender in 1901. And as pointed in the RM discussion on Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946), this period also includes the 3 years of Japanese rule so that definitely has to be broken down with another chapter on World War II and Second Republic period. As for post-independence, the succeeding republics are still the most common dividing lines in most literature i read. I think in many history templates, the broad periods used are those from universal history, dividing the time periods into prehistory, ancient, medieval, early modern, etc. But political periods differ by country and length. For example, Template:History of Singapore includes its two-year history as a Malaysian state in its timeline and its 3 year Japanese occupation also. Ok i think i wrote too much lol. But i still opt for using established PH political periods instead of those broad periods that are neither universal nor precise really.--RioHondo (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Repartition?

This has bothered me for some time. The somewhat-related discussion Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Requested move 21 January 2021 moved me to raise it here.

The Philippine Revolution which morphed into the Philippine-American War is considered in the Philippines to be a pretty important period of Philippine history, but it is passed over without mention here. I'm not Filipino, but my guess is that many Filipinos would draw a partitioning line in 1892 at the emergence of the Katipunan or, perhaps, in 1896 at its rise and the beginning of the Philippine Revolution rather than at the 1898 year of the Spanish-American War. I think there ought to be discussion about changes here to accommodate that. One possible alternative to the present partitioning might be Revolutionary Period (1892-1935), Commonwealth Period (1935-1946). Thoughts? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

On the specific issue of this template, under its current structure it is tricky to accommodate a reorganization that does not reflect article structures. On the article structures, the 19th/20th century period is a significant time that may be worth pulling out. However, I think reorganization is inhibited by the current structure of forcing each article into specific year periods. Some minor overlap is fine, especially as historical threads do not perfectly align temporally and/or geographically. There are already issues around this, for example the shifting of the Spanish article between 1521 and 1565. Strict years also entrench a Manila-centric view of history, with start or end dates dictated by events in the Manila-area. CMD (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

History books still divide Philippine history into broad eras (this is undisputable), with several sub-eras of varying lengths. While people can interpret it differently, from what I can see, based on the two books used as examples here, the revolutionary period is usually included in the late Spanish period, by the time the Propaganda Movement started in the latter half of the 1800s. I'd guess we'd divide the Spanish colonial era into two, put the dividing line at Spanish Revolution of 1868, as this is when "Filipino nationalism" first manifested and flourished. The Revolution ended either when Aguinaldo went into exile in Hong Kong, or when Americans captured Manila (this is what the article in Philippine Revolution says), or when he was captured in Isabela (this was the consensus among historians on when the Philippine-American War ended, although other people continued the fight). I've never seen historians group events from 1890s to 1935 as "one era," calling it as the "revolutionary era", at least the "revolutionary era" didn't last this long; it didn't start until the 1896 Cry of Pugad Lawin, and there's always a clean break in 1898/1899.

Historians and history books put the American colonial era from 1898-1946 as one large "era", divided into the military and insular periods (1898-1935), Commonwealth period (1935-41), World War II/Japanese colonial period (1941-45), Commonwealth restored (1945-46). Again, just like in 1898/99, there's even a more definitive break on July 4, 1946. Now if we'd make the sub-eras in this large "era" as "eras" themselves in the navbox is a question we'd have to answer.

After independence, there's a question on when the next era starts, what is it. Currently, our articles and this navbox separate the entire Marcos era as a separate era. I've seen some historians do this, but still other put the break at the declaration of martial law; that's another decision we'd have to make. After that, there's universal consensus that the next era began on February 25, 1986 and that it continues up to now.

This is my suggestion:

• Prehistoric Philippines (pre-900)
• Precolonial period (900-1565)
• Early Spanish colonial period (1565-1868)
• Late Spanish colonial period (1868-1898)
  • Propaganda Movement (1868-92)
  • La Liga Filipina and Katipunan (1892-96)
  • Philippine Revolution (1896-98)
• American colonial period (1898-1946)
  • Aguinaldo's dictatorial government and the First Republic (1898-99)
  • Philippine-American War (1899-1901)
  • Philippines under American military rule (1898-1902)
  • Philippines under the Philippine Autonomy Act (1902-16)
  • Philippines under the Jones Law (1916-35)
  • Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935-41)
  • World War II and the Second Republic (1941-45)
  • Commonwealth restored, presidency of Sergio Osmena, first two months of the Presidency of Manuel Roxas (1945-46)
• Third Republic (1946-72)
  • Continuation of the presidency of Manuel Roxas (1946-48)
  • Presidency of Elpidio Quirino (1948-53)
  • Presidency of Ramon Magsaysay (1953-57)
  • Presidency of Carlos P. Garcia (1957-61)
  • Presidency of Diosdado Macapagal (1961-65)
  • Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos' first two terms (1965-72)
• New Society and Fourth Republic (1972-86)
  • Marcos's dictatorial government (1972-78)
  • The New Society (1978-81)
  • Fourth Republic (1981-86)
  • EDSA Revolution (1986)
  • Presidency of Corazon Aquino (1986-87)
• Fifth Republic (1986-present)
  • Continuation of the presidency of Corazon Aquino (1987-92)
  • Presidency of Fidel V. Ramos (1992-98)
  • Presidency of Joseph Estrada (1998-2001)
  • Presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-10)
  • Presidency of Benigno Aquino III (2010-16)
  • Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (2016-present)

