Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
MRT and LRT system
Based on the MRT website (this website), MRT-3 is turning from blue to yellow. According to DOTC-LRTA, LRT-1 will go from yellow to green (PDF File). NorthRail project is shelved to a future high speed rail line Clark-Caloocan and the case with the Chinese is being filed to an arbitration court, making the future line with no color designation. LRT-2 will remain purple. --Exec8 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- MRT-2 is supposed to become blue. My point here is that until the new line colors will be fully implemented on all lines (this includes the Orange Line/PNR Southrail), we should not jump to conclusions and start using the new line colors when it will merely serve to confuse people. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- There was no plans in this administration to integrate the color system of PNR and MRT-LRT. It will confuse people if we still retain blue line on MRT3 since the website, MRT cards, columns are in yellow. The coaches will be color yellow this year. LRTA already sending press releases that LRT1 is green. --Exec8 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- My point still stands, however. Until there is full implementation of the Metrorail system (as the SRTS successor system is called), we should not preempt the LRTA and the MRTC. The LRT has yet to transition even though the administration "recolored" all the lines: I repeat, MRT-2 is supposed to be blue in the new system, and yet there's no sign of the said line transitioning anytime soon. There's a reason why the line designations were moved from colors to numbers, as the numbering of lines has remained relatively stable, while the colors now apparently seem to change with whatever administration is in power. (This is despite the fact that the line colors were stable until the current administration came along, and people are still more likely to identify with the old colors than the new ones as the old colors have been there already for quite some time.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a RM on Wil Time Bigtime for it to be moved to Wowowillie. While there's probably no doubt that "Willing Willie" and "Wil Time Bigtime" were one and the same, I'm not quite sure if "Wil Time Bigtime" and "Wowowillie" are. Sure, Willie is there, it's on TV5, and probably the same crew, but it seems that he'd have different co-hosts, different studio and probably different games. If we're following the reasoning of the RM, we might as well merge Wowowee to Wowowillie. I'm unsure on all this, though. –HTD 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merging the upcoming show with Willie's old noontime programme on ABS wouldn't cut it imo. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? It seems that most of Willie's crew were the same ones doing Wowowee. If the only factor that we'd consider is "It's Willie's show" (as that was the argument on moving WW to WTBT), Wowowee, Willing Willie, WilTime Bigtime and Wowowillie would be merged into Wowowillie. –HTD 07:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not a good idea, even if it's the same crew. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. The shows are aired in two different stations. Unless, it's Eat Bulaga. Merging all Willie's shows into one article will be like merging ABC 5's Philippine Idol and GMA 7's Pinoy Idol. Same shows, but not alike.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the 2 Idol shows were produced by different production outfits ("crews"). Hence they're different. The networks have little to do with anything in this case, as apparently, the crews are the almost same in all of Willie's shows. The networks are just carriers. Willie is buying time from TV5 to air his show, just like what Eat Bulaga is doing now. I dunno what's the arrangement between Willie and ABS-CBN, but the fact that Willie was able to get most of his old crew to his (then) new show means that Wowowee wasn't entirely solely an ABS-CBN production.
- Anyway, that's not what's under discussion. I only said that to point out that the argument that "Willing Willie=Wil Time Bigtime=Wowowillie" is like saying "Wowowee=Willing Willie=Wil Time Bigtime=Wowowillie"; any move of Wil Time Bigtime to Wowowillie is tantamount to putting all of Willie's shows under one article called Wowowillie. –HTD 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. The shows are aired in two different stations. Unless, it's Eat Bulaga. Merging all Willie's shows into one article will be like merging ABC 5's Philippine Idol and GMA 7's Pinoy Idol. Same shows, but not alike.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not a good idea, even if it's the same crew. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? It seems that most of Willie's crew were the same ones doing Wowowee. If the only factor that we'd consider is "It's Willie's show" (as that was the argument on moving WW to WTBT), Wowowee, Willing Willie, WilTime Bigtime and Wowowillie would be merged into Wowowillie. –HTD 07:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Heads up, another page has been made on Wowowillie. - Windows72106 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Mayor Geronimo Lipumano
I am interested in finding sources to write an article about Olongapo Mayor Geronimo Lipumano. As a subject of a biography article he should be notable per WP:POLITICIAN, however I am not finding many online sources which can be used to verify any content. Worse, the most informative source online is possibly not even a reliable source, as it is hosted by blogspot.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Try offline sources such as books or newspapers. –HTD 12:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reason why I am asking, is that I live in California, so my access to books or newspapers in the Philippines is well, limited to put it mildly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Magellan cross 1900.jpg
File:Magellan cross 1900.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
How is Sangguniang Panlalawigan made plural?
In the Philippine general election, 2013 there is this construction: "There will be elected ... 766 members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial legislature)..." But there are multiple Sangguniang Panlalawigan, one for each province, and so this is grammatically incorrect. It should say 766 members of ________ with no "the" and _____ being plural. So, how does one make Sangguniang Panlalawigan plural in English -- Sangguniang Panlalawigans or Sangguniangs Panlalawigan, a la Attorneys General? --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Sanggunian" means council or assembly, while "Panlalawigan" means "provincial". Hence if it's pluralized, "Sanggunian" would be pluralized, but that asks me on what to do with the "-g" at the end. I'd say just use "provincial boards". "Sanggunians" by itself looks valid enough, "Sangguniangs" or "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" doesn't sound right. –HTD 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tagalog words are made plural by adding mga in front of the noun: mga Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Use the proper Tagalog or just use English, any mix of the two is confusing or misleading. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Someone argued with me that "Sanggunian Pan____" are English phrases by default since they're used in English translations of the law (I agreed). However, some loanwords use pluralization rules from their mother tongues, such as Knesset/Knessot and taoiseach/taoisigh, but their pluralization is different from Tagalog as they modify the spelling instead of adding another word. "Sanggunians" are quite commonplace but I dunno if they are correctly pluralized. –HTD 13:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just because it is used in the English translation of the law, does not make it an English loanword. If Sanggunian is not translated, that means it is used as a proper name which doesn't require translation. The mainstream English media no doubt uses the English terms "provincial legislature", so I recommend to stick with that as per WP:COMMONNAME. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I won't get in another argument on whether "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is a loanword or not, but it's the second-most used phrase in English to call provincial legislatures, behind "Provincial Board", as it was the previous name of provincial legislatures before the Local Government Code renamed it. Plus, all of the SPs with articles are currently named as "<Province> Provincial Board". There had been a long discussion on this at Talk:Sangguniang Panlalawigan. –HTD 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Bumping back out to avoid excessive indentation
Not all loan works are made plural following the form of the original language. For instance syllabus can be syllabuses (as well as syllabi) and symposium can be symposiums (as well as symposia). Whether "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is a loan word or a name, much like Diet, Budenstag or Knesset, doesn't help answer the original question: How to make the term plural?
