Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Possible move: Bong Revilla

Believe it or not, Bong Revilla's surname is "Bong Revilla" so the article name somewhat odd. However, I'm apprehensive on moving it to Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. since article titles usually don't have quotation marks. Any ideas? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I say follow WP:COMMONNAME, can't go wrong with following that, unless there is consensus to go with WP:ON, which is only an essay. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough. What is his common name? If "Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr." is the common name should this be moved to there? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears in this case if Bong is more often used as the subjects first name, rather than Roman, the article would be Bong Revilla, Jr. just as the example given in the link William Clinton is not used as commonly as Bill Clinton. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bong Revilla, Jr." looks good, but he's not called "Bong Revilla, Jr." since there was no "Bong Revilla, Sr." since his dad is Ramon Revilla, Sr. (I dunno if he was nicknamed "Bong" back in the day.), nor a given name is absent. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait... being his actual legal name, shouldn't it be Ramon Bong Revilla, Jr. without the quotation marks? :/ --Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the infobox got it right: Ramon "Bong" Bong Revilla, Jr. I don't think Jolo's into it, though, it seems only his dad changed his surname, hence he was #8 at the ballot. :P

If we're into WP:NC, I say "Bong Revilla" is the more prevalent name, but "Ramon 'Bong' Revilla, Jr." (with the quotation marks) is not far behind. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are Google hits:

• "Bong Revilla" w/o "Ramon Bong Revilla": ~1.2 million
• Ramon Bong Revilla: 199k

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I say lets just leave it at Bong Revilla. TheCoffee (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_5#File:Cagsawafullchurchl.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Spinoff article to List of current members of Congress of the Philippines from 15th Congress of the Philippines

The members list will be moved to a new article. Please comment at Talk:15th Congress of the Philippines#Split members to a new article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jayjay Helterbrand#Nationality. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

What's the definition of "Filipino-American"? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy set of discussions regarding the scope of the article Filipino American, and thus the scope of the associated list. Perhaps that may help. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion is not yet finished, any removals/additions of categories should be held in abeyance until it's done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There WAS a discussion. Presently there isn't an active discussion regarding the definition, and thus scope of the article, of the term Filipino American. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the result of that discussion may be followed, as long as it follows WP:RS on the corresponding articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Amin assisted move

Salvador P. López -> Salvador P. Lopez (without accent). Lopez was born after the Spanish era, and documents always refer to him without an accent. Moray An Par (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Restore logo

Any admins here can restore the following deleted logo? Will add the correct tags later. Thanks.

• File:PNB-logo.gif for Philippine National Bank

--Bluemask (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done please supply licensing ASAP.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Willie Revillame

Active Banana pruned the controversies stuff a few months ago, now Collect comes in to trim it further (supposedly sticking controversies to controversies) I don't understand that guy's motivations, he may not even be a Filipino. We know the story better than he does, me thinks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as possible, the controversies should be distributed to the other sections and not to be on its own section. It's sorta like a trivia section, only worse since it violates WP:NPOV. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

hm. Aren't they fundamentally the same instead of Critical-reactions-to sections? -- Alternativity (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; sections such as those should generally be avoided, unless it's currently impossible to write prose about something -- in Willie's case it's not. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged to other sections ("Career" for example) but aside from the controversies, the article only mentions the business career and his personal life. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, wait, I see why a criticism section would be undesirable in a BLP (Although I don't necessarily concede that it shouldn't be there in cases where controversy at least partly defines the career of that person, and it certainly does Revillame). What's your opinion regarding bodies of work (in this case, Wowowee and Willing Willie)? As far as I can tell, in those cases, a list of relevant controversies is at least as legitimate an organizational frame as chronology and show segments.In fact, I'd argue that we'd be violating NPOV by NOT having controversies sections in those shows, at least as a segment under history. As the Criticism-section tag says, "Note that criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents is causing trouble with the article's neutrality." - Alternativity (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections are like trivia and reaction sections -- no one's saying they shouldn't exist, only that they should exist elsewhere; incorporate them at the other sections. It should not be hard to incorporate controversies on the main prose. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct language?

In the article coconut I ran across the term liningta nga itlog (halved boiled egg). I'm unfamiliar with the term. Is this a proper term in Tagalog or Ilocano or some other dialect? Lambanog (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I was wondering about that too. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Ilocano apparently (from google). I don't speak it. :( In Cebuano it would have been gitunga nga itlog, gitunga na itlog, katunga sa itlog, etc. In Hiligaynon it's Gintunga na itlog. Nga (note: no glottal stop unlike Tagalog Ngâ) is interchangeable with Na in most Visayan languages. Equivalent to Tagalog linker Na, except that Nga is not used to mean "now" or "already" as in Tagalog.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Lambanog (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Moymoy Palaboy in Tagalog

I'm writing because there's no Tagalog page for Moymoy Palaboy. There's one in English and one in Spanish, but none in Tagalog. I want to start a new page, but my written Tagalog is atrocious. Can someone help me out? Alphapeta (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm on hiatus since I'm currently in China, but I can definitely say this: be bold and write it, and someone is bound to clean it up. Don't forget to tag it with a cleanup tag. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Kapampangan: Newly created gibberish articles

Recently, I was browsing the recent changes of Kapampangan Wikipedia, especially the newly created articles. As expected I saw some "newly-created gibberish articles" such as Register wikipedia facebook (created by 125.60.173.51), Nanomedicine (created by 46.18.178.21), and Apple muffin (created by 208.108.129.145). I cannot tag them for speedy deletion since there is no template created for it. I'm afraid that the admins are not available at this time, and I don't see anyone of them patrolling on Kapampangan Wikipedia to modify or delete some articles.

I must say this, but I would like to become one of the admins of Kapampangan Wikipedia, since I maintain some of my articles there. And also, I am very particular of unnecessary articles and contents there. Would that be possible? I hope that anyone of you would be able to help me about it. Thank you and good morning! -- Lee Heon Jin ^(talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Try requesting it at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Moray An Par (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it could be a test page by spambots or something. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I would just create stubs for those "gibberish articles" instead. And I hope that my steward request would be granted unto me. Have a Blessed Maundy Thursday Evening to all of us! -- Lee Heon Jin ^(talk) 21:58 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags of Metro Manila and Batangas

Is there any factual accuracy with the following coat of arm and flags?

File:Batangas proposed flag.jpg

Provincial ensigns (flag, left; coat of arms, center) of Metro Manila during the Spanish era; Batangas proposed flag, right.

I can't find any sources so far proving such flags exists. Some users try to put the Metro Manila flag and coat of arms into the infobox of Metro Manila article but I removed them with the reasons that it is an old flag and arms during Spanish times specific for the Province of Manila and not Metro Manila, and that Philippines is not a federation that requires "forced" flags for each entity. And the Batangas flag is proposed so far, and I cant find any source for it.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    07:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Look more of a hoax than real. The contributor tagged them as "unofficial" upon uploading. -WayKurat (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The uploader has been also uploading other provincial flags (commons:User talk:Jap2k11). Can we not put them up at the Metro Manila article until we've got evidence that they're not hoaxes? Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, after doing some research, it appears that the Manila flags and coat of arms are true: per this website. However, the Batangas flag is not the official proposal of the government of Batangas, it was the idea of a person named Jerick Aldrin Ilagan (check this) who I suspect as Jap2k11. I'll tag the Batangas flag for deletion.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    09:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And Jap2k11's version of Manila flag isn't correct if we will verify it via watawat.net. :( --— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    10:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's seems to be the case. Well the proposed flag has not reached any notability, and the Manila provincial flags are still to be verified. I'll remove them from the article for the time being. I'll also invite the uploader to the discussion here so we can get his view/defense. Moray An Par (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Batangas flag is under deletion discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Batangas proposed flag.jpg. Moray An Par (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for support. However, this 112.210.252.109 at least its range keeps on reverting and editing hoax flags in Philippine provinces. I think he deserves a block if he keeps on adding those.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    12:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Manila and Metro Manila are now in my watchlist. Moray An Par (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The City of Manila flag is the green one with the seal at the center. Haven't seen it on real life, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review

UPLB is under GA review (Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños/GA1). Everyone is invited to join the discussion. Moray An Par (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If the link for the review is red, that means no one reviewed it yet. You are invited to review it.

I also nominated Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños for WP:GAN (Talk:Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/GA1). Everyone is invited to start and participate in the review process. Moray An Par (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people is also under featured list review(. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people/archive1) Moray An Par (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Postnominals

Do National Scientists, National Artists and Order of Lakandula and other chivalrous orders members append post nominals to their names? I can't seem to find any source regarding this. Legislation: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index10.php?doctype=Executive+Orders&docid=a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645fae1093b5c5 Moray An Par (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the constitution prohibit things such as this? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no constitutional ban on a person being bestowed membership in a chivalrous order. Perhaps this is being confused with titles of nobility? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't knights supposed to be the lowest class of nobility or something? Are these orders chivalrous orders, anyway? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhmm. Back to my question, I was wondering if we should append postnominals (if such exist) to names like National Artist Leandro Locsin, similar to how Stephen Hawking is styled in reference to his membership to British chivalrous orders? Moray An Par (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I asked earlier, are these orders chivalrous orders, anyway? How? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but the Wikipedia article on Orders, decorations, and medals of the Philippines doesn't classify it as such. Moray An Par (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Are postnominals limited to chivalrous orders? Moray An Par (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There's Ph.D and M.A. and the like, but these are used like they're an order of chivalry. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that there's none for Nat Artists et al Moray An Par (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting an moving Imperial Manila to Manilacentrism

