Talk:2016 Philippine presidential election

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

File:Ferdinand R Marcos Jr.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ferdinand R Marcos Jr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

There is no consensus in the RfC. The low participation from uninvolved editors could be due to the unclear scope of the RfC.

If there is still disagreement about which opinion polls should be included in this main article, a new, better-formulated RfC should be created.

I recommend that a new RfC specify which polls are disputed. A sample new RfC:

There is disagreement about which opinion polls should be included in this main article. The three disputed polls are:

  1. Poll 1
  2. Poll 2
  3. Poll 3

Please note below whether you want to include/exclude each of the polls and why.

A reformulated RfC like this likely would achieve more discussion and a better consensus.

An RfC participant also noted that it might be better to focus on polling in Opinion polling in the Philippine presidential election, 2016 and have only a summary in this article. Although this suggestion received little discussion in the RfC, I believe it is worth considering.

Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a content dispute in the Polling and Presidential tickets section of the article. Please help. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) -–Angelo6397 T A L K! 03:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more specific on the issue here, so that we can comment on? STSC (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dispute about which opinion polls should be included in the article. All of them are from reliable sources. Cherry picking. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cherry pick, I just removed one unsourced poll. I suppose to add one but the poll is nowhere to be found. But you kept on adding it back. The other one is not a presidential preference survey and just made to see what will be the results if Duterte was disqualified and it's just a part of the major survey togetherly released and conducted on the same day who saw Duterte leading. The dispute here started because Shhhhwwww!! insistently made vice presidential aspirant Antonio Trillanes (who supports Poe and has no runningmate) the second running-mate of presidential aspirant Grace Poe even that Poe declared and proclaimed only one runningmate that is Francis Escudero. Considering that no one in the election history considered having two official runningmates. User:Shhhhwwww!! also insistently made Grace Poe and Chiz Escudero (who denies that they will) run under the National People's Coalition that haven't declared and proclaimed it yet.Shhhhwwww!! also made Trillanes run under the Magdalo (political party) that is unacreditted and unofficial party. Trillanes put in his COC and declared he will run as an Independent.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

-–Angelo6397 T A L K!

Points one-by-one:
  • Comment - Regarding the opinion polls, I think we should just concentrate on the main article: Opinion polling in the Philippine presidential election, 2016. There's no need to be too detailed about the polls in this article, maybe just a summary of the most recent polls is sufficient. Also, Poe has been disqualified, I think the readers like myself would want to know the current polls without her in it. STSC (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with that just so Poe is still a candidate because the official list isn't final until December 15, 2015. She could also still appeal to the Supreme Court so it is still a long story. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reliable source in the RMN poll and that's why I removed it. If a reliable source about it exist, please add one.
  • If Grace Poe running under NPC is just a political gimmick/jargon or whatever it is as what you've said in the summary of one of your edits, it's not applicable to Wikipedia because it's just WP:Original research. No reliable published source states Grace Poe will run under NPC even if they're supposed to support them. The NPC denies that they are supporting/endorsing them and hasn't released a statement yet about who will they endorse
  • The Aquino–Binay Campaign, 2010 is done without their consent and was just launched a couple of days before the elections. It's not an official presidential ticket to be included in the section just like Poe-Trillanes. According to a COMELEC Resolution here, a presidentiable must file only one running mate in his certificate of candidacy. I know that Trillanes supports Poe but unofficial content shouldn't be in Wikipedia as Poe already proclaimed one running mate only.
  • Magdalo is accredited by the COMELEC but as a party-list not as a national political party. Whatever it is, Antonio Trillanes filed his COC as an Independent and not under Magdalo. Trillanes also declared that he will run as Independent. And that's as clear as the sky. –Angelo6397 T A L K! 12:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPC's decision to *not* support Grace Poe is weird but as long as they keep on pretending, this article can play along.
  • Whatever the Comelec says about runningmates is the final word.
  • Trillanes' COC has the final say, along with the other candidates'.
  • Finally, only opinion polls with raw data (ex. PDF file release by the survey company, a detailed news report) should be used in the article. There are reports questioning the most recent survey so unless SWS releases it in their website, it is no good. Surveys done in a specific local area (i.e. Manila or Surigao should be excluded since they do not represent the national sentiment. Also, those two don't have the raw data published so they are no good anyway. The only reliable so far is the one released by DZRH. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhhwwww!!, please refrain from putting Trillanes with Magdalo and Marcos on KBL. Marcos is a member of and will run under the Nacionalista Party not under Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. Repeating, Antonio Trillanes filed his COC as an Independent and not under Magdalo. Trillanes also declared that he will run as Independent. –Angelo6397 T A L K! 09:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this is where the discussion on the edits about the patently false party designations is being held. Aside from Marcos not running under KBL and Trillanes is running under Magdalo, (which is as false as the Earth is flat), Cayetano is also not running under the Nacionalistas. All three Nacionalistas are running as independents.