I think that we should follow the "symposiums" form combined with the "attorneys general" form and adopt "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan". English speakers would understand that "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" is a local Filipino term for the provincial legislature, if a translation is provided, and would understand the plural. They would not understand "mga Sangguniangs Panlalawigan". "Sangguniang Panlalawigans" could be used but "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" is acceptable given "attorneys general" and is closer to original meaning and grammatical structure of the various Filipino languages.
A more fundamental question was also raised: Should "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" be used at all? Perhaps we should replace it with "provincial board". I think that Talk:Sangguniang Panlalawigan should decide the matter. If the consensus there is not to use "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" then that term should be scrubbed from all articles and the plural issue becomes moot. Until that time, however, we should adopt the policy of using "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" and similar forms, in my opinion. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I only encountered "Sangguniangs Panlalawigan" on this discussion and nowhere else. How is "SP" pluralized by most sources? This is not just restricted to Sangguniang Panlalawigan but to the other Sanggunians (LOL actually it looked normal without the letter "g" at the end) such as Panlungsod, Bayan and Barangay. How about Batasang Pambansa? I heard the word "Batasans" to refer to the two parliaments (the Interim and the Regular; just as the 13th and 14th Congress are different "Congresses"), but never "Batasangs Pambansa"; it'll be most likely referred to as "parliaments". I guess the letter "g" at the end makes it look awkward and stupid. You won't need the letter "g" if "Sanggunian" or "Batasan" isn't followed by another Tagalog word. The letter "g" is only used to make it easier to speak to the next word.
- So I guess "Sanggunians" and "Batasans" are okay, while "Sangguinangs ______" and "Batasangs Pambansa" aren't, and as much as possible use "provincial boards", "city/municipal/barangay (or village) councils" instead. –HTD 13:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Eduardo Dimacuha
I would like to create an article on my city's former mayor, but I'm not sure if: 1. he has received coverage in reliable sources, 2. if he is notable, and 3. where to get good information on him. Any thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Google is your best friend. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about official websites? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be hard to pull off if you're only relying on your city's website as they might be considered as a primary source. Newspaper articles that support his notability might be your best bet.--Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be nice. However, two things: 1. do you guys think he's notable, and 2. any leads? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notability cannot just be presumed, it must be established. To do that, one has to find reliable sources. Doing a Google test is a good way to start. Xeltran (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned on creating articles related to local government below the provincial level (politicians and even elections). However, with that said, members of national legislatures are presumed notable by default; in our case, the smallest district should have at least 250k people, so that means other local officials of jurisdictions of places that has a population of 250k may be notable (supposedly, parliamentarians are somewhat higher than "other" local officials). This also means, once a place reaches 250k people, its officers who were incumbents before it reached 250k would also have to be notable.
- Frankly, instead of creating articles of mayors that may not pass the notability threshold, I'd rather suggest creating articles about congressmen and senators as they would be automatically notable. Provincial governors may be harder to defend in AFDs than members of Congress but they can still pass nevertheless. –HTD 13:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notability cannot just be presumed, it must be established. To do that, one has to find reliable sources. Doing a Google test is a good way to start. Xeltran (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be nice. However, two things: 1. do you guys think he's notable, and 2. any leads? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- That would be hard to pull off if you're only relying on your city's website as they might be considered as a primary source. Newspaper articles that support his notability might be your best bet.--Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about official websites? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Read WP:POLITICIAN to decide if he meets all the criteria for notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Philippine National Coastal Defense Fleet?
Hi guys. I came across this : Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philippine National Coastal Defense Fleet - User:Ruzzel01 has obviously put quite a lot of work into this but it was rejected for lack of references. Skimming around it's not clear that the PNCDF exists as a distinct entity and the tone of the article is rather promotional - talking about the assembly of a mighty fleet as though it's already happened, when at best it seems to be in the planning stages. Could someone with more local knowledge than me take a look, and give User:Ruzzel01 some guidance? TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find sources for this article. Heck, I can't even find the individual ships. The Philippine Navy's website is silent as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect the easiest way to do this would be to search for the text of, or articles quoting relevant sections of the AFMA. Just to prove that it exists, if nothing else. - Alternativity (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
We encourage you to say your take on Wikipedia:Geo-targeted Editors Participation. Among 200+ countries, pilot will start in the Philippines. --Exec8 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I want to take part in this project. How could I help? Arius1998 (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
LGU infoboxes, redux.
There had been issues with the additions of infoboxes on fourth-level LGUs. While this is highly commendable, the use of the copy-pasted template from {{Infobox settlement}} would lead to differing "looks" for each one who is adding them, plus edits as time goes by, making them not identical from other LGUs. Also, there's the problem of WP:Easter eggs on the template. This could be solved by having a single infobox for municipalities. For a rough draft, see User:Howard the Duck/Template. –HTD 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Can the National Historical Commission of the Philippines copyright photos?