I'm bothered by the article Imperial Manila, not because I don't think it should exist. It should. But it really ought to be "Manilacentrism", a more inclusive, and also I believe, more established term. The Imperial Manila exists apparently as a reaction to the usage of the term in one of PGMA's SONAs, and the article reflects the slant inherent to its origins. However, this is a significant rewrite, and I don't have much free time. Someone wanna beat me to editing the article so we can move it to Manilacentrism? I've already created Manilacentrism as a redirect. Er...also, I'd prefer someone with a more extensive background in political science to do this. This being an "ism" article, I'm feeling somewhat inadequate. -- Alternativity (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When searching Google I only see about 300 entries combined for "Manilacentrism", "Manila-centrism", and "Manila centrism" but get over 24,000 for "Imperial Manila". Lambanog (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but I feel "Imperial Manila" is more prevalent than "Manilacentrism" which I only had just encountered. There's some literature about this on the ARMM government, and the general reliance on the national government for funding (hence the battles for IRA w/c became the Cityhoods case), the pork barrel and the patronage politics. There might be literature about this on the cultural side but I'm not privy to those. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Manila is a term that denotes Manilacentricism right? They, IMHO, are practically synonymous. Or are there any topics covered by one that is not under the scope of the other? So, I am also for keeping the Imperial Manila title since its more common. Moray An Par (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then! GoogleHits have my proposal beat. I'm probably a discourse fluke, since I've been encountering the term Manilacentrism since my early teens (the Ramos era), likely because one or two of my teachers or favorite writers at the time used the term a few times. (I suspect De Quiros.) Since the consensus seems to be that the original title is more popular, I concede the proposal. :D - Alternativity (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Districts: City of Manila vs Quezon City

Whoa. Wait. Why is there a separate article for districts of Manila such as Quiapo, Manila and Pandacan, Manila, whereas Cubao and Diliman are redirects to sub-heads under the Quezon City article? Doesn't seem fair, eh? Also, there's a multiple issues tag on Alabang, but no talk page. And let me cite again the fact that Barangay Damortis is more popular in media than is the municipality of Santo Tomas, La Union, to which it belongs. Not complaining about established policy, just seeking clarification and consistency. :D Peace. :D -- Alternativity (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from creating QC district articles (the subsections on the QC article per se are long enough). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WHOA. Didn't know that. I thought there'd been a consensus somewhere that districts were not notable. Alright, then. Putting Diliman and Cubao on my to-do list (but also in article requests, hehe). - Alternativity (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered why people put info on those subsections rather than splitting them off. The QC article should be about generalities and those districts subsections delve on the specifics. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold and create these articles. :) -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kapampangan Language Standardisation attempt on Kapampangan Wikipedia

Is it possible to have the Filipino (Kapampangan) Variant as the standard orthography of the Kapampangan language? Although there is no standard writing for the Kapampangan language, Kapampangans today tend to write and convey their messages in Kapampangan using the Filipino (Kapampangan) Variant. I'll cite some examples to make it clear.

• (Spanish Variant): Iñg Amanuñg Capampañgan, metuñg ya careñg amanu a gagamitan queni Filipinas. Agyañg meragul cu quing Menila, biasa cu Capampañgan.
• (Filipino-Kapampangan Variant): Ing Amanung Kapampangan, metung ya kareng amanu a gagamitan keni Pilipinas. Agyang meragul ku king Menila, biyasa ku Kapampangan.
• (Meaning): Kapampangan language is one of the languages used here in the Philippines. Even though I grew up in Manila, I'm fluent in Kapampangan (Ang Wikang Kapampangan ay isa sa mga salita na ginagamit dine sa Pilipinas. Kahit na nalaki ako sa Maynila, marunong ako ng Kapampangan)

It's affirmative that both variants of Kapampangan are essentially correct, since the Spanish variant was used during the Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines until the late 20th century, when Kapampangans already wrote in Filipino-Kapampangan variant. In fact, those variants can be both seen on Kapampangan Wikipedia articles. And in lieu to my concern, I'm attempting to revise some articles from Spanish variant into Filipino-Kapampangan variant. And my question: is it legal to revise the articles from Spanish variant to Filipino-Kapampangan variant? Hope that there would be someone who could help me with my concern. -- Lee Heon Jin ^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that it is now important that the Kapampangan Wikipedia begin serious discussions on the way the language is used, similar to the set of policies that were enacted on the Tagalog Wikipedia a few years ago. I'm not sure though as to how much the English Wikipedia community can help, since you will have to consult with Val or Katimawan2005 about it as well, and they would be more knowledgeable about this issue than the likes of me or the other editors on the English Wikipedia.

In the long run however, it will be important for the Kapampangan Wikipedia to adopt a unified written standard should one not exist which satisfies the needs of the project. If a compromise between the Spanish and Filipino orthographies is necessary (as is the compromise on the Tagalog Wikipedia, mostly for place names), then by all means push through with it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians should not decide on what orthography should be standard. The debate continues (it seems to me, an outsider to this debate) on Kapampangan orthography. The small Kampampangan Wikipedia community should respect that discussion in the wider Kapampangan world, including its non-conclusiveness, if that is its current state. This is not a hindrance to the project. The English Wikipedia uses both the British and American spellings. Why couldn't it be the same with the Kapampangan Wikipedia? As long as each article is consistent to itself, it will be a usable encyclopedia.--Nino Gonzales (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. In an environment where there is no strong regulation of local vernaculars, there is a strong incentive to ensure some form of consistency between articles on a given Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is one of a handful of exceptions to this rule due to the sheer number of people who use the two main orthographies that define the language. However, that should not discount the need for the Kapampangan Wikipedia, whose patron language has a strong literary tradition but the absence of a unified orthography, to adopt a standardized orthography which in the best scenario should borrow from both orthographies. The Tagalog solution, which is centered around the KWF's 2008 orthography, is perhaps not the appropriate solution for this: the Ilokano solution, which is a standardized orthography used on the Ilokano Wikipedia but borrows elements from the older Abecedario-derived orthography and the newer Abakada-based one, would perhaps work for Kapampangan as well, especially as younger Kapampangans become increasingly unable to use the older orthography. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

1521 as the beginning of the Colonial Period, also, May we have a Philippine History Discussion Space?

First, let me raise an issue I've been wanting to raise: 1521 as the beginning of the Colonial Period doesn't make sense to me, since the classic/precolonial civilizations continued to flourish during this period, largely uninfluenced by the Spanish expeditions. Legazpi's arrival in Bohol in 1565 makes more sense to me as a demarcation between the Classical and Colonial Epochs, since it represents the beginning of sustained colonial administration. I think historians and anthropologists will bear me out here, although I'm aware that 1521 is a date deeply entrenched in the popular Philippine imagination. (On the other hand, some historians will argue for 1571, when Legazpi took Manila. But I'm gonna outright call that Manilacentrism. - Alternativity (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to ask me too, 1565 is really the start of Spanish colonization. But the general fact is that 1521 is the year accepted by modern historians. For example, if you read some modern-day history books, they don't include Magellan's 1521 expedition to the chapter about the politics of pre-colonial history. From 1521-1565 there's nothing much but failed Spanish attempts to claim the country from raging Portuguese in Indonesia...I came across from the books of Blair and Robertson as well as Spanish governors' letters in Filipiniana.net recounting the events between 1521 and 1565. The problem is that the history of colonization in today's books really starts in 1521, what we need now is find some resources that justify our point that 1565 is the start of Spanish era :) --— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Second, I believe there's a need to centralize discussion of Philippine history articles, and to do so outside of the Tambayan. The discussions about history have to be extensive as they cross multiple articles. Try, for example, making the articles of the Kingdom of Tondo, the Kingdom of Namayan, the Kingdom of Maynila, Raja Sulayman, Raja Matanda, Lakandula, Tarik Sulayman, Luções, Luzon#History, and History of the Philippines (900–1521) totally noncontradictory... well, you get the idea. Although come to think of it, The Philippine Mythology articles are in a similar state of disarray. :S -- Alternativity (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that to. When I was writing the lead section and some parts of the Sultanate of Sulu, I had difficulties of determining the exact year when Islam and the sultanate started (you can check it there), because of inconsistencies of facts.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to change the scope of history articles. It should be:

• Pre-1565 (pre-colonial period)
  • pre-900
  • 900-1565 (up to Legaspi's arrival as opposed to Magellan's)
• 1565-1898 (Spanish period)
  • Under Mexico City
  • Under Madrid
• 1898-1946 (American period)
  • Under U.S. governor generals
  • Commonwealth
• 1946-1972 (3rd Republic that ended with the declaration of martial law as opposed to Marcos' first inauguration in 1965)
  • Presidency of ____ articles
• 1972-1986 (4th Republic)
  • (I considered splitting this one (there are a couple of demarcations such as the adoption of the 1978 constitution, or the lifting of martial law in 1981), but I thought there won't be that much to split off chronological-wise.)
• 1986-present (5th Republic; no change)
  • Presidency of ____ articles