As for Grace Poe and Francis Escudero's "coalition", it's fictional. It doesn't exist. COMELEC doesn't know it exists. Even the media isn't buying it. I'd probably mention it somewhere on this article (or the Senate election article), I'm even willing to put it under the "Alliance" parameter in the election infobox, but please, let's follow the COMELEC on which parties the people are running for. –HTD 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

Duterte section: In case someone disagrees with me[edit]

For some reason, the Duterte section is about more than 3 three times longer than other presidential campaign sections. I've trimmed it so it as per the WP:SUMMARY style. For example, we don't need to know who showed up in the rally, who the singers in his commercial were, or the name of his spokesman. There were even factual inaccuracies, such as that Duterte's representative filed his candidacy for mayor of Davao City in Manila; checking out the reference that was used, he filed it at Davao City. Local officials file at the lccal COMELEC office, even those from Metro Manila. For example, Erap filed his COC at the Manila COMELEC in Arroceros, not at the main office at Intramuros. --Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit also removed the individual portraits of the candidates from alongside the relevant candidate sub-section and put them in a big wodge (sorry, gallery) which, in my opinion, resulted in a less readable article. I've corrected that, Howard, using alternating left and right image alignment to avoid images stacking on the right side. I've also used the opportunity to remove fixed image sizes specified in pixels - as recommended at WP:IMGSIZE.
It's not necessarily a fault if some candidate sections are much longer than others - some candidates and their campaigns inherently have greater volumes of notable material to write about them, but I do agree that some of the material you removed was cruff. BushelCandle (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Later: upon checking my edits, I find that I inadvertently removed some "notes" you had made and a template. Sorry for my sloppiness and I hope I've corrected my mistakes now... BushelCandle (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duterte's section was too detailed; it even had comments on people who attended the political rally that he didn't go to; other candidates don't have that. If you noticed, I kept the parts that explained how his candidacy came to be, especially on how he became a presidential candidate and the hoops his party have to go through (such as having a placeholder candidate). Things such as "X said Duterte should be president", "X said Duterte ain't running" and "X, Y and Z attended this political rally" were the ones that got culled. –HTD 07:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice; that's why I already stated, that much of the Duterte prose you removed was not necessary. My general comment was for future editors that might be tempted to try and ensure "equal billing" by trying to ensure equal wodges of prose... BushelCandle (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally not on "equal billing"; I've never advocated "equal billing". People may want to do that to the Grace Poe section as well, and that would be immaterial by June 30 later this year. It's more on the summary style; people may add those back to the 2016 Duterte campaign article where it should stay. In this "mother article", and if there are daughter articles, we should adhere to the summary style. –HTD 11:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Galleries -- not the best reasoning, but other pages use it. As it looks like right now, there are some parts of the article where the left and right margins are stacked with pictures -- this should not happen. Also, some pictures are of such low resolution, if they're resized in the "recommended" size, they look blown up, and that also should not happen. I like the gallery option as we have pictures of all candidates listed here and if people want a bigger version, they could just click on the thumbnail.

Reminder on acronyms and Filipinisims such as "presidentiables"[edit]