On this website -- http://www.nhcphistoricsites.blogspot.com/ -- the National Registry of Historic Landmarks and Buildings of the Philippines -- there are a number of photographs some with a copyright notice and some without. The copyright notice says they are copyrighted by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. Considering our previous discussion on Phil gov not being able to copyright, can we use any of these photographs, those both with and without a copyright notice? --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Depends. If those are really old buildings that still exist, we can just go there and take a picture. If it's a new building, you can't as apparently there's no freedom of panorama in the country unless the structure is old (I dunno how old it should be). Depends too if they were the ones who took the pictures or if those were just entrusted to them, if it's the former, I dunno, as we can't just base conclusions by what we think; it depends on what the courts and the Wikimedia Foundation thinks. If it's the latter, there's a chance that they can be used. –HTD 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
See this: commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#The Philippines. –HTD 06:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
CampODonnellPOWMemorialCross.jpg
file:CampODonnellPOWMemorialCross.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has to be a link to the original photo, if it was lifted from a website. –HTD 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
PAG, CBK-ZAM, BCL, HIL Wikipedia Logos
Hello,
I would like to appreciate User:Odder for the logo uploads and to the people I talked on Lingayen 1 meetup for the Pangasinan translation of The Free Encyclopedia.
-
Pangasinan Wikipedia Logo -
Chavacano Wikipedia Logo -
Bikol Wikipedia Logo
However the default logo on Bikol Wikipedia needs to be fixed as wiki.png has a white background rather than transparent color. It appears that you placed a white sticker on the side of the wiki site. As for the Pangasinan and Chavacano Wikipedia, it needs to be uploaded by their respective administrators. The Pangasinan admin is inactive. As for the Hiligaynon (Ilonggo), the translation has been placed on this metawiki page. Hiligaynon is in incubator--Exec8 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did some digging in the Incubator, and I also found the translations for Capiznon and Kinaray-a. For Capiznon, it's Ang libre nga ensiklopedya, and the tagline as translated into Kinaray-a is the same as that for Hiligaynon. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Municipalities with no Infoboxes
Here are the list of provinces which its municipalities has no infoboxes. It is most appreciated that we help each other edit the municipality articles and add the infoboxes. --Exec8 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- To facilitate this task, here is a partially completed infobox template that can be copied and pasted into municipality articles. Add and update the info as required. Note that all info between the
<!-- -->marks should be edited and then remove these marks. Also provide the right title and URL in the area and population references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- To facilitate this task, here is a partially completed infobox template that can be copied and pasted into municipality articles. Add and update the info as required. Note that all info between the
{{Infobox settlement
|name =
|other_name =
|native_name =
|settlement_type = [[Municipalities of the Philippines|Municipality]] <!-- or [[Cities of the Philippines|City]] -->
|image_skyline =
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_seal =
|seal_size = 100x80px
|nickname =
|motto =
|image_map =
|map_caption =
|pushpin_map = Philippines
|pushpin_mapsize = 200
|pushpin_map_caption = Location within the Philippines
|latd = | latm = | latNS = N
|longd = | longm = | longEW = E
|coordinates_display = inline,title
|coordinates_region = PH
|subdivision_type = Country
|subdivision_name = [[Philippines]]
|subdivision_type1 = [[Regions of the Philippines|Region]]
|subdivision_name1 = <!-- region -->
|subdivision_type2 = [[Provinces of the Philippines|Province]]
|subdivision_name2 = <!-- province -->
|subdivision_type3 = [[Legislative districts of the Philippines|District]]
|subdivision_name3 = [[Legislative districts of <!-- province -->|<!-- district no. -->]]
|established_title = Founded
|established_date =
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|parts_type = [[Barangay]]s
|parts_style = para
|p1 = <!-- no. of barangays -->
|government_footnotes = <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dilg.gov.ph/municipalities.php |title=Municipalities |publisher=Department of the Interior and Local Government |location=Quezon City, Philippines |accessdate=1 January 2013}}</ref>
|leader_title = Mayor
|leader_name = <!-- name of mayor as listed by Department of the Interior and Local Government in reference above -->
|area_footnotes = <ref name=nscb>{{cite web |title= |url=http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/ |work=PSGC Interactive |publisher=National Statistical Coordination Board |accessdate=1 January 2013 |location=Makati City, Philippines}}</ref>
|area_total_km2 = <!-- add km2 from NSCB. 1 ha = 0.01 km2 -->
|elevation_footnotes =
|elevation_m =
|population_footnotes = <ref name=NSO10>{{cite web |url=http://www.census.gov.ph/ |title=Total Population by Province, City, Municipality and Barangay: as of May 1, 2010 |work=2010 Census of Population and Housing |publisher=National Statistics Office |accessdate=1 January 2013}}</ref>
|population_total = <!-- population number from 2010 census -->
|population_as_of = 2010
|population_density_km2 = auto
|timezone = [[Time in the Philippines|PST]]
|utc_offset = +8
|postal_code_type = [[List of ZIP codes in the Philippines|Zip Code]]
|postal_code =
|area_code_type = [[Telephone numbers in the Philippines|Dialing code]]
|area_code =
|website = <!-- {{URL|}} -->
}}
- Don't we have a specific Philippine settlement infobox that customizes Infobox settlement specifically for local use? –HTD 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- We had {{Infobox Philippine municipality}} and {{Infobox Philippine city}} but was deleted [1][2] in favor of {{Infobox settlement}}. --Bluemask (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought we had settlement infobox/es that used {{Infobox settlement}} that had already predefined values. I guess it would not be wrong to create one to standardize Philippine LGU articles without deviating (even a little bit) from {{Infobox settlement}} –HTD 09:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The reason why {{Infobox Philippine municipality}} and {{Infobox Philippine city}} (and other national varieties) were deleted is that there are no extra features that {{Infobox settlement}} can't do. Copying the template above will already assist with as many predefined values as possible. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, there's {{Infobox French region}} that uses {{Infobox settlement}}, which what I've been saying all along: a PH infobox that uses {{Infobox settlement}} can be used without making the PH infobox look different from other settlement infoboxes, and it already has presets. For example, instead of typing the entire [[Legislative districts of the Philippines|District]] in the infobox for Albay, just type in an entry, to say |province=Albay |district=3 so that the infobox displays the link to the Legislative districts plus a link to "3". –HTD 14:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- All true, but there's no benefit in it. Having already a partial template like the one above also avoids having to type such long links. Anyway, I am not strongly opposed to the idea, but I think it will create more work than intended because inevitably other editors are going to insert the new one for all the provinces where the current infobox already exists. That seems unproductive to me when you consider that the majority of LGU's already have an infobox. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There some benefits, such as less time wasted on remembering what parameters such as " |subdivision_type2 " is for, more consistent linking (no redirects or redlinks or other screw-ups), and everything would look identical (copy-pasting may lead to inadvertent changes, and is generally inefficient). Also if a link is changed, such as Noynoy decreeing that "regions" shall now be called as "states" (lol), or a link has to be displayed differently (as "district" in local parlance means many different things but "Legislative district" is specific and to the point... and speaking of which, those "Districts" have to changed. There are districts for provincial boards and some city councils too), it'll be easier to replace a single infobox than change all 80 entries. Another is if there's one constant for all of these LGU's, you won't have to add things such as " |timezone = PST |utc_offset = +8" as it would've been automatic. Anyway, your 2nd point is valid, but it would've been avoided if there were infoboxes that used the Infobox settlement template. –HTD 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- We had {{Infobox Philippine municipality}} and {{Infobox Philippine city}} but was deleted [1][2] in favor of {{Infobox settlement}}. --Bluemask (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we have a specific Philippine settlement infobox that customizes Infobox settlement specifically for local use? –HTD 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- How many LGUs have infoboxes already vs. those that don't one? A local infobox that uses Infobox settlement would ensure standardization for all LGUs in an event of a major change. –HTD 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Like this one: "District" may mean all kinds of things. The displayed word for "Districts" should have been "Legislative districts" as there are districts for provincial boards and some city councils too. This is of course aside from informal subdivisions that are called districts.