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe split 1565-1898 (Spanish period) to 1565-1821 (Spanish period, Philippines under Viceroy of New Spain based in Mexico) and 1821-1898 (Spanish period, Philippines under sole rule by the Crown). I think we need to divide the whole Spanish era into smaller articles like under the Viceroy and under the Crown, or create another articles and preserve 1565-1898 article. That's a lot of 333 years, and if we have all cooperation and enough research, we can finish doing (as well as completing) the Spanish era parts in less than a year. What I mean to "create another articles" is to write something about political system during the era into fresh new articles. For example, we can write Spanish Governor-General of the Philippines which includes all history of succession, his powers, his downfall, his decrees.. etc., unlike today's Governor-General of the Philippines that only contains the list (with Americans and Japanese too). Also, we can create articles for Residencia and Visita that sparked controversies with the governors. Don't mind if I'm turning history geek now.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    15:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably also a good idea to create a mother article for pre-1565 Philippines, like the pre-1521 article before the post-900 events were split off. See the amended suggestion above. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So. Where do we centralize discussion? Doing so here feels... unwieldy. :S I'm eager to be able to create subtopics within the broader topic, so we can focus. Also, since I can't be TOO active nowadays, it'd be a great comfort to me to know I can indicate where I stopped working, and where others might want to make further adjustments on my work. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea to do this somewhere. This should only be used for notices and such. Dunno where, though. BTW, if anyone's making new articles/expansions, nom it at DYK so that it can featured at least for 6-8 hours. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to centralize it somewhere else? This page isn't really that long, and not too many users are active. Keeping the discussion here will attract more people into the discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is supposedly a notice board so that explains it. It'll also allow others not frequenting this place to have a say; people may think this place is a WP:CABAL or something. The article talk pages are still the best places for discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. How about a WikiProject History of the Philippines? Although I really think that that action will lead to less discussion. Which is why I post here my concerns regarding UPLB and not at the UP WikiProject since no one's discussing there, and it'll take a heck lot of time before anyone responds (I think). Moray An Par (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of a working group. My question is, though, IS it okay to discuss, say, the differences between the articles of the three 1571 Manila bay (Maynila, Tondo) Datus (Sulayman, Matanda, Dula), in, say, the talk page of "History of the Philippines (900–1521)"? Or yeah, maybe in Battle of Bangkusay. This kind of confusion is why I think there ought to be a working group space. - Alternativity (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess it'll be OK to discuss this somewhere, as long as the relevant talk pages have notices on where discussions are being held. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been stated in this discussion that most history books reference 1521 as the beginning of the colonial period, as it marks the beginning, even if infantile, of European Cultural influence (namely Spain) upon the islands which became the nation-state of the Philippines. This is supported by WP:RS. Is the new date, of final Spanish control of 1565 supported by WP:RS as the beginning of a new era? If it is not wouldn't any further discussion by at best WP:SYNTH, or at worst WP:OR? Amongst historians (possible need of an expert on the subject matter (maybe someone, or multiple people, with doctorates or masters in Philippine History)) how have they divided the eras of History? If there is not consensus amongst that community, as indicated by RS, what is the most common? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, most history books does not say that 1521 is the start of Spanish governance, it's just the year when the country was discovered by the Old World. 1565 is the year when Spanish colonial government was formally established. --— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to rewrite the Governor Generals of the Philippines page, move the American list into another and move the Japanese. Now, merge and rewrite the content from the Philippine history article about the power of the Governor General going the page. The logic is like the President of the Philippines page, we do not include the powers and history of presidency to the Philippine history page, I will be glad to see the Governor-Generals, Spanish, will be written that way.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I think quite a few historians, notably Nick Joaquin, do recognize '65 as the beginning of the colonial period. However, popular history(see Yoyoy Villame), and quite a number of history TEACHERS, and some of the less in-depth Philippine history texts, will refer to 1521, as a matter of convenience. That's all very debatable, of course, as one must ask which historians are to be considered credible, etc, and so on. - Alternativity (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Largest Shopping Malls Cleanup

Recently Orionist purged all SM Malls in the list making the article outrageously not credibile anymore. Refer to the Talk page --Exec8 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Split

Split government of the Philippines from Politics of the Philippines. (Talk:Politics of the Philippines) Moray An Par (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Other countries have two separate articles, so it's not a bad idea. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Philippines Holiday

Dear WikiProject Tambayan Philippines,

On May 2nd I'll be going to the Philippines to Cebu for 70 days, I was wondering if there are any images that you would as a WikiProject would like me to get on Cebu Island? I'll be staying in Talisay, but will be mainly in Cebu City. I've already planned to take images of certain places in Cebu City, Talisay, Mactan/Lapu Lapu, and of course one of the Provinces' I will be visiting due to family relations with a friend over there who has her parents living in the Province. Regards, Adamdaley (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

University of the Philippines Cebu College. Please. WP:WikiProject University of the Philippines will have good use of it too. Haha. Moray An Par (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got that on my "Watchlist", will see if I can get a few images. I will have a driver my girl can call for a reasonable price for a day or two to take images. Think I'll pay for lunch and any drinks for him as well. Adamdaley (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam, why not try taking pictures of individual towns in Cebu? Since you'll be there for 70 days, I think it would be a worthwhile project. Also, if you'll be in town for a while, try meeting up with the Cebuano Wikipedians. They're a very friendly bunch. :)

If by any chance you'll be dropping by Manila, you can meet up with us Manila Wikipedians as well. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be in Manila to get a plane out of the Philippines, that is all. I'll comment more when I am at shop, need to shave and shower now. Thanks dong's and dy's. Regards, Adamdaley (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I could get picture of the Health Department on Maxmillom St near White Gold. I need to get my visa extension in the next two days. If anyone is in Cebu City or Talisay, there will be a basketball game consisting of teenagers in the coming weeks, only one game at the basketball stadium in Talisay. I'll be coach of 1 of 2 teams. I'll try to get a picture of the church nearby that is light blue and white. Hear from you soon dongs and dys! Breakfast is calling. Adamdaley (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you leave a note to that effect at the Tubaan, the Cebuano Wikipedia's Village Pump. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination at the Tagalog Wikibooks

Hi guys. I've requested for adminship on the Tagalog Wikibooks so that cleanup efforts can finally begin in light of Felipe Aira now being inactive. Please vote in the Kapihan. Thanks! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Shared history

I'm having some trouble regarding the history of UPLB and UPLB College of Agriculture. UPLB, as some of you know, started as UP College of Agriculture. Now, being that they share almost exactly the same history from the founding of CA until the autonomy of UPLB from UP in general, the history sections of the two would also be exactly the same. The only difference is UPLB's history section includes some info from the School/College of Forestry (another UPLB unit 1 year younger than the CA).

I am not really comfortable about, almost, copy pasting the history section of UPLB to the CA article. I was thinking of limiting the history section to matters after 1972 (when UPLB was established) but that wouldn't seem appropriate since the college was founded in 1909 and therefore it must include historical events between 1909 and 1972. Another thought was to limit the UPLB history section to 1972 onwards, yet again that wouldn't seem appropriate. The third option would be to leave the copy-pasting as it is and just add some elaboration in the CA history section to make it at least unique from the UPLB history section. Moray An Par (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Band aid (aka temporary) solution: I put this up in the history section of CA.

This section is about events after 1972. For events before 1972, see History of University of the Philippines Los Baños.

Opinions? Moray An Par (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Immediate reaction: My take is that the UPLB article should contain the complete history of UPLB including the CA days. The determining factor ought to be the reader's experience of the article, not the (IMHO) cosmetic appeal of differentiating two articles on Wikipedia. I'm inclusivist, I guess. If something in an article can be there and it doesn't contradict anything or slant the coverage of the piece, and it's sourced, well, I hesitate to remove the material. (Hence my constant frustration with Kingdom of Tondo, which again I have to weed of unsourced material.) I believe in the value of knowledge, and I think very very very hard before I choose to reduce the number of facts listed in an article.

If the history is not extensive, then I do not mind that the two are exactly alike, only with the UPLB narrative being longer. HOWEVER, if the article is long, I am sure that some of it would be of only passing interest to the history of UPLB, and such material should thus be put in the CA history exclusively, and a sectional tophat indicating that more information can be found in the Main Article, UPCA.

To be honest, though, I'm not particularly eager to edit articles already as extensive as UPLB and UPCA. (I much prefer exploring stuff that's "unknown" to Wikipedia... that's still a lot.) So.. Ayun (English: that's that). Hehe. My sixpence worth. :D - Alternativity (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So here's what I've done. I copied the history from UPLB and removed information about Forestry (which is not really that much). By the looks of it, the CA history will be quite longer than UPLB's history since it'll also include events after 1972 (which are not really significantly meritorious for inclusion in the UPLB history). Moray An Par (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting

Ok so here goes my proposal again. I know this had been discussed before, and I am fully aware of the individual notability of UPLB units which merit them Wikipedia articles. However, I would like to make CA an exemption. My current projection of the article is that it'll be an almost exact copy of UPLB. According to WP:UNIGUIDE, the components of a university/college article are:

1. Lead - all current content can be found at UPLB
2. History - same case, except for a few minor additions on events since 1972 (not really that notable)
3. Campus - none; no significant coverage; CA doesn't have a campus unique from UPLB except for the La Granja Grant (already covered in the UPLB article). As for its buildings, CA owns many however no information is known about them (internet). As for print sources, I doubt there are books about individual CA buildings or at least articles stating their dimensions/architects/worth.
4. Organization and administration - unique (list of deans; responsibility of a dean)
5. Academics - if this section would be based on the structure UPLB's academics, no unique content can be written
6. Research - most of the research/breakthroughs mentioned in UPLB are contributions by CA
7. Student life - none; no documented student life that is unique from UPLB; no unique student dormitory/amenities
8. Noted people - most noted people at the UPLB article are from CA

So by the looks of it, only the admin section will be unique to the article (which can be readily integrated into the UPLB article: explain the function of the dean to his own college). I would normally classify this as a merge since CA is itself notable, but there is practically nothing to merge because the content is/would be 90% the same. Sub-articles are supposed to expound/elaborate details mentioned in the main article, and not merely be reproductions of the content of the main article. Moray An Par (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Object - on the following basis:

1. UPLBCA is notable, as argued (And by the way, I always thought UPCA was notable in itself, separate from UPLBCA)
2. The entities are not the same, UPLB being the larger entity under which the UPLBCA is subsumed.
3. The objection to the similarity between articles being resolvable using rewrites,where:

• The contents of the UPLBCA would be specific to the college, except prior to the creation of UPLB, The history of UPCA shared by UPLBCA and UPLB.
• Contents specific to the UPLBCA could be stubbified in the UPLB wiki, and a tophat placed indicating that the main article for that topic is UPLBCA. Ditto for the other colleges, if their pages exist. Or still exist.

1. IMHO shorter more numerous articles would be more desirable than a single long article, which would be difficult for wikipedia readers to digest.
2. As stated before, I truly don't find reasonable duplication of material between articles objectionable, and certainly feel disturbed that a recognizably notable topic should be a redirect simply because it is a subtopic that shares much of its history with the main topic. (The Kingdom of Tondo isn't the same as Tondo, Manila for example.
3. I do object to mirror articles, but as stated in #2, I don't at all see why the two articles would mirror each other. Surely either UPLB is overspecific, or UPLBCA is insufficiently specific? Or a case of both? Except for history before 1972, these articles ought to be rather different on the basis of specificity.