While this article is about an election in the Philippines, we should write it as if someone outside the Philippines could understand it. Please avoid acronyms such as "COC" and "COMELEC", and instead used "certificate of candicacy/canvass" and "commission" instead. Instead of "presidentiables", use "candidates" or "aspirants". I guess "surveys" would be OK, as that could be easily inferred. If you can't avoid using Tagalog or Spanish words (such as in names or in direct quotes), translate it the first time you use it, or quote indirectly. –HTD 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should make an effort to find opportunities for commonality and try for maximum intelligibility to all users of English of whatever flavor. However, this is a specialist article and after the first defining mention of the COMELEC acronym, I don't think we should not use it. Just my own personal opinion. BushelCandle (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't make distinctions on "specialized" articles and those which are not. If you try reading an article that you have no idea about and all you encounter is jargon, it would be very hard to understand. This article is for both non-Filipinos and Filipinos, and no one outside the Philippines knows what the "COMELEC" is. "Commission" could be understood by all. I'd suggest keeping "COMELEC" on direct quotes, though. –HTD 07:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "Philippine English" tag above for anyone comfused with the terms. British and American articles use specified words without caring about who their audience is, see season and series, so why would this be any more different? Acronyms are fine so long as they are explained earlier in the article or are wikilink, like Comelec, for example. Words, suh as "presidentiables" or "surveys" may be used occassionally to point out that this is a Philippine article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for someone to use the "Philippine English" argument. "Commission", "polls" and "candidates" are perfectly fine Philippine English words that people use everyday. We should use them. This is an encyclopedia, before anyone else forgets. –HTD 01:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly abhor "presidentiable". That term is only to be used when a person isn't a "candidate" yet. A candidate, a defined by the COMELEC, is defined to have passed his candidacy, so once the person has his certificate, he ceases to be a "presidentiable", and becomes a "presidential candidate".
A particularly loled at the sentence "Under the Constitution of the Philippines, the Presidentiables and Vice Presidentiables are elected separately." This is hilariously wrong. The President and Vice President is elected, not the candidates. You vote for people, they get elected. –HTD 01:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really get what the issue is. This is like making a mountain out of a molehill. Whatever the term is most of them are still understandable to most English speakers and they don't deviate much from international English. Besides, this article can have a pass since it is mostly about the Philippines so a Philippine character is natural. Using Comelec should be fine since it is a contraction, abbreviation, and a proper noun. This may be an encyclopaedia but writing it need not be to restrictive. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the difference between what is acceptable and what is ideal. Just because a word or phrase is acceptable doesn't make it ideal. The ideal that we should strive for is to make the article as understandable to as broad an audience as possible including both native and non-native speakers of all versions of English. "Presidentiable" might be understandable to an English speaker from the Philippines and even by a native American English speaker who might be able to parse "president" from the "able" suffix. But would it be to a non-native speaker from China or Japan, say? Unlikely. We should therefore avoid as much as possible using Philippine-specific jargon, just an Australians should avoid using Australian jargon (e.g. "barbie" for barbecue). If there are alternatives, we should use the alternatives, as User:Howard the Duck suggests. It is rarely necessary to use "presidentiables" or "COMELEC" or any acronym or Philippine-specific jargon or term of art as there are acceptable alternatives that would be more widely understood by native and non-native speakers. We can of course discuss specifics, such as presidentiables versus candidates, or COMELEC versus commission but when in doubt use the broader word. (There is not always the same alternatives when it comes to English and American English. There one must choose either color or colour, elevator or lift, sweater or jumper, 1/15 of 15/1, etc. Even then however one should strive to avoid idioms and jargon that are only understood in some regions.)--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comelec is a proper noun like Unesco or Caricom so why the debate? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"COMELEC" is not a proper noun. It is an acronym for "Commission on Elections". It is therefore a form of jargon that will not be understood be people outside the in group, which is in this case the Philippines, a very large group but still a group, a subset of English-language readers.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between COMELEC and CARICOM (which is rightfully found at "Caribbean Community"), as opposed to UNESCO is that no one else aside from people who know what the first two are, while someone has somewhat of an understanding on what UNESCO is. We could probably use "COMELEC" with impunity in an article about the COMELEC, but as this is not about the COMELEC per se, we are bound to a similar term that could be understood by everyone, even by those who know what "COMELEC is". –HTD 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate removal without explanatory edit summary[edit]

Does anyone know why this edit removed Camilo Sabio as a presidential candidate, please?

The text removed was

Camilo Sabio is the former chairman of the Presidential Commission for Good Government (PCGG) who served during the time of former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, announced his bid to run for president in February 2015. He said that fighting poverty is one of his main priorities if he wins. He filed his certificate of candidacy on October 12, 2015.[1]

BushelCandle (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this person isn't on the shortlist that was released just today. –HTD 11:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation, Howard.
Please would ALL editors use the edit summary to give a reason when they remove a candidate (or material about a candidate) since it is otherwise difficult to distinguish between bona fide improvements and partisan sabotage! I will revert edits that don't comply with this reasonable request... BushelCandle (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ex-PCGG chief to run for president in 2016". Business World. 2015-02-06. Retrieved 2015-10-12.