- I'm also planning on creating articles for every legislative district, leaving out the "Legislative districts of <province>" as overviews and perhaps redistricting changes. If there was a local infobox template this could've been changed with a single of edit, and by not going through all of the articles one-by-one. I suggest adding infoboxes be deferred until this is sorted out. –HTD 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
List of municipalities without infobox compiled by Isabelassima
P199 pointed me here. Two days ago I compiled a list of municipalities without infobox. It should be correct apart from those created in the last two days. What I created is marked as "done". Isabelassima (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Adding only the name, province, and outdated population info, I don't consider that "done". Anyway, we're trying to simplify the process with a standard template, so hold on until that is resolved (see discussion here). Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually beginning to question the wisdom of adding infoboxes to articles nobody visits. Probably updates on population or mayors, yes (lol they'd be on infoboxes), but entire infoboxes? –HTD 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1) @HTD 823 page views by at least one
nobody: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Las%20Nieves,%20Agusan%20del%20Norte - 2) @P199 I) the job was to add the boxes and this is done for the entities marked. No other claim is made by the designation "done". II) I don't see any other template, nor anything that would simplify. If standardization is wanted I suggest a bot goes through all and adjust and marks as far as it can. "outdated population info" - on the first birth after a census the pop data is outdated. WikiData will help here. I log out now, if my work is not wanted. Isabelassima (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1) @HTD 823 page views by at least one
- I'm actually beginning to question the wisdom of adding infoboxes to articles nobody visits. Probably updates on population or mayors, yes (lol they'd be on infoboxes), but entire infoboxes? –HTD 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Cities with no Infoboxes
Escalante, Negros OccidentalVictorias, Negros OccidentalSagay, Negros OccidentalCadiz, Negros OccidentalCanlaon, Negros Oriental
Requires your attention--Exec8 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Cebuano Wikipedia getting close to 75,000 articles
In a span of two weeks, the article count has shoot by more than 25,000. New articles are mostly translated from Wiki Species. --Exec8 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations to Cebuano Wikipedia on its 100,000th article. :)
- Wikipedia. More Fun in the Philippines. --JinJian (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations to the Cebuano Wikipedia! Now, can someone do the same (translations from Wikispecies) for the Tagalog Wikipedia? Since Tagalog is the basis of Filipino, the Tagalog Wiki could have some more love. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno if I should be happy with 24,000 crappy stubs, TBH. For example, using random article, I came up with these 10: ceb:Lachassagne, ceb:Striocadulus ludbrookae, ceb:Mézerville, ceb:Cyanea purpurea, ceb:Olivella perplexa, ceb:Mycale repens, ceb:Zeacolpus maorius, ceb:Bittiolum varium. It seems that 99% of the articles there are either 3-sentence stubs on species or 1-sentence stubs about French communes, which are pretty much useless. I didn't even see a Philippine-related random article, out of ten. Don't expect to be added back to the Main Page, if that was the whole point of this futile exercise. –HTD 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Someone fluent in Cebuano can always improve the articles and expand them. After all, sources in any language are allowed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're way too optimistic that someone would add a German reference on ceb:Mézerville. Don't bet on it. If you'd randomly pick 10 articles from the Cebuano Wikipedia, all 10 won't be improved as long as ceb.wiki exists. –HTD 12:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please, no. I and other editors fought long and hard to promote quality over quantity on the Tagalog Wikipedia, which is why we strongly frown upon the mass creation of one-line stubs along the lines of Cebuano (which started the whole thing with the French communes) and Waray-Waray. This is evidenced by the fact that despite a lower article count, we have the highest depth indicators among all the Philippine-language Wikipedias, which we take pride in (the Ilokano Wikipedia, which has even fewer articles, comes in a close second). The last thing we need is another flood of one-line stubs, which apparently has just happened today courtesy of Wikiboost. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. I don't think ceb.wiki even has an article for the planet Jupiter, but it has articles for all French communes. Someone should like make one-line stubs of all barangays, there's like 40,000 of them, they'd be much more useful than some place in France 99.99999% of Cebuanos haven't heard about. –HTD 17:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please, no. I and other editors fought long and hard to promote quality over quantity on the Tagalog Wikipedia, which is why we strongly frown upon the mass creation of one-line stubs along the lines of Cebuano (which started the whole thing with the French communes) and Waray-Waray. This is evidenced by the fact that despite a lower article count, we have the highest depth indicators among all the Philippine-language Wikipedias, which we take pride in (the Ilokano Wikipedia, which has even fewer articles, comes in a close second). The last thing we need is another flood of one-line stubs, which apparently has just happened today courtesy of Wikiboost. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with Waray Wikipedia is that there are only few editors. And we all know that we need more editors to produce great wikipedias. Waray wiki is also actually unknown by the majority of the Waray people. But there are already efforts to promote it. By Tuesday, the regional office of PIA here in Region 8 would be having press briefing promoting waray wikipedia. And there is also a plan to promote the Wikipedia in a writers' festival on February 16. We would appreciate if somebody from Wikimedia Philippines will come to Tacloban and deliver a powerpoint presentation. It will be attended by veteran writers from all over the region. Patience my dear friends, we are with you in promoting higher quality wikipedia. --JinJian (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can't we do the same for the Tagalog Wikipedia? It could use a bit of promotion as well. It currently has almost 60,000 articles, which is quite good but could be better. However, there are only 20 featured articles, but surely, with a bit of dedication, that number can be drastically improved. Since many Filipinos, and Filipino Wikipedians are bilingual, perhaps translations from the English Wikipedia would work. But really, the Tagalog Wikipedia needs more love. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat: no. No to another flood of one-line stubs. I agree the Tagalog Wikipedia needs more love (and Wikimedia Philippines is working hard to promote all the Wikipedias in Philippine languages, which are all sidelined by the predominance of English), but a flood of one-line stubs is the worst way to do it. If you are so concerned about giving love to the Tagalog Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to be bold (maging mangahas) and jump in, but take note that we strongly frown upon one-line stubs. Quality first, then quantity: we want to make the Tagalog Wikipedia reliable, and stubs do nothing to forward reliability when people will not even bother editing them. (To this day, we're still dealing with the aftereffects of this type of flood: several hundred, if not thousand, articles are still one-line stubs, particularly on topics most Tagalog Wikipedia editors don't edit or are not knowledgeable about, and they will likely not be expanded not just because of a lack of manpower, but also because these are topics which generally readers don't care about.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant by "can we do the same for the Tagalog Wikipedia" is, can't we encourage its promotion in the same way that the Waray Waray Wikipedia will be promoted by the government. I agree that one-line permastubs will do more harm than good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Philippines is in dialogue with groups on the matter (the KWF, universities, groups like Defenders of Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago [DILA], etc.), and we're hoping that our efforts bear fruit. The chapter actively promotes the use of local languages, including Tagalog/Filipino. Unlike Waray-Waray, however, the issues surrounding Tagalog are more complex, inevitably delving into issues which define the entire Tagalog vs. Filipino debate, whether or not Taglish has a place on the Tagalog Wikipedia (I don't think it does), etc. In addition, the reason why government is (indirectly) involved in the Sinirangan Bisaya Wikimedia Community, as their new entity is to be called should we approve it, is because government itself took the initiative to step in and promote the Waray-Waray Wikipedia. The Philippine Information Agency's regional office for Eastern Visayas is one of the groups spearheading this effort, and I laud them for it. It's easy enough for a regional language: it's very difficult for the national language, especially given its history. But, as always, we're trying anyway. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was really the initiative of Exec8 that touched so many people into promoting Waray Wikipedia whether they are from the government or private sector. It is not easier being a regional language, we also have difficult issues to deal with. We were just lucky enough to find the right persons at the right time. Plus these initiatives do not guarantee success, we just hope that there will be effects. --JinJian (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This is crazy, Cebuano surpassed Bahasa Indonesia with 205,000+ pages.--Exec8 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- You know what's crazier? It still doesn't have articles on the 8 planets other than Earth (I <3 Pluto lol). Can someone make them? –HTD 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not fluent in Cebuano, so I can't. However, I am willing to write articles on other under-covered topics at the Tagalog Wiki. What topics need more love over at Tagalog? If everyone here worked hard enough, it could hit 100,000 proper new articles instead of 100,000 new one-line stubs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are a lot of subjects, actually. Right now I'm worried about an influx of Indonesian editors who want to introduce more stubs, using poorly-translated articles in the process. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indonesian editors? Don't they already have the Bahasa Indonesia wiki? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are a lot of subjects, actually. Right now I'm worried about an influx of Indonesian editors who want to introduce more stubs, using poorly-translated articles in the process. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not fluent in Cebuano, so I can't. However, I am willing to write articles on other under-covered topics at the Tagalog Wiki. What topics need more love over at Tagalog? If everyone here worked hard enough, it could hit 100,000 proper new articles instead of 100,000 new one-line stubs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Recognition of the Sinirangan Bisaya Wikimedia Community
I am pleased to announce that the Board of Wikimedia Philippines has approved and recognized its second Philippine Wikimedia Community after the Bikol Community. This new community is the Sinirangan Bisaya Wikimedia Community and they will be helping develop relevant content on Eastern Visayas and in the Waray-Waray language through the Wikimedia projects such as the Waray-Waray Wikipedia. Here on the English Wikipedia, hopefully we can gain more quality content about the Eastern Visayas Region. User:JinJian will be the community's contact person. :-) --seav (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikimania in Hong Kong scholarship deadline
Wikimania this year -- Wikimania 2013 (conference website) -- will be in Hong Kong, a city that is an easy flight from some airports in the Philippines, and one that doesn't require a visa. Full and partial cholarships are available and the deadline is this week, Feb. 22. --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually very curious as to how many applied already for a scholarship. 30% of all scholarships have been allocated for the Asia-Pacific region, so Filipino Wikipedians are highly encouraged to apply. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Geo-targeted Editors Participation landing page as a sub-page?
Hi, folks. So following expressions of support, we're gearing up to start the Wikipedia:Geo-targeted Editors Participation program in the Philippines. We would like the landing pages from the two banners (see program description) to be a sub-page of the Tambayan. That way, there's always a breadcrumb leading back to the Tambayan itself, beyond the explicit links in the landing page. Take a look at the mock-ups for what those pages might look like, near the bottom of the program page (link above). Does anyone object to this? Ijon (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion on Jose Antonio Vargas's ethnicity/nationality is being held on the talkpage and more eyes would be welcome. Insomesia (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Republic Day
So I was able to work on the article Filipino American History Month to the point where it was sufficient to be placed in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 1. I was wondering if there are editors interested in improving the article Republic Day (Philippines)? This way we can get it placed in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 4.