• That said, I must admit I'm not ready to work on UPLB's articles yet. I've had 11 years of history with the Univ, and I'm still in need of breathing space, so I guess I'm saying I hope nobody minds if, for now, comments like this are as close to UPLB University pages as I'm getting. But if you want work on the Proven or Mariang Makiling or Los Baños or even Dalambanga or Pegarao articles, ha! Count me in! :D

Hm. I think that's it. Tata for now. - Alternativity (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that's supposed to be points 1-6, not points 1-3 and 1-3. My bad. - Alternativity (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. This can be difficult. I'm not really sure what to do here. Which parts of the history and research section would you like removed/condensed? Moray An Par (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin-assisted move

I intend on asking for an admin assisted move of University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Agriculture to University of the Philippines College of Agriculture, and University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Veterinary Medicine. They are better known as such (significant difference in Google hits under " " search). I think this is how UP colleges made before the creation of the system (and thus individual/autonomous campus) should be named. Similar to how University of the Philippines College of Medicine and University of the Philippines College of Law are named. What are your thoughts on this move? Moray An Par (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I've always tended to think of UPCA as the pre-UPLB entity and UPLBCA as the college. But I don't hold to that opinion so strongly that I would object to a name change, so long as information goes SOMEWHERE rather than getting deleted. - Alternativity (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's already been a while since I posted this, and no one's really opposing, May I request an admin here to move University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Agriculture to University of the Philippines College of Agriculture, and University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Veterinary Medicine to University of the Philippines College of Veterinary Medicine? Moray An Par (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Towards a Wikiproject Philippines -Philippine History and Anthropology Working Group?

Hi everyone. In my last query, I made the mistake of bringing up two topics. I'd like to bring it up again, and gather ideas and comments. Would it be okay to have such a working group? Would it have a separate discussion/workspace? What would the scope of such a working group be? :D Thanks everyone. - Alternativity (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating material, but this relevant material from the discussion above is hard to find and follow, so I'm repeating it here in blockquote form. Hope that's okay. - Alternativity (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

“ So. Where do we centralize discussion? Doing so here feels... unwieldy. :S I'm eager to be able to create subtopics within the broader topic, so we can focus. Also, since I can't be TOO active nowadays, it'd be a great comfort to me to know I can indicate where I stopped working, and where others might want to make further adjustments on my work. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea to do this somewhere. This should only be used for notices and such. Dunno where, though. BTW, if anyone's making new articles/expansions, nom it at DYK so that it can featured at least for 6-8 hours. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to centralize it somewhere else? This page isn't really that long, and not too many users are active. Keeping the discussion here will attract more people into the discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is supposedly a notice board so that explains it. It'll also allow others not frequenting this place to have a say; people may think this place is a WP:CABAL or something. The article talk pages are still the best places for discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. How about a WikiProject History of the Philippines? Although I really think that that action will lead to less discussion. Which is why I post here my concerns regarding UPLB and not at the UP WikiProject since no one's discussing there, and it'll take a heck lot of time before anyone responds (I think). Moray An Par (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of a working group. My question is, though, IS it okay to discuss, say, the differences between the articles of the three 1571 Manila bay (Maynila, Tondo) Datus (Sulayman, Matanda, Dula), in, say, the talk page of "History of the Philippines (900–1521)"? Or yeah, maybe in Battle of Bangkusay. This kind of confusion is why I think there ought to be a working group space. - Alternativity (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess it'll be OK to discuss this somewhere, as long as the relevant talk pages have notices on where discussions are being held. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

”

Greater_Philippines

Shall this be nominated for afd?--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 14:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh... why not include Guam, the Marianas, Carolinas and Hawaii :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dibs on Mars.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to deviate here a bit. I believe we've all heard of this, and Philippines (or some over-zealous Filipinos) making territorial claims is not all new. IMHO, I believe the topic is notable although I am not fully sure if the article has the correct title. The term "Greater Philippines" seems new (or rather, coined). I think the article should be saved and be moved to Territorial claims of the Philippines, a title which sounds more appropriate. Btw, I've informed the contributor regarding this discussion (User talk:Christian Mac Juane). Moray An Par (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already one. Also unreferenced. Territories claimed by the Philippines --Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't know one existed. How about a merge and redirect? Moray An Par (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. Don't know enough about the subject though and not really interested heh. Far too political for me.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands while reading articles related to the territories claimed. I think it can use a shorter title. How about Philippines and the Spratly Islands similar to how China and the United Nations is named (not Policies, activities and history of China in the United Nations. Moray An Par (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but it includes more than just the Spratly islands and involves more than one other disputing nation.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article is only about the Philippines. The Spratly Islands dispute article is a better place for that. As for the other claims other than Spratly, then it'll just have to be weeded out of the article. Moray An Par (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good day to all of you, I am the contributor of the article. I admit that the term used as the title is somewhat new, but I heard that to some people I encounter. I entrust to all of you any decisions necessary. To add, the article is about the Philippines and all its claims, active and inactive. Just inform me of any decision to be taken. Thank you all and God bless! --Christian Mac Juane (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. To start off, you really should reference everything you write. There is already one other article covering pretty much the same topics and it also has the same problems - no references. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, by writing an article without any references, you're just either opening it up to outright deletion or creating more work for other people who may not be reading the same sources as you (it's a lot more work as they have to actually go and find where you had read it). As it is, if no one is willing to step up and do the (admittedly very exhausting) referencing work, the article might be deleted and that would be a big waste.

So please reference it. Once that is done, only then will the article have some semblance of stability and maybe then we can discuss about what title to place it under, terminology, possible merges, etc. I really really recommend you reference the things you wrote yourself, as you are in a far better position of knowing where you took it from. Tutorials for referencing can be found here: WP:Referencing for beginners, offline sources are acceptable though online sources are preferred, try to get them from neutral and reliable sources (like newspapers or books) from both sides. If you have any questions or need help with anything, feel free to ask me in my talk page or the rest of us here. Cheers.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, I've moved Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands to Philippines and the Spratly Islands per WP:BOLD seeing that there are no strong opinions against it. Moray An Par (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Batch deletions of Philippine schools

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and Jill School. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WilTime BigTime

I placed a speedy delete tag at this page as the subject can be covered under Willing Willie. I tried redirecting it but anons keep on recreating the page. What are your thoughts? - Windows72106 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also adding Wiltime Bigtime to this discussion. - Windows72106 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of its deletion. But I am not sure if it qualifies for speedy. Moray An Par (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a new show (used to skirt around the WW sanctions) or a renaming of the old one (which probably means the sanctions were lifted)? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect as needed. - Other than the title, the changes to the show are cosmetic. The key elements being this is "the Revillame gameshow on ABC5." Very soon the main article will have to be WilTime BigTime, with Willing Willie becoming a redirect page. Even the MTRCB is treating this as a reformat, sticking the same sanctions to WilTime Bigtime as it did to Willing Willie.- Alternativity (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet another requested move

Saint Scholastica's College → St. Scholastica's College. Common name. Moved by User:Nakakapagpabagabag in 2009. Moray An Par (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer the whole word rather than an abbreviation. No one would dare to move University of Santo Tomas to "University of Sto. Tomas." "St." can also mean "State." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Scho's official website almost exclusively uses "St. Scholastica" (Google search key: "St. Scholastica" site:ssc.edu.ph; 1970 hits) not "Saint Scholastica" (Google search key: "Saint Scholastica" site:ssc.edu.ph; 8 hits). As for use outside the college, "St. Scholastica" is still more common (177,000 vs 9,220). As for Santo Tomas, yes "Sto. Tomas" indeed gives more Google hits but the difference is not as significant. Even their official website almost exclusively uses "Santo Tomas" (4,640), not "Sto. Tomas" (95). Moray An Par (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Those reasons are rubbish. Google hits? Official website? You can't use "Santo Tomas" vs. "Sto. Tomas" since 99% of the phrase "Santo Tomas" occurs is when it is preceded by "University of." It'll be interesting to know if "Sto. Tomas" is preceded by "University of." If we'd go with WP:NC, we'd go with "St. Scho" and "UST."

You could've just cited the school seal that says "St." The only way to settle this is to ask the SEC/CHED on what the name really is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course using St. Scho and UST as titles is absurd. And yes I did include "University of" in the search string. I'll try searching what I can in the SEC and CHED sites. But I suggest we stick with what the institutions use: "St. Scholastica's College" and "University of Santo Tomas". Moray An Par (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I dunno how you could've been sure if it is the UST if you removed the exact phrase "University of" from "Santo Tomas" and "Sto. Tomas". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I used "University of Santo Tomas" site:ust.edu.ph in the search string. Moray An Par (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh. This is like a double whammy. You used Google search on an official website. I've given up on using that website for something that can be used as references. I was wondering on google searches elsewhere, on how you can be sure that it is the UST without "University of." Turns out you hadn't. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

CHED's list of private colleges uses "St. Scholastica's College". SEC makes no mention. Moray An Par (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

CHED checks out (curiously not all private schools are there), and I looked at SEC and all St. Scho-related orgs used "St." I still maintain that using Google search (especially on determining w/c among "Saint" and "St.") and the official websites (which are never consistent and are oftentimes badly-maintained) should not be relied upon. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If your finding for private universities, I think they have a separate list for that. Regardless of their inconsistencies, we cannot deny that we use "Santo Tomas" and not "Sto. Tomas", and we should use "St. Scholastica" not "Saint Scholastica" because they are way way way more commonly used. I think these are also the official names of the two. I'll do searching on that. Moray An Par (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Copies of legal actions by St. Scho uses "St. Scholastica's College". Example: ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE, Petitioner, -versus- HON. RUBEN TORRES, blah blah blah. Moray An Par (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:RM. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Moray An Par (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCon 2011

• Date : May 21, 2011 (Sat)
• Time : 9 AM until 6 PM
• Venue: SGV Case Room, Asian Institute of Management, Makati City

Annual Convention of all Wikipedians and Members of Wikimedia Philippines

Come to the event! --Exec8 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RSVP - Click Here

Template:Wikipedia ads

We might be able to use this for future promotions. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up articles on Philippine TV shows from daggers (†).

When a character gets killed off a Philippine TV series (ie Mara Clara), the fans of the TV show, who edit Wikipedia, usually add the symbol '†' next to a character's name. The symbol is also used beside an actor's name if he/she dies. This is an incorrect use of the typographical symbol. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a tombstone. I suggest that we clean up the articles from the dagger. Also, we can discuss the character's death by expanding the information about the TV character.