I'm also not opposing the suggestion of doing it this way:

• Late Spanish colonial period (1868-1892)
  • Propaganda Movement (1868-96)
  • La Liga Filipina and Katipunan (1892-96)
• Revolutionary period (1896-1901)
  • Philippine Revolution (1896-98)
  • Aguinaldo's dictatorial government and the First Republic (1898-99)
  • Philippine-American War (1899-1901)
• American colonial period (1901-46)
  • Philippines under American military rule (1898-1902)
  • Philippines under the Philippine Autonomy Act (1902-16)

We can also ditch the current naming convention of "History of the Philippines (####-####)" and use actual names that we use and not hide around the bush on what events are included: (This is how Template:History of France does it.)

• Prehistoric Philippines
• Precolonial Philippines
• Philippines under Spanish rule (Spanish era; rename the 1565-1898 article to this one)
  • Captaincy General of the Philippines (I suppose there are ways to constitutionally divide this era:)
    • Captaincy General of the Philippines under New Spain (1565-1821)
    • Captaincy General of the Philippines under direct Spanish rule (1821-98)
  • Philippine Revolution
• First Philippine Republic
  • Philippine-American War
• Philippines under American rule (This actually an RM but is getting defeated)
  • United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands
  • Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
  • Commonwealth of the Philippines
• Philippines during World War II (Military history of the Philippines during World War II can be refactored or a totally new article can be created)
  • Philippine Executive Commission
  • Second Philippine Republic vs Government in exile of the Commonwealth of the Philippines
• Philippines after independence (1946-present
  • Third Philippine Republic (We can rename the 1946-1965 article to this one and include Marcos's first two terms)
  • Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos (1972-81)
  • Fourth Philippine Republic (1981-87)
  • Fifth Philippine Republic (We can rename the 1986-present article to this one.)

This is a political way of doing it instead of whatever we are doing and are actually scared of labeling things, and use years instead of actual names people know. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I believe this use of year ranges as titles for PH historical period articles was inspired by Category:History of the United States by period. You know us,  their little brown brothers lol. The French template and most other European history navboxes divide their timeline according to the standard broad periods in History by period. But of course, those broad periods do not apply to us, and instead our periodization follows the major political events as with the Americas and other former colonies. I dont mind sticking to these year ranges, provided that they cover these political markers more precisely. If we are to keep 1898–1946 as one broad period, even when we know that period wasnt entirely American, then we have to adjust the Spanish period to when the PH was first claimed for Spain, making it 1521–1898 instead. Both books by Agoncillo and Francia clearly mark this period beginning with the 1521 arrival of Magellan and introduction of Christianity to the PH, in the same way that the American period began when PH was claimed for US in 1898 even when actual civilian government over the entire colony only came three years later in 1901. 1521 is more significant than 1565, just as 1898 over 1901 for America, there's a 500 years commemoration being organized by the state for one. Actually i withdraw all my suggestions except for the post-independence breakdown into republics that HTD also suggested. We follow the periodization in those two books instead, with the reform and revolution as a separate period and the actual years prescribed in them. And yes WTMitchell, this revolution period is considered an important period in PH history as you can tell from those books. It will be easier to defend and make these articles more stable with those RSs backing them up. But i am also open to adjusting it to accomodate some of HTD's brilliant suggestions.--RioHondo (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The broad periods of "Long nineteenth century" or "Early modern period" don't apply to us, but "Spanish colonial period", "American colonial period" and even "Revolutionary period" do apply to us. Our history is event-centric, where two events can be classified into two "periods", and where two periods can overlap. Even the "American colonial period" even has periods where Americans do not control the country, but for purposes of histography, is still included in that period. This is the best solution. We're not the United States where it is clear cut, or there are clear cut cut off points: the example is the Third Republic. We supposedly have a history article about the Third Republic, but doesn't include all of it. So when did the Third Republic end? When Marcos ascended to power? (Certainly not, but this is how do it here.) When he declared martial law? (Most will tell you this.) When the barangay assemblies approved the 1973 constitution? (Political scientists will tell you this answer.) When did the Fifth Republic begin? After EDSA Revolution? When Cory promulgated the Freedom Constitution? When the 1987 constitution was approved? Most say it started on February 25, 1986, but political scientists will tell you that Cory was the last president of the Fourth Republic. The best example is when is the independence of the Philippines? "History of the Philippines (1946-1965)" screams to you "History of the Philippines during the Third (Philippine) Republic", isn't it? Why not call it that way and hide around years? What are we afraid of? This way we can overlap on things. We can still discuss Cory's presidency in the Fourth Republic article, and in the Fifth Republic article. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment re Howard the Duck suggestion: I don't think Philippine Revolution or Philippine-American War should be shown as subtopics under the larger topics indicated. Maybe that organizational implication is not intended, but the inference is natural. Those should be out-dented, IMO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think these these suggested lists should include {{hidden}}s, and it needs to be kept in mind that this template is used in a lot of infoboxes as a sidebar in a lot of articles -- implying a requirement that it be compact and informative when unexpanded. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the article divisions, we should not ditch the "History of..." prefix in article names for the existing history articles. They are very different in structure from a non-history article. Early modern France for example has history only at the 7th and 8th sections. We should have independent articles for the various political structures (eg. First Philippine Republic), but these are not the same as history articles. (eg. The 1986- article would be History of the Fifth Philippine Republic if using the above article titles.) CMD (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