This could be expanded on other events other than Filipino-American Friendship Day, to say Simbang Gabi.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- A related question is whether July 4 is still in any way an officially marked day in the Philippines. It is not an non-working holiday -- it was removed with the recent revision -- but there are other holidays and official days, such as local non-working holidays. Is it some kind of working holiday or in some other category of officially recognized days? Is there some proclamation or law that declares it officially Filipino-American Day? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this might help. It appears to be celebrated, but not a non-working holiday.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, "Republic Day" isn't called as such here anymore. I've always seen it been called "Filipino-American Friendship Day," and that's not even a non-working holiday anymore (although it is still celebrated). That's a start. Although I was not yet born when it was still a holiday, according to what I've read, it apparently stopped being celebrated around the first Aquino administration. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this might help. It appears to be celebrated, but not a non-working holiday.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Judge Grant Taylor Trent supreme court judge of Philippines
Colonel Grant Taylor Trent was appointed to the Philippine Supreme Court sometime during the mid 1900 teens. I've been trying to find out more about his military service and his Philippine service time. Can't find much information. He was my great, great uncle.
Linda Trent Gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.81.175 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK Ingrid Chua-Go
There's a Did You Know for Ingrid Chua-Go up at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 21. Would anyone like to review it? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Filipinos, Malay or Austronesians?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Malay or Austronesians?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Democratic Action (Philippines) politicians
Category:Democratic Action (Philippines) politicians, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Nestor Mata
Nestor Mata is listed in Living people and there are no recent updates on his life. 1957 Cebu Douglas C-47 crash says "Mata lived for over 55 years after the crash and died in 2013.", but there is no reference. I came across an article from March 2013 that says "At 87 years old, Mata died only early this year." Are there any news reports of his death? Jay (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find any other references aside from the same piece that you got. The problem with that article is that it is an opinion piece rather than a news article. I think it's safer to remove the death entries until a ref could be found.--Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nestor Mata is a longtime columnist of of the Manila Standard-Today. If he's dead there has to be an announcement. –HTD 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are right. Nestor Mata is a columnist for Malaya (newspaper), and there is a 17 March 2013 column written by a fellow columnist mentioning Mata in the present tense. Jay (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Recognition of the Pangasinan Wikimedia Community
I am pleased to announce that the Board of Wikimedia Philippines has approved and recognized its third Philippine Wikimedia Community after the Bikol and Sinirangan Bisaya communities. This new community is the Pangasinan Wikimedia Community and they will be helping develop relevant content on Pangasinan and in the Pangasinan language through the Wikimedia projects such as the Pangasinan Wikipedia. Here on the English Wikipedia, hopefully we can gain more quality content about Pangasinan. :-) --seav (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats to our Pangasinense editors :) --Lenticel (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations! It's always nice to see such good news. :-) — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Temple Emil.jpeg
File:Temple Emil.jpeg has been nominated for deletion-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Agusan del Sur College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not assert notability per WP:GNG, tagged non-notable for over three years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not seeing any non-primary reliable sources used in this article. It was deprodded here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Bilateral relations articles -- attention needed
While responding here to an issue raised on an article talk page, I noticed something which looks to me as if it needs wikiproject-level attention. Articles on bilateral relations between the Philippines and other countries seem to take a number of different (divergent, even) approaches to what the word Philippines means in re their topic, and it seems to me that there should be more consistency. I've only looked at a few of these articles, but what struck me was
- the Philippines–United States relations article lead sentence reads, "Philippines – United States relations are bilateral relations between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States." The Republic of the Philippines (RoP) as an entity only came into existence in 1946, and it has had embodiments prior to the current one (its re-embodiment under the 1987 constitution). There currently is discussion about adding info about Philippines–United States relations pre-RoP to the article.
- the Philippines–Spain relations and Mexico–Philippines relations articles seem to focus on the period of common history dating from when the Philippines became a part of the Spanish Empire.
- the China–Philippines relations and Malaysia–Philippines relations articles seem to focus on relations of the current and past RoP governments with those foreign governments, not focusing at all on pre-RoP relationships with those countries.
- the Brazil–Philippines relations article seems to focus on relations of current and past RoP governments with that foreign government.
It seems to me that there might be several sorts of possibly different kinds of relationships here—relationships between the Philippines and
- other countries with which the Philippines has had little or no relationship prior to the coming into being of the RoP in 1946
- other countries with which the Philippines had some significant relationship during the Commonwealth era
- other countries with which the Philippines had some significant relationship during the American colonial era (including the U.S.)
- other countries with which the Philippines had some significant relationship during the Spanish colonial era (including Mexico and Spain)
- other countries with which the Philippines had some significant relationship prior to the Spanish colonial era (might include Malaysia, China, Japan, and/or others)
The question of whether it is needful to balance the treatment of these different kinds of relationships in Philippines–XXX relationship articles seems to have some wikiproject-level import. Certainly all such articles need to address the current RoP–XXX relationship. The question of whether (and, if so, how and to what extent) to address prior historical relationships then arises. It seems to me that there ought to be some project-level consistency in answering that question, so I'm bringing it up as a possibly useful discussion topic here.