Mara Clara's plot section is very long and I doubt that there is really a chapter division of the show as the article implies. Another example of dagger addition is when AJ Perez died nearly a month ago. Fans from all over the edges of earth gather together, opened all shows where AJ used to be, and add the dagger to his name and to his characters. In my opinion, dagger can be acceptable if the actor died at the moment when the show is airing, or when he died right before the show is about to air. For example, a dagger can be placed on Marky Cielo's name in the characters section of Lalola because the show is still active when he died. AJ had the dagger symbol on Sabel which suggests that he died during the airing of the show.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The daggers can only be used on infoboxes when they're killed in action in a war. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Precolonial Kingdoms of the Pasig Delta

Alright, here's the deal: I've become quite bothered by multiple concerns on the Kingdom of Tondo, Rajah Lakandula, Rajah Sulayman, and Rajah Matanda pages, but I've no idea where to start. Well, moving Lakandula, Sulayman, and Matanda to the names they're popular known for, and getting rid of that danged unsourced Kingdom of Tondo flag is a beginning. But I'd like to get your thoughts on the three Rajahs first, and, er, someone teach me, I've never fact-tagged an image before. How do I go about that? I think the core problems are with those articles, and once we clean them up, we can also clean up the smaller issues in the other precolonial Philippine history articles. I'm going to create subhead discussions now so that we can talk about issues more neatly. - Alternativity (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Legaspi-Era Rajahs (Soliman, Lakandula, Matanda)

I've got beef with the way the entire lineup of precolonial Lakans, but I have to start with these three, since they're by far the most popular.

My first concern regards Rajah Matanda's real name, which is Ache in most orthodox histories known to me (William Henry Scott, Nick Joaquin, and Luis Camara Dery, to start), but which is Sulaiman II according to the MelayuOnline source cited by the article. But I guess I'll bring that up in the talk page and we can discuss that there. -- Alternativity (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The second concern I have is that these articles ought to be moved to the names for which they are best known. That is:

• "Rajah Soliman" or "Rajah Sulayman" instead of "Rajah Sulaiman III";
• "Rajah Matanda" instead of Rajah Sulaiman II ; and
• (Also, I'm unhappy with the current name Rajah Lakan Dula, but that's just me. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula#Merge_to_Lakandula)

Thoughts? -- Alternativity (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lakans' Genealogies

Expanding on the problems with the Sulayman and Matanda articles, I find the genealogies confusing. (I refer to the genealogies prior to 1571, not after. That's a different story) I'm not sure where we can have a centralized discussion of it. I'm mildly hesitant to create a Pre-colonial rulers of the Pasig River delta because the sources are a bit conflicting, and I'm wondering if this is all going to help create a narrative of precolonial Philippine history biased towards the "Lusong" (Manila bay) kingdoms. I suppose I'll Wikipedia:Be bold and do it eventually anyway, but I'd like to solicit thoughts here. - Alternativity (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tondo flag

Regarding
...
Er, how do I tag a wikimedia image as unsourced? I'm a bit confused where to look for the procedure. Thanks. :D - Alternativity (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Found this: http://www.watawat.net/early_flags_and_symbols_-_2.html

Apparently that rendering is wrong. It was supposedly only a red flag, the white area was the result of a picture with no transparencies. But... I'm leery of that site's reliability and the flag's authenticity. I didn't even know cloth pennants were in fashion in the Philippines before European contact. :/ -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Aba! If THAT's the source for that image, then I certainly question the supposed source! The text does not explain the appearance of the flags at all, citing neither textual description nor graphic representation from any of the accepted 16th century sources, Spanish, Chinese OR Muslim. The site doesn't even claim that these are anything but fictional interpretations of possible flags. - Alternativity (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many templates

Hi. This is about Kingdom_of_Maynila, which is a mess because of too many templates on the page: the page infobox, History of the Philippines Template, and the Pre-Hispanic History of the Philippines Template. I suppose they're a mess because the article is too short. Back from my wikibreak, I intend to add more to the article soon. At the moment, though, I am uncertain how to proceed. Help/advice? -- Alternativity (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to ditch the main history template then add it back up when it's long enough. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. :D Any advice on the issues I brought up above? :D - Alternativity (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditching done. Thanks again! :D - Alternativity (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ateneo project

I have received word about an Ateneo professor using Wikipedia as a platform for students' economics work. If you've received word about this, let's extend them a warm welcome. After all, we can always use more hands! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sangguniang Panlalawigan

Hey, if someone has PLENTY of time, perhaps you can create articles for each Sangguniang Panlalawigan. There are now some articles and there's a format you can use, but if you think of a better format, then you can use that, but you'd have to edit everythng also to make sure it conforms to your new format. (This format was taken from the European constituencies articles where each "district" has multiple seats, such as in this case, but those are via proportional representation and not plurality-at-large voting.) The COMELEC has election results (at least those who sat), for 2004, 2007 and 2010. Now if anyone has lists for older elections it'll be great. If someone is willing to create articles, I suggest to start at Zamboanga Sibugay then we'd meet up somewhere at the middle.

Also, if I go get a hold, or if anyone can find a book of a list of congressmen with their parties, then it's probably the right time to create new articles for each legislative district, instead of grouping them per province as what we're doing now. We can follow two models: those from the U.S. and from the UK -- we can also add 2010 election results as they can still be accessed in the interwebs. Hopefully this can replace the present state of articles that only state the years of service and the name, w/o links to the Congress (1st->15th) and parties (w/c are available for 21st century congressmen, and some 20th century congressmen especially the famous ones. Those are either NP and LP it could be easy if someone finds a source).

The new-look legislative district articles should look like this, plus a locator map and an infobox. Well, it should've started with that edit, but was quickly reverted to the crummy version for WP:OWNership issues. Sad. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The legislative districts format has long been discussed, I wonder when would you lay it to rest. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 23:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I want improvement? Come on, the legislative district articles of other nations are way better. We can do better. What's wrong with the proposed format anyway? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See these articles for comparison:

• Ohio's 8th congressional district: Has an infobox, a separate row for congress(es), term of office, party and notes, and a separate section for election results
• Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (UK Parliament constituency): Has an infobox, a separate row for election year and party, and a separate section for election results
• Calgary Southwest: Has an infobox, separate row for parliament, term of office and party, and has a separate section for election results.
• Legislative districts of Quezon City#4th District: Has no infobox, period and term of office crammed in one row, has no row for party, has no section for election results -- we can live the party row blanked, and at least we'd have election results section for the last one. If 2013 is automated we can have 2 results.

Also, at least someone can try contact COMELEC ESRD if they can send the election results via email or something. Currently they only have the winning candidates; perhaps they still possess post-2004 results. The PCIJ has party designations for the losing candidates for the 2007 election.

Actually, this can be easily done, but someone has clear ownership issues with these articles. I don't even have to ask permission or go through this route to do this. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your intent totally I do, but I believe you can focus more on "writing" rather than filling up these articles with TABLES and MAPS, GRAPHS and OUTLINES. For me it has become much more of a coloring book. This is the sorry state of a lot of Philippine articles, especially those concerning about politics, LGUs just to name a few. I have the resources you wanna have, I was able to obtain them and have them photocopied before the COMELEC building burned down, however I am afraid that it will just litter it here. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 15:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Information is one-half prose and one-half presentation. That's why we have FLs. I have no issue with that -- sometimes information is better presented in tables and graphs than prose -- and also it's quite easier to create too (haha). Also, I'm also one of those who'd like to ditch those local election results articles off the main articles, and place them somewhere else, if they really have to be placed somewhere.

If you do have info you can share with us. Few people realize how their political system works and the history of politics in this country: they really don't teach the little kids the two-party system and why it wasn't really a two-party system, Marcos was a Liberal then went with the Nacionalistas, etc. They might know are the presidents, and that Marcos was the bad guy.

Another completely unrelated rant is that our country has way too many provinces. I was thinking of making a "Politics of Foo" for every province (just like U.S. and Indian states) but there are just too many provinces (hence I was looking for help for these SPs). Same for Governors of Foo, Government of Foo, etc. I considered doing a regional approach but politics is not done via regions, except for ARMM, and the Lakas-Kampi nomination is tantamount to election so I ditched doing that.

Another area to improve on are the elections articles. Interestingly, there are quite a number of books at Google Books that have free and limited views that we can use, mostly during the American occupation and the 3rd Republic; also interestingly, sources are quite hard to get on the Fifth Republic, at least on the net. I'm planning to work on the 1953 election article, with Magsaysay and the CIA wanting him to win. Philippine Assembly elections, 1907 already has some extensive prose.

Politics articles are in a sorry state now, and making cosmetic improvements is a step in the right direction: if you've noticed, those cited articles are just lists themselves and are bare. At least they exist and people can learn something about this.

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation for public institutions

The GA reviewer of University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural Resources was asking about its accreditation (not the CHED Center of Excellence/Development designation or the PRC exam results). Something similar to PAASCU (Levels I–IV). AFAIK, public institutions are not accredited/do not require accreditation. Is this assumption correct? The GA discussion can be found at Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural Resources/GA1. Moray An Par (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to find a source that public colleges aren't accredited. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did find one for UP.

The University of the Philippines is the premier state university of the Republic of the Philippines established by law in 1908. It has its own charter and is not under any regulatory body. It is governed by a Board of Regents, the chair of which is the Chair of the Commission on Higher Education of the Philippines. Among its members are the Chairs of the Committee on Education of the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives. The other members are appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
This particular nature of the University of the Philippines has put it in a position where it does not need accreditation by any local body.