But for purposes of this discussion, we're focusing on what articles ought to be linked from this sidebar and how they ought to be rendered, right? I've taken the liberty of inserting the present implementation at this point for reference. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

That would be preferable, but discussion above has moved away from that. The current sidebar exactly follows the current article structure, so deviations mean either deviating from the article structure or altering the article structure. CMD (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion"

Can we please stop using this... whatever this is? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing a move request, we should rename here based on whatever the result is. CMD (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree on that. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Communist rebellion in the Philippines was thankfully not moved to "CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion". It's time to extinguish that phrase from Wikipedia. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

I have resubmitted my request that the Kedatuan of Dapitan (Just Dapitan in the Template) be considered for insertion again because the user Stricnina has cleaned up the article and it's now passable. I also suggest to remove the Sultanates and Confederacy titles in the links to the Sultanate of Maguindanao, Lanao confederacy and Sultanate of Sulu, basically only retaining the names so that the style of the precolonial states mentioned in the template would be uniform all across. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Copy the current template to its sandbox and make your proposed changes there, if you know how. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There are too many of these here. We'd have to cut these down to the major ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There are even entries on artifacts. Other history sidebars don't have these. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor change to remove a word

I would like to suggest that "Contemporary period" be shortened to "Contemporary", which will remove the current line overflow issue. I think the concept of Contemporary history is well-enough established that there is no real loss in clarity. CMD (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection has been downgraded and there has been no comments here, so I will implement this minor change. CMD (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Contemporary" is an adjective and is always accompanied by the word it is modifying. Why not use "era" instead of "period"? "Spanish era" "American era" are common enough terms in Philippine history. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I read it as modifying the title of the sidebar, as in "Contemporary...History of the Philippines". However, era seems to fit, so long as the other lines are changed to match. CMD (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Period" only comes together with "Precolonial", "Spanish" and "American". I suppose changing these to "era" would not make much of a difference, at least in understanding what the navbox is about. Other navboxes do use "period" and "era". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Change of image

In the sandbox, I changed the main image to a photo of the Bonifacio Monument, which describes the moment of the start of the Philippine Revolution, a "very important" topic in Philippine history. I also added an image= param, so that the image may be changed on some articles if needed. The original photo File:Philippine History Collage.jpg, while beautiful, may be a bit too small and doesn't show much to the reader from a distance aside from the flag and a faint view of the Rizal Monument, hence why I wanted to change it to something more "impactful". Thoughts on the change? Poppytarts (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I lean towards a more collage type image myself, or perhaps an abstract one, but whatever the decision the image should not be as large as the current sandbox one. Could it be reduced so it doesn't expand the width of the template? CMD (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Reduced the size per recommendation to 250x250px in Special:PermanentLink/1042528128. Thanks. A collage might sound good, but that might divert the reader's attention to the picture too much, while making each individual image too small. An abstract image is also good, but I don't think we have any at the moment. I hope other users could weigh in on this. Poppytarts (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not use a picture of an old map like Template:History of Indonesia, Template:History of Singapore and Template:History of Thailand? Like this one? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia works the best there as a more horizontal image seems preferable for spacing reasons, but the current collage is also vertical, so no objection on my end for that map. CMD (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An old map looks like a great suggestion. I placed it in the sandbox. I also added one of the Velarde map since that is a "famous enough map", as well as being important in Philippines v. China. I'm in favor of the latter because of said importance, but the former has greater contrast though. Poppytarts (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The latter seems better simply in that it is less vertical. Personally I would still prefer it smaller, but it looks good nonetheless. CMD (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding on the size, I decided to go with 250x250px because it's the largest that would fit in the infobox. See Special:PermanentLink/1044482511 for what it would look like in 300, 250, 225, and 200. If nobody has issues with the Velarde map, I'll go make the necessary changes by next week. Poppytarts (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You can't lose with any option, although I prefer the seventh example at Special:PermanentLink/1044482511. Won't oppose any of the options save for the larger ones, but only because those are big. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. I made the image a bit smaller: 225x225px. Poppytarts (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

Requesting to replace

| bodyclass = vcard

with

| bodyclass = vcard hlist

to represent items in the template more compactly. Poppytarts (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)