Also, as a separate issue, in looking at this I have noticed some apparent categorization problems in these sorts of articles. I'll work at fixing some of those. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is simple. What is the subject of the Philippines article? –HTD 03:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I take that as an opinion that articles in Category:Bilateral relations of the Philippines should address RoP relationships and {possibly) that they should not address pre-RoP relationships. I may or may not have understood that as intended. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you haven't see the Philippines article, then? –HTD 04:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- This exchange seems unlikely to produce anything useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lemme rephrase: I guess you haven't seen the first sentence of Philippines#History? –HTD 04:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- This exchange seems unlikely to produce anything useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you haven't see the Philippines article, then? –HTD 04:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I take that as an opinion that articles in Category:Bilateral relations of the Philippines should address RoP relationships and {possibly) that they should not address pre-RoP relationships. I may or may not have understood that as intended. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, these articles should delve as far into history as possible. If relations cannot be verified until 1946, than the article should start at that point. For example, if relations between the Spanish Philippines and XXX country can be verified, the article should have that as the beginning of its scope. If this content is already covered in-depth in an article, a summary of that article can be included in the relations article, without it going beyond a paragraph per two, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a big deal with me in any respect, but I was struck by the different approaches to the taken by the several articles I looked at and, as it seems to me that this particular topic category cries out for organizational commonality, I thought I would mention it here on this wikiproject. I sort of like the organization of the Philippines–United Kingdom relations article but, as I say, it's not a big deal with me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if it is appropriate for me to hypothesize about this here, as I have only read a number of the articles in question, but in general articles pertaining to a country's foreign relations with that country would naturally focus on the current state of affairs with that country, while at the same time discussing the historical context to which those relations take place. Now while the former is doable given the existence of a wide variety of sources to that effect, the latter is much more difficult to contextualize, particularly given that for many countries, reliable sources pointing to the history of the Philippines' relations with another state are very hard to come by. I would like for relations articles to delve back as far as possible into history in order to find some semblance of a relationship, but I worry about the possibility of aggrandizing relationships that may have not become significant until after 1946. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Network Rivalry
I suggest we keep a strong guard on fanatics editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become a battlefield of fans of the top 2 networks of the Philippines. I wish there was a way for us to prevent them from adding the TV shows network on the filmography table's notes column or from adding a separate network column as well as stopping them creating categories like the one mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.252.46 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I guess it's safe to say that what they're doing is just as immature as the PlayStation 3/Xbox 360 fanboy wars. Adding showbiz-related articles to the priority list is one thing, but keeping those crits at bay is another given their persistence. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the official seal of Father Saturnino Urios University. A Roman Catholic university in Butuan City run by the Diocese of Butuan.png
file:This is the official seal of Father Saturnino Urios University. A Roman Catholic university in Butuan City run by the Diocese of Butuan.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Some ABS-CBN fanatic (User:Bryski 25) created this category, without even considering the naming conventions for categories. I've created a CFD for the renaming of this category. Also, you might check out his contributions, he created a bunch of "ratings" articles, only citing Kantar Media for his edits. See 2013 Philippine TV Ratings, 2012 Philippine TV Ratings, 2011 Philippine TV Ratings, 2010 Philippine TV Ratings, and 2009 Philippine TV Ratings for more details. -WayKurat (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The CFD would be done easily, assuming there's no massive opposition, and even if there is from the fanboys, most people will there would be perplexed at their behavior, so that CFD's as good as money. As for TV ratings articles, there's nothing inherently wrong with those, as long as they're formatted properly and have legit references. I even maintained List of Philippine television ratings for 2008 until I got bored with it (used AGB Nielsen as Kantar Media was probably not tapped in by ABS-CBN yet...). –HTD 09:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- It does reek with fantardism, so a CFD has to be done. An alternative name such as ABS-CBN contract artists or something like that would be better without the cheesiness inherent with such fans. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll strip those nonsense cats whenever I see them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could make use of some (semi) automated process or gadget to get that nonsense cat off articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I did. Just registered for AWB permissions and decided to go on and do a bit of a cleaning spree on them articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll strip those nonsense cats whenever I see them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- It does reek with fantardism, so a CFD has to be done. An alternative name such as ABS-CBN contract artists or something like that would be better without the cheesiness inherent with such fans. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagalog translation needed
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Does anyone reading this happen to speak Tagalog? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Philippine Electoral Almanac - Get important info while it is online
Hello,
Just in time this coming midterm election, the PCDSPO published the Electoral Almanac. I think this is a good time to do editing while some of us are on summer break. Website :http://pcdspo.gov.ph/pub/201305may-election-almanac.php --Exec8 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The PDF must be corrupted or something as it doesn't finish the download. –HTD 05:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've finally downloaded the PDF, and Wikipedia already has most of the stats, save for the presidential election maps. The stats here are even more complete since it has popular vote totals in legislative elections.
- I hope on the next edition, they'd expand it even more with per district results for lower house elections; those are sorely missing. They must be gathering dust somewhere. –HTD 14:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
In a quite related note, I've provided a spreadsheet that can be edited by anyone to determine the result of the House of Representatives elections results. AFAIK this has not been done in Philippine history on election day per se. –HTD 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
General Trias, Cavite
Hmm, I think we need to give some TLC on this. Article's unreferenced, and the Education section could've been presented better than as a mere, indiscriminate list. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Distributed page moves
See Talk:Youth councils in the Philippines to discuss the move of the page Sangguniang Kabataan to Youth Councils of the Philippines and see Talk:Barangay councils in the Philippines to discuss the move of Sangguniang Barangay to Barangay councils in the Philippines. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Natividad Almeda-Lopez
I just created on article on her, would appreciate it if anyone could provide more sources and maybe a photo for it? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm about to call it a night tonight, so I'd really appreciate if you can all help me expand and improve on the only collaboration of Levi Celerio and Lucio San Pedro, the de-facto pambansang oyayi Sa Ugoy ng Duyan. Thanks! --- Tito Pao (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dila ning Kapampangan Wikimedia Community
I am pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Philippines has approved and recognized the fourth Philippine Wikimedia Community after the Bikol, Sinirangan Bisaya, and Pangasinan communities. This new community is the Dila ning Kapampangan Wikimedia Community and they will be helping develop relevant content in the Kapampangan language through the Wikimedia projects such as the Kapampangan Wikipedia. --seav (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation 2013 Philippine Wikimedia Conference
On June 15, 2013, Wikimedia Philippines will be holding the 2013 Philippine Wikimedia Conference (WikiCon) as well as the 2013 Annual Meeting of Members. The event will be held at the WSI Corporate Center in Makati. We are inviting all Filipino and Philippine-based Wikipedians to attend this annual event.