Thanks. Problem solved. Source: http://up.edu.ph/content.php?r=27&c=90 Moray An Par (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would've preferred a source that did not come from UP, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my problem a while ago since most sources will state what institutions they accredit, rarely will one find a source that includes "and also we do not accredit the following." Moray An Par (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

template:Philippine English

{{Philippine English}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Transclusions are problem. Does anyone have an idea where this can be placed to avoid other varieties of English being used in the article? This probably excludes articles that are purely related to Filipinos. Ah wait... Pacquiao's article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipino American image infobox

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Changing of Pictures. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Subject ethnicity dispute

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Leroy A. Mendonca. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Discussion of this topic continues, please see what new has been added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipino ethnicity has been deleted again, please see the appropriate talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page

If you noticed that the featured/good content sections are blank, don't panic. I purposely blanked it so that User:JL-Bot bot can update it. Moray An Par (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk page usage issue in Tagalog Wikipedia

Hi. I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the usage of Jollybsoriano's user talk page for "personal" means. I have been observing this user in Tagalog Wikipedia for months now and all he is doing there is posting pornographic material in his user talk page (see example) and deletes the content using an IP address from the 159.53.78.xxx subnet (The subnet is registered to JP Morgan Chase, an American company). My question is can the user's way of using his talk page be used as basis of blocking him or can it be considered as vandalism? I've been escalated this concern several times to Sky Harbor but according to him, he cannot block or protect the page per WP:UP. This concern has been ongoing since last year and this user should stop using his talk page in that matter. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he may not be blocked under WP:UP but how about WP:COPYVIO. I'm sure he just copy pasted it from some porn literature site. Moray An Par (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. Copyright in this case is ambiguous and I bet people won't even bother enforcing it. However, given another look at WP:UP, I can probably lock the page from further editing, though I am afraid that the problem might just move elsewhere because of it. I'll try an experimental 7-day lock.

I'm not fond of this situation myself, but the policy does not allow me to block people unless they have done something wrong, and you can't be blocked for repeatedly inserting copyrighted material. As much as admins on the Tagalog Wikipedia have leeway to interpret applicable English Wikipedia policy there, I am obligated to observe this leeway responsibly. Remember: as much as userpages belong to the community, they are also part of the personal space of the individual editor. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

But then again if all he does is just post prawn and stuff, without contributing anything significant, it can be tantamount to a block. As far as copyright is concerned, even screenshots of media deemed as illegal, or with an uncertain copyright status (i.e. malware and/or keygens) would be considered as non-free and should be tagged with a fair use disclaimer, as they're not distributed under a libre license. The same goes for pornography - unless if you release pictures and/or stories of loose women and declare it as public domain (which isn't the case in most pornographic material, if it's for free then it's more like gratis than something along the lines of what FOSS advocates). Basically anything that's lifted off the web should be considered as non-free unless if it is explicitly stated that you can appropriate it freely.

Oh, and did the content he posted in the page says that you shouldn't "repost, copy, paste" or appropriate it without the author's permission? Tried searching for some of the phrases contained in that story and it did turn out to be just jacked from someone else's XXX site. If I'm not mistaken such blatant and deliberate copyright violations do qualify for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipino nationalism

Er... someone want to fix the Filipino nationalism article? It's currently got the text of American Idol Season 10. Because I don't know how to fix vandalism that goes back past a few edits. :S - Alternativity (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed. You only need to enable the Twinkle gadget via the Preferences if you want to revert stuff to a certain revision. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin help for move/merge please.

I would like to move Rajah Lakan Dula to Lakandula. (I would prefer not to have to move it to Lakan Dula. Aside from the fact that having the terms Rajah and Lakan in the same title would be redundant, I found a discussion by Nick Joaquin making much of the fact that the rulers of the Kingdom of Tondo used the term "Lakan" instead of "Rajah." As for the preference for Lakandula over Lakan Dula, traditional as well as popular usage agrees with the former. I agree that there is a valid (although IMHO weak argument for creating separate "Lakandula" (the title) and "Banaw Lakandula" (the person) articles, I believe we should move away from retaining the Rajah, since it perpetuates an error, no matter how accepted that error may have become in the popular consciousness. I cannot move the article from the current title to the other, and require admin assistance. Assistance and/or comments are both very welcome. :D - Alternativity (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, An existing merge proposal is at talk:Rajah Lakan Dula. It has one vote in opposition (from the wandering traveller) and one vote strongly in favor (mine), aside from the original proposal being initiated by Kurt Guirnela. - Alternativity (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

B to GA for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)

Started a peer review for an article which I created on 10 MAY, and nominated it for GA status. Any assistance for article improvement, and hopefully future advancement to FA status would be greatly appreciated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipino Americans second or third largest ethnicity of Asian Americans?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#second or third. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Sulu Sultanate

I was away for a few days and will not be able to return very soon. Can somebody please take care of the following pages:

• Sulu Sultanate
• List of sultans of Sulu
• Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram

I know that the issue about the sovereignty, modern history and succession to the Sulu throne is in taboo today and the legitimacy of the claimants is not recognized by the Philippines nor any other entity in the United Nations or non-UN groups alike, or any other legal groups. In short, any claim to the Sulu throne after United States annexed it in early 20th century and incorporated as parts of the Philippines is not officially recognized even by the present-government.

That is why I created a section called "Pretenders" to the list. It is similar to modern-day pretenders of the Prussian or Libyan throne whatsoever, though they are pretenders and not a sultan I still included them to the list. Now, some users (I have no time to investigate) rewritten the article especially that "there is still a succession" and that the current sultan (or head of the sultanate, as its own article implies) is Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram of Sulu. The list article I reverted has the edits that relate Lail Tan Kiram's ancestry to the last sultan before US annexation, therefore calling himself as the real sultan. As you all know, since the last Kirams lost the power to US, there is no legitimate sultan and several branches of the family claim themselves as the succession and they have own list of sultans after the annexation. What appears on the edit I am talking is that it tends to call the family of Lail Tan Kiram as the legitimate ones to the throne. Notwithstanding the fact that Jamalul Kiram III has the "III" numeral and called himself as the sultan when he ran senatorial elections in 2001 or 2004 I think.

Okay, so I think I made my point clear. Somebody is trying to push that the Philippine government recognizes the legitimacy of Lail Tan Kiram as the current sultan, though in reality, the government doesn't recognize anybody. They are just paying respect to the Kirams or any other member of the sultanate household as they are part of the former royalty.

I want to seek some help of you to patrol the pages. Wikipedia is very visible to everybody, sometimes students make a research to the things they cannot find in the internet. One of those is about the sultanate. They might think that the list added by that someone is really the fact. Thanks.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    16:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I moved Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram of Sulu to Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram. AFAIK, Raja Muda is a noble term in Sulu which is semi-equivalent to Sultan today. Also I removed "of Sulu" since he is not a fully recognize as a legitimate claimant. For example, George III of the United Kingdom isn't named as "King George III of the United Kingdom".--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    16:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Pretender article, the articles of those who had not renounced their claims are styled "<Name>, <Title> of <place>." Now if any of the pretenders of the sultanate had not renounced their claims, there should be at least a discussion on what the page title should be. Of course it has to be said that the throne doesn't exist at the present time.

Also, it's a good idea to ask the people of the royalty Wikiproject on how to name the articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After reading some pages, I found out that Raja Muda is the Sulu's term for crown prince or heir to the throne. It looks like the RDAndrew guy keeps on adding the details as if the sultanate has really the sovereignty. I left a small note on his talk page.

I think the Sulu sultanate is a big issue if it became widespread to the internet. Resources online about the entity is scarce, so it is expected that people would look over what's in Wikipedia. And I am afraid of adding these things that are unreferenced (and are all relying on the [www.royalsultanateofsulu.org] website) will become the "fact" that will be accepted by the readers. It is clear that the succession after the last sovereign sultan really ended and who's who to the line is a debate on the royal family, but creating such articles saying that this man and that man is the real sultan is very very bad. Especially that this is an encyclopedia.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this event to WT:ROYALTY. Moray An Par (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also appreciate if you guys keep an eye to the Sulu Sultanate article especially the flags and coat of arms on the infobox. Though there was an existing coat of arms for the country during its existence, there is no file of it here in Wikipedia. I keep on adding the purple flag because it was the official flag of the sultanate during its existence from 1457-1917, but RDAndrew keeps on reverting it and adding the personal flag and personal coat of arms of the pretender.

Also, I guess it is better to call Royal House of Sulu as House of Kiram since the former naming encompasses all of the dynasties of Sulu, while the article itself just focuses on the Kiram branch.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    11:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He's quite stubborn isn't he. I've invited him to discuss it a few times but he is still reverting our edits at those pages. Can other tambays help us resolve this? Moray An Par (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear fellow WP editors, I agree that Royal Sultanate of Sulu does not have any sovereign rights over the historical territory of Sulu neither to Sabah (previously known as North Borneo), BUT by the law of succession the office of the Sultan of Sulu did exist even after 1915 Carpenter Agreement and also after Philippine government stopped recognise Sultan of Sulu office in mid 1930's. In 1962 Sultan Esmail E. Kiram of Sulu was recognised by Philippine government and also in 1974 when President of Philippines Ferdinand Marcos issued Memo Order 427 via what he officially recognised historical territory of Sulu Sultanate and office of the Sultan. Under Memo Order 427 Datu Mahakuttah A. Kiram (Sultan Esmail E. Kiram's eldest son was crowned as Sultan of Sulu), this is fact as if you visit www.royalsultanateofsulu.org you can find certified copy of this Memo Order. At the same time the Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram sent structure letter to President of Philippines, where he appointed his eldest son Datu Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram as Raja Muda (Crown Prince), therefore he is eligible to use the title Raja Muda!!!! Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram's aim is not to gain recognition from the current President of Philippines as this is not the priority! Also Malaysian governemtn does still pay cession money to the heirs of the 9 heirs who were granted right to receive cession money under North Borneo Session Court judgement in 1939. Also regarding the flag you guys try to promote, it was in use in 15 and 16th century not in 20th century, and If Raja Muda is recognised by the Pesident of Philippines as Raja Muda of Sulu, therefore he as got right to adapt any kind of flag or coat of arms!!! Please before you start editing something discuss it first! as I can provide enough legal evidence to prove what I am doing, thank you for your attention, any questions please do not hesitate to ask. International Commission on Nobility has accepted Raja Muda as the legitimate heir to the throne of Sulu so have many other prestigious organisations — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDAndrew (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I refactored your comment. Please do not comment in bold, do not forget to sign (as I've said many times before), and do not insert your comments in between other people's comments. Moray An Par (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please when visiting Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram of Sulu WP page, read carefully the certified documents! It states as follows: "This document is certified true Xerox copy from the office of Malacanang Palace Manila and Department of Foreign Affairs". Also it states clearly that this document is owned by HRH Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram (that shows clearly that Philippine Foreign Ministry recognises his title) That is fact and legal document! RDAndrew (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Searching for Photographs: Filipino seamen

You might be able to help. Images are needed for the article Filipino seamen. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Purple yam

I've requested the article Purple yam be moved over redir to Dioscorea alata. Please weigh in at the talk page. I am leaving this message at all the relevant project's talk pages. Hamamelis (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been moved, as above, with 5 votes in support; 0 votes opposed. Thanks everyone for your participation. I am leaving this message at all the relevant project's talk pages. Hamamelis (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

divorce laws in Philippines

On 29th May 2011, the people of Malta voted to start introducing divorce laws. This now leaves the Philippines as the only country in the world where divorce remains illegal. Because of this unique position, it is suggested to list this factual information under the section "Culture and Society" of the English page for Philippines.