Problem: there is no Independent Party[edit]

In many places there are parties called "Independent", see Independent Party, but not in the Philippines, though there are and have been parties with "independent" in their name. It is therefore confusing to have candidates listed as "Party: Independent". Yes, they are an independent candidates but their party is not "independent". Rather they have no party. Their party is "none", not "independent". To avoid confusing, we should list their party as "none", or something similar. I made this chance but User:Shhhhwwww!! reverted it with the comment "naming conventions" but they are named "independent candidates" and not "independent party". If you ask the question "What is their party?", the answer is not "independent" but either "they are independent candidates" or "none". We should use the same standard for Template:Philippine political parties and similar articles and templates. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" has long been the designation for politicians with "no party". Even the Comelec does this in its official documents. Again, making a mountain out of a molehill arguments. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you input "Independent politician" on any election template, it goes to "Independent politician", and not via the various parties called "Independent Party". This shouldn't be an issue, unlike a British guy scratching his head on what "Comelec" is, while laughing at the very bad "presidentiable" neologism. –HTD 07:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about the British guy?"Presidentiable" is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was a big issue and that was why the reversion surprised me. Why not leave the edits alone if it is not a big issue? Why revert the edits? Why prefer "independent" over "no party" so much that you would go through the hassle of reverting? "No party" is the more understandable answer to the question of "What's their party?" than is "Independent" because is many parties that have "independent" in their name. Of course "Independent" has long been the designation for politicians with "no party"." But that misses the point. The template doesn't say "designation". It says "party". If it said "designation", than "independent" would be an understandable answer. The template ask for party, not designation, and given that this is a worldwide encyclopedia whose audiences includes many unfamiliar with COMELEC's long-standing practices, I am confused why some editors are insisting on using "independent" when "no party" is clearer. Why were the edits reverted if the issue is a molehill? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMELEC calls them "Independent". Other WP:RS use the term "independent". Everyone knows what "independent" means (as opposed to say, "Independentistas" of the early 20th century Philippine politics). As it stands, its use should be okay.
Finally, the OED, as awesome as it is, also has words which were last used by the Shakespeare. Unless we're directly quoting the great bard, we shouldn't be using those, just as the case here. –HTD 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the graph of the surveys violate Wiki policy?[edit]

Does the graph of the surveys violate Wiki policy? I make an argument that they do and should be deleted over at Talk:Opinion polling in the Philippine presidential election, 2016#Are the graphs original research? They are certainly misleading. We should remove them.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. –HTD 07:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One poll per pollster per month[edit]

Who made up this rule. And where's the consensus for this rule? –HTD 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC) –HTD 12:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this restriction. If people want uncluttered tables, I suggest limiting the time period, instead. –HTD 03:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate concessions?[edit]

There should be parts of the article in the event of a candidate conceding, like Grace Poe. Thanks. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Election Results[edit]

I am considering to say that the page should be edited to show that the results are from GMA itself (because the reference used, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/eleksyon2016/results, said so) and the in their own words: "Source: COMELEC-GMA Mirror Server.". Although this shows agreement with the results published by ABS-CBN (http://halalanresults.abs-cbn.com/), we should still let know the users that we sourced it indirectly from COMELEC. Thank you in an advanced response :) - gacelisnothing (Problems?) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related: 2016 PH Elections infobox[edit]

Kindly add Tarlac and Tarlac City to the local elections list :) --Moneygame 15:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The true "canvass" voting table thing[edit]

Since today is the 2nd day for the congress to canvass all voting, someone had placed numbers of total votes so far as of 26/05 0730 PST. I don't know where he go it from but I guess he has been summing up all the numbers so far for 2 days now. So how do we update the table? Just be watching the live canvassing/in twitter and add everything up? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on election canvass articles[edit]

Hello, all. I've started an RfC about Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#RfC on election canvass articles on whether these are violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please feel free to engage in discussion there. Thanks.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing "runningmates"[edit]

I do not beleive that this and other Phillipines presidential elections should be listing runningmate in the infobox. This misrepresents the election. Candidates for president and vice president ran in two seperate elections, while nominated by the same party. Am I mistaken? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how being voted on different ballot questions complicates things. We still boldface the name who won the vice presidential election, independently on who won the presidential election. Running mates are presented as a team, and they always campaign together, if possible. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries in the "Candidates" section[edit]

This article used to have a summary of the history of each candidacy. Now we're left with a lengthy table that most of the data is hidden in plain sight (something the WP:MOS forbids!), and is frankly irrelevant to what happened in 2016. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Philippine_presidential_election&oldid=1196714135"