86.164.247.128 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Divorce is also illegal in the Vatican, which is also a sovereign state. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they'll ever allow divorce in the Vatican so they're excluded. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Miriam thinks otherwise, based on what I saw on State of the Nation yesterday. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TV networks on Filmography tables

Is there a way we can educate the editors from excluding the TV networks on the filmography table? Is there a way we can prevent them from adding these networks to the table? There is currently a network war in the Philippines and Wikipedia is not a part of them. I really hate seeing the names of TV stations in the actors filmography. I tried, a lot of times, to clean them up and make them according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakersproject style recommendations. There is only one of me and there is a large number of zealous fanatics. Carl Francis (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be a discussion somewhere (ideally not here) so that something will come out and be used to clean up the filmography sections. Perhaps WP:FILM and WP:TV? But first, everyone should be invited (such as adding notices at the talk pages, a bot can do this) so that no one would say no one told them. Also, it might be a good idea to standardize these filmography tables, or at least the table headers (think of it as roster tables we all see on sports team articles) so that it'll be quite hard to revert to the old style version w/ the TV networks and film studios.

Speaking of bots, once a discussion is done and it's agreed upon to remove the TV networks/film studios from the filmography sections, I guess it'll be a good idea to seek the help of bots as they'll be too many to edit by hand. I suppose there's a pattern to the coding (the TV networks/film studios are always the right-most column) so I guess it is doable. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Major academic institutions

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Clarification of criterion #6 for relevant discussion.

I asked for a clarification of criterion 6.

The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

I too realize that the guideline cannot define what is a "major academic institution" even if "major" can be very subjective. The term "major" simply has too many meanings in different contexts. What maybe considered a major university here may not be considered as such in the United States (where I would expect higher standards).

Another editor here said that a major institution is one with more than 1,000 population. I am afraid that its implications could lead to hundreds of stub articles on past presidents of obscure universities and colleges in the Philippines (AMA, STI, FEATI etc). No offense to those studying there.

So I propose the following addition to WP:MOSPHIL,

As for university administrators, only those who held top-level positions of the following institutions are notable.

1. Ateneo de Manila University
2. De La Salle University
3. University of Santo Tomas
4. University of the Philippines System

Top-level administrators of other institutions with comparable historical significance, academic prestige and significant coverage may have their own articles on a case-to-case basis.

Other non-top-level administrators, may have their own articles as well but must pass other notability guidelines, such as WP:PROF, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:Notability (people).

Moray An Par (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to use discretion and WP:GNG on this one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,862 (as of 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). Thank you for all of the work you've done to date, but we are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

• WP:URBLP has set up a large number of topic based lists, which are updated each day by a WP:BOT. Your project's list is located at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Unreferenced BLPs and currently contains 66 articles.
• WP:URBLPR is focusing on clearing out the backlog based on the month in which each article was tagged as being unreferenced. The current task is Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2009, and it is the last month remaining from 2009.
• You can also reference a random article or make your own lists using one of the catscan tools, such as this search for Filipino actors.

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pillbox

What is the AU/US/GB English for this? I'm currently writing the 2010 De La Salle University explosion, and I want to note that initial reports considered "pillboxes" as the possible explosive device used. Searching Google "pillbox" well turns out pills in boxes, and bunkers. Searching with "pillbox explosive" returns all-Philippine sources so I'm assuming that this term is Philippine English. Moray An Par (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It happened outside DLSU. Better article name would've been 2010 Philippine Bar exam explosion, or even 2010... bombing. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am aware that it happened outside. I did consider "2010 Taft Avenue explosion". But Taft spans like about 4 or 5 km so I thought it was too ambiguous. I would prefer a name after a physical location though vs an idea or event like the bar exams. Moray An Par (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not WP:NC -- most of the news reports refer to this as the "bar exams blast". It's a fair bet people heard of the "Bar exams explosion" instead of the "DLSU explosion". The title is misleading; the explosion was due to the bar exams. The fact that it happened outside DLSU is incidental. A similar situation is the Pacers-Pistons brawl: it's not at "2004 Palace of Auburn Hills brawl" because the brawl happened between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers, not because the brawl happened at the Palace of Auburn Hills, which was incidental.

Of course the naming situation would be different if there would've been an agreed upon name/a name that has stuck for the event. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Seeing how most of the references say Bar exam bombing/blast, I'd go for 2010 Philippine Bar exam bombing. Moray An Par (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can anyone GA review now? I would like to expedite the process of GAN → PR → FAC with the help of Filipino Wikipedians. This is so we can make it ready for the main page by its anniversary on September 26. Moray An Par (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would be better if someone outside the project -- one who has no knowledge on the event -- does the review. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Philippine–American War article

I've been working on this article recently, and have concluded that it needs a ground-up rewrite. I've started a rewrite in my userspace. Please see Talk:Timeline of Philippine–American War#Some edits to conform this articles to other articles for more info. Interested editors are invited to discuss this there and/or participate in work on the rewrite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippine, Filipino and Filipina

When do I use Filipino, Filipina or Philippine. I believe 'Filipina' only applies in the Philippine English not in the American English or the English English. What's the language of the English Wikipedia? Shouldn't there be an agreement regarding the use of these words. Carl Francis (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the language of Wikipedia, please see MOS:ENGVAR. Generally if a topic is primarily regarding a subject that has origins in or is mainly in a specific region, the english dialect used within that area is used. For instance an article about the USS Enterprise will most likely use American English, but an article about the HMS Enterprise will use British English.

As for the usage of the words Filipino, Filipina, or Philippine; I am no language expert, so I maybe wrong.

As with Spanish, Filipino is masculine, and plural (gender mixed or male only); Filipina is feminine, and plural (female only); Philippine is used to refer to anything that originates from the Philippines, also known as the Philippine Islands. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to ditch "Filipina" and use Filipino when referring to female people. See for example:

• Angel Locsin (born Angelica Colmenares; April 23, 1985) is a Filipina television and film actress...
• Maria Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (born April 5, 1947) is a Filipino politician...

WP:MOSPHIL should be a good start on where to add this. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen some usage of Filipina as the standard mixed gender grouping, and this maybe the reason for the naming of the magazine. However, I cannot be sure if this is the standard. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Filipinas" in Filipinas magazine doesn't refer to Filipinas (Filipino females), but to the Spanish spelling of the country. See Filipinas in the Spanish Wikipedia. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, I did not know that. I come to Wikipedia to learn, and here is an example. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Per discussions at WP:MOSPHIL before, I strongly oppose the use of Filipino for the female gender for the sake of convenience. It's simply wrong. To illustrate (and even though English mostly use gender-neutral adjectives), using Filipino when referring to women is like using 'Master' when you meant 'Mistress'.

It is English as well (it would be Pilipina in the Filipino language) and per WP:ENGVAR its preferred usage is justified. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:VNE is the rule in this case. It's like saying Filipino women aren't Filipinos because they're Filipinas. "Filipino" is gender neutral -- see for example the ongoing change of using "actor" to identify those who act in any sex. We'd only need to use "Filipina" is it needs to be distinguished between a male and a female. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

But isn't that the case with every BLP? I also don't like the word Actor when used in place of Actress, sorry, LOL. I dunno, imo, it's a case of political correctness taken a bit too far. Using the male form of the word does nothing to combat sexism, it doesn't even make the word gender neutral. It eliminates the difference between the words but it also makes the word male.

That sensitivity is peculiar to American English, imo. It doesn't exist in languages in which word forms are usually clearly divided into masculine, feminine, and neutral forms, so I don't see why we should adopt it. It's not a case of commonality, it's a case of ignorance of the feminine form of the word in English dialects which routinely misspell Filipino as Philippino. Using it more so that it gains a bit more recognition as the correct form of the word is much more preferable, imo, than conceding to American English usage simply because easier for them to remember. And there is one other word which preserves the Spanish gender in English - the demonym Latino/Latina.

Filipinos = Filipinas, except for the unfortunate masculine plural (which is not the question here), why would a Filipina not be a Filipino simply because the suffix is different? Both denote nationality/ethnicity, neither is superior or inferior to the other, they simply identify the gender of the subject clearly. (And no, I'm definitely not sexist, heh)-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When referring to ethnicity (as a noun), use Filipino. For example, "Angel Locsin is a Filipino actress." When you use it as a modifier, I can probably accept use "Filipina" to refer to Filipino women. For example, "Angel Locsin is a Filipino actress. The Filipina was discovered eating spaghetti at a food joint." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... isn't "Filipino" in "Filipino actress" an adjective? Heh. While I do agree that using Filipino as a modifier (I think that's what you meant) sounds acceptable, it's probably because you used actress on the modified word. You identified the gender on another word instead. Meanwhile it's very misleading for Filipinos who definitely use the suffixes as gender identifiers and encourages other English speakers to trivialize the difference between the two.

Per your earlier argument, if you open the BLP with "Angel Locsin is a Filipino actor", what then? As a Filipino, I'd definitely do a double-take. Since when did she become male? Because really, how often do you hear Filipinos use Filipino when referring to women in English? It takes away something educational in the article, obscures it even, and for what? It's not even for the sake of gender neutrality, but for the convenience of other English-speakers.

Other articles do readily use feminine forms when appropriate, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for Filipino/Filipina. I simply can't understand why Filipina is that controversial. Is it because no other national demonym shares this characteristic? What would you do if other English languages start insisting on calling us (the people) Philippines? Concede as well to 'commonality'? Philippine is definitely gender-neutral but I'm sure you'd agree it's oh-so-wrong. When Filipino (and Latino) is used to refer to women, it's invariably by people who don't belong to those ethnicities.

The problem is not that we have male and female genders for the word, it's that we don't have a truly gender neutral form. "Canadien" and "Canadienne", examples from another bilingual country, sometimes find their way into English, but they have the advantage of having "Canadian" as a truly gender neutral form of the word. We don't. Using the male form as a substitute is not fixing anything, it's just adding to the confusion. And sheesh, it's just one letter. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Although "Angel Locsin is a Filipino actor" may not sound right (actually for me it sounds OK), "Angel Locsin is a Filipino actress" doesn't. Angel Locsin is a part of the Filipino people. Curiously, if the subject is into serious occupations or is older. See Pia Cayetano for example, although this is not that used elsewhere.

In English, even in Philippine English, "Filipino" is used to refer to the ethnicity. Let's bring to example the "Ako ay Pilipino" song we used to sing in grade school. The girls wouldn't sing "Ako ay Pilipina" because it's wrong. In WP:VNE, we don't refer to Canadiens unless it's the hockey team. Filipino is as gender neutral as "American" or "Canadian". It's like French:Frenchman:Frenchwoman = Filipino:Filipino:Filipina. I fail to see the issue on this one letter. Angel Locsin is a Filipino. If we'd have an article on Filipino women would it be on the oddly titled "Filipina women"? Are Filipinas not Filipinos? If they are, why call them Filipinas when you can call them Filipinos? (BTW, my spell checker keeps on telling me that "Filipina" is wrong spelling lol) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well... 'Ako ay Pilipina' would mess up the rhyme pretty badly LOL. And it's in plural, so the use of the masculine term is understandable. That aside, yes I concede that 'Filipino actress' is not that bad. Natural gender doesn't always need to coincide with grammatical gender. The problem is 'Filipina actress' isn't wrong either. It's simply more specific. I don't see why we should ditch the latter for the former. And why would a difference in gender mean they aren't the same? The same dichotomy exists happily in other languages with equal validity in terms of ethnicity. Grammatical gender is actually even innate in certain words. English is the minority in this regard (it actually lost it in the course of its evolution, Old English had very clear grammatical gender much like modern German). You say "Las Mujeres Mexicanas", never "Los Mujeres Mexicanos", and Mexicana is as Mexican as Mexicano isn't it?

And psh on the spell checker lol. It just tells you how rarely the word is used in American English (probably a reflection of how reluctant Filipinos are to assert the correct form of the word). Dictionaries do correctly specify the feminine form of Filipino as Filipina.

Anyway, meh. I'd prefer to use Filipina even as a modifier and will continue to do so, but as long as people don't say "The Filipino had flowers in her hair" or "The Filipino said she was eating spaghetti.", I guess I can live with that. I still think 'Filipino actor' is that bad though (Julia Roberts is still an 'American actress' after all).-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ako ay Pilipino" means "I am a Filipino", so it's a statement of fact, hence the word "Filipino" refers to the person saying it, so it's singular.

As for the spell-checker, again, check out WP:VNE. Not to the point of banishing Philippine English from the English Wikipedia, but when there's opportunity to use words that can be understood by everybody, then let's use it. "Filipina actress" is more specific, but if it introduces confusion (see the next point below), I'd prefer a word that doesn't confuse other people and is just as specific -- "Filipina actress" is redundant anyway as you've understood that the person is female when you see "actress," which is probably a good reason to use gender-specific words for occupations, as ethnic names are never gender-specific (unisex names are so predominant now even male-/female-specific names are being used on the opposite sex). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Which brings back the reason why Carl Francis was here. I'd prefer Filipino (in the ethnic sense of the word) to refer to both Filipinos (in the male sense of the word) and Filipinas. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay it's not plural, but it's a song! >.< Just because a girls and guys sing "I'm a Material Girl" doesn't mean Material Girl applies to both genders, hehe. How often does your mom or sister(s) say 'Ako ay Pilipino.'/'I'm Filipino.' colloquially? Never, right? Mine definitely say 'Ako ay Pilipina' (or 'Pilipina ko' in Bisaya/'I'm Filipina' in English when asked their ethnicities).

And are you seriously putting more weight on spell checkers (Firefox?) over dictionaries? A few years back Filipino was red as well (it's still red in my copy of Microsoft Word), should we have used Philippino then? And ethnic names are gender specific sheesh, how much more gender specific can you get than Englishman? It's just rarer in English, doesn't mean it's forbidden. Why oh why do we have to abandon our own conventions in our English just so we can bow down to the norms of other dialects when Wikipedia makes it perfectly clear that global bias should be avoided if possible. Filipina isn't even that difficult to understand, most native English speakers I know get the difference after encountering it just once, the problem is when Filipinos themselves muddle up the two by attempting to make it gender-neutral (paradoxically by using the masculine form at all times). WP:VNE is the exception, read the wording on that carefully. "Opportunity for commonality" does not mean articles about the UK, her [former] colonies, and citizens should spell it "maneuver" just because most other English speakers can't spell "manoeuvre". When the dialect overwhelmingly uses a certain convention over rarer usage by a larger dialect, why the heck does the larger dialect get the right of way? :P It's not them who use it in everyday speech, it's us.

I'll still use Filipina for ethnicity when referring to an individual female subject. Anyway, sleepy LOL, gnyt. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. It is a song, and that's how it's supposed to be. For example, you asked a random girl at the street: "Anong "nationality" mo?" Girl: "Filipino". I honestly do not expect a girl saying she's "Filipina". Seriously. What's on your mother's passport? Isn't it Filipino? It's because Filipino is the term used to denote ethnicity. Filipina is like "Frenchwoman". Same thing here. "Englishman" is NOT a term used to denote ethnicity. "English" is the term to denote ethnicity. Hence, "David Beckham is an English footballer" and not "David Beckham is an Englishman footballer." Say, Angel Locsin is French, we don't say "Angel Locsin is a Frenchwoman actress".
2. Filipinos don't muddle up to the two because it is not supposed to be muddled up. It's those who insist to use "Filipina" as a term for ethnicity when it's a word to denote gender is muddying up things. Filipina is a term to denote a female Filipino, just as "Filipino" is a term for a male Filipino.

It's our English, but it's not "our" encyclopedia. "Filipino actress" is fine and is not confusing. Filipinos, Indonesians, Canediennes won't get confused by that. The exception you state in WP:VNE doesn't apply since it's not about spelling which you won't really need to go to a WP:RWNB and ask "what does a manoevre mean?" "Filipino" and "Filipina" are as different words in English as "centre" and "middle"; it's not the same as "meter" and "metre".

As for "Philippino", thankfully, us Filipinos (including females) have stuck up with the correct spelling and its close to impossible that "Philippino" will be the standard usage everywhere.

As for "Filipino <female-specific job title> being rare, I'd argue that it's not as rare as you think. Apart from girls singing "Ako ay Pilipino", females on the street saying they're Filipinos, and the PGMA article, others include the category name "Category:Filipino women in politics". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, very good points LOL. Ethnicity (as an official thingie) does make more sense if the grammatically gender-neutral word (though superficially masculine in form) is used.

I concede, I'll use Filipino when referring to ethnicity. The comparison to the usage of English (or French) with Filipino and Englishman & Englishwoman (or Frenchman and Frenchwoman) with Filipino & Filipina is actually a pretty neat way of determining the correct usage. You would use Filipino when English or French can be comfortably substituted (e.g. "The French/English/Filipino doctor"), and specify either Filipina or Filipino when you can't (e.g. "The Filipina is wearing a red dress." and not "The Filipino is wearing a red dress", since you can't exactly say "The English/French is wearing a red dress." transvestites excluded, LOL). I think our MOS needs to be updated again. XD -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a related topic of usage of the term Pilipino, in place of Filipino by some Asian American studies programs, and within Academic institutions? Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify my question, how should our WikiProject, if it is establishing a Manual of Style (MoS) for articles that fall under this WikiProject's scope, use the term Pilipino?

The long discussion above could be said to have created a consensus of present active editors (as consensus can change) on how best to use the words Filipino and Filipina. Therefore, it would be advantageous if there was a discussion of the usage of how the word Pilipino should be used. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say never really. It's unnecessary given that there is an exact English equivalent. It would be like saying Français instead of French.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree in not using Pilipino at all. I agree in HTD's points on Filipina. Moray An Par (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama not allowed in Philippines?

According to a certain user on commons the Freedom of Panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in the Philippines. He is now nominating pictures of buildings for deletion, see for example this nomination. Is there someone here who knows whether this statement is true? Is so, a lot of photos might be deleted later on! Magalhães (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Officially, there's nothing in the law which neither allows nor prohibits Panoramafreiheit. Wikimedia Philippines, in its efforts to amend Philippine copyright law, wants to insert FoP provisions in the law to prevent this from happening alongside abolishing Section 176. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Buildings need to be 25 years old first before they can be free. Moray An Par (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you input! Let's hope Wikimedia Philippines will be succesful in amending the copyright law. Magalhães (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been raised at commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. Moray An Par (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in content between Filipino American & Indian American articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#June 2011. This is the second event regarding similar content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

This conversation continues to grow, comments from editors from this WikiProject would be welcomed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Postage stamps

Are these public domain in the Philippines? Moray An Par (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

perhaps after the copyright expired. (~50 years after artist's death) but I guess we could do fair use if necessary --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Philippine copyright law article says, "... aside from government documents, no work of the Philippine government, as well as the works of government-owned and/or controlled corporations, can be copyrighted (images, documents, and the like). ...", saying that this is based on section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see... but I guess that we could safely put 19th century or earlier stamps here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read the law further, it says that prior permission from the government agency concerned is needed to exploit the work for profit. That (controversial, in this community's experience) provision effectively renders Philippine government works non-free under the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and as such Philippine government works can only be used on Wikimedia projects under a claim of fair use. We're working on changing the law to remove that provision as well. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a quite convuluted IP code :/.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)