You can find more information on this wiki page. If you want to attend, please register using this form. If you want to avail of scholarship to help pay for your attendance, please also fill out this form. --seav (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Venancio Ziga
Hi, I'm writing an wikipedia article for Venancio Ziga, former Albay governor (1946-1951) and representative (1961-1969). He was born March 24 1904, but somehow i cannot find the date and year of his death. I'm hoping somebody can find me this date, using google or any other source, thanks Magalhães (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Rappler
There is a Filipino news website called Rappler (although it is mostly in English). The thing about it is that it sometimes has articles on topics that are otherwise undercovered by the mainstream news media. Also, it gives detailed analysis on certain topics, especially during the election period. Now here's my question: would Rappler be considered a reliable source? If so, would using it be a great help in improving our articles on Filipino topics? Right now, many of our articles are not up to standards, so perhaps the website can be a great help as a source? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I regularly use that as a reliable source. –HTD 03:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rappler counts Maria Ressa as its editor-in-chief, and counts among its ranks prominent journalists like Patricia Evangelista, Cheche Lazaro, Marites Vitug, Glenda Gloria and the like. If they're not an indicator of reliability for the site, then I don't know what is. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi I'm Namayan, I'm currently working on a grant proposal for Wikimedia Philippines to provide quality media (images and videos) to complement Philippine-related Wikipedia articles. The chapter recognizes there isn't enough quality freely-licensed images available online and sees this project as a way to "produce" them. It is for this reason that the Grant Advisory Committee would like to see if the community welcomes such a proposal.
- In a nutshell it will work this way
- It will openly solicit from Wikipedia editors their needed media through Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Requests#Requested_media. It can be places, personalities, events or even objects.
- Let's say there is a request for a quality image of Malacañan Palace (currently Malacañan Palace image in Commons is low resolution File:Malacanang_palace_view.jpg). The chapter will negotiate to be obtain permission to take a photo of Malacañan.
- If a request for a photo of Speaker Sonny Belmonte received. A photographer will be assigned to take a photo of the person.
- After the end of every month or as soon as a bulk of requests are received it will bucket all the requests to see which among these can already be provided with photos/videos.
- The chapter will maintain a pool of volunteer photographers who will be dispatched to take these photos. The photographers will be reimbursed for their expenses (transportation, food, etc.). To ensure that quality media will be produced only photographers with the necessary equipment will be tapped and whose previous works have passed the scrutiny of the project team.
- If you support this project proposal kindly sign below
- Other comments
- Beware of freedom of panorama issues in the Philippines. You can't just take a pic and upload it at Commons. –HTD 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Philippines is also very much aware of Freedom of Panorama issues, that's why if its other grant is approved to obtain the legal services of a top Intellectual Property law firm to provide an opinion on our IP laws in relation to Freedom of Panorama, we will submit it to the admin of Wikimedia Commons. Unless such issues are resolved we would only focus on subjects that wouldn't have any issues. -- Namayan (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dunno how a lawyer can help us. If he can convince the folks at Commons then it's probably OK; if he can't then it's just a waste of money.
- Instead, why not schedule a photoshoot of people? For example, do a photoshoot of the new senators, congressmen, players from sports teams, etc. –HTD 08:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is a requirement set by Wikimedia Commons admins to obtain a legal opinion about our IP laws. If their opinion/interpretation would prove we have Freedom of Panorama, we just have to present it to Commons admins. They should also have a way to authenticate it. We have successfully implemented Wiki Loves Monuments in the country and anything at least 50 years old can certainly be photographed without FOP issues. -- Namayan (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, anything that is 50 years old can be uploaded but unless we're talking about churches, we'd have to ask if a building is more than 50 years old... sometimes no one knows the exact answer. As for legal opinion, the IP Office has already given an opinion to Commons, AFAIK. –HTD 08:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway we are fully aware of that, and we will not risk having photos deleted. -- Namayan (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Howard, that opinion given by the IPO is not the opinion of the IPO per se. Rather, the IPO Director-General simply said that the law is silent on FoP, and they'd prefer case law to settle the matter (which, in my opinion, is impossible: that's like asking Napoleon Abueva to sue us because we're violating "his" copyright over taking a photo of one of his statues). If a reputable legal authority has a claim made to the contrary, then it wouldn't hurt. Otherwise, we'd have to start lobbying Congress and the Senate to pass amendments to the IPCP asking for FoP provisions. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway we are fully aware of that, and we will not risk having photos deleted. -- Namayan (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, anything that is 50 years old can be uploaded but unless we're talking about churches, we'd have to ask if a building is more than 50 years old... sometimes no one knows the exact answer. As for legal opinion, the IP Office has already given an opinion to Commons, AFAIK. –HTD 08:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is a requirement set by Wikimedia Commons admins to obtain a legal opinion about our IP laws. If their opinion/interpretation would prove we have Freedom of Panorama, we just have to present it to Commons admins. They should also have a way to authenticate it. We have successfully implemented Wiki Loves Monuments in the country and anything at least 50 years old can certainly be photographed without FOP issues. -- Namayan (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Philippines is also very much aware of Freedom of Panorama issues, that's why if its other grant is approved to obtain the legal services of a top Intellectual Property law firm to provide an opinion on our IP laws in relation to Freedom of Panorama, we will submit it to the admin of Wikimedia Commons. Unless such issues are resolved we would only focus on subjects that wouldn't have any issues. -- Namayan (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ninoy Aquino
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_June_2 where two Ninoy Aquino assassination images are up for deletion -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Philippine Wikimedia Conference 2013
Hi guys. Everyone is invited to join this year's Philippine Wikimedia Conference, organized by Wikimedia Philippines, which will be held next Saturday, June 15, in Makati City. All Wikipedians and Wikimedians from across the Philippines are kindly requested to come! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Siaton (Municipality) & Bonawon (Barangay in Siaton)
I like to ask for help to compress these two pages, Siaton, Negros Oriental & Bonawon, Siaton, Negros Oriental. Bonawon, Siaton, Negros Oriental is a barangay in the municipality of Siaton, Negros Oriental. I find it more appropriate to add it as sub-page/section of the Siaton, Negros Oriental. Unfortunately, I don't know yet how i would be able to do it. My knowledge in Wikipedia is still limited. -Emaniuz (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- You could make an article on the barangays of the town. Maybe Barangays of Siaton, Negros Oriental? Or a subsection in the "Barangays" section? (Also, don't be afraid: be bold!) --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will and will probably work on it in the next few days during some spare time. Its a lot of work with limited references. And oh, how could i request or nominate a page for deletion? trying to google it up and figure it out in some wiki reference but i haven't found the exact topic for it yet. -Emaniuz (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks to me you want to merge the two pages. Go to WP:MERGE for info on how to do that. I will merge Bonawon into Siaton as an example for you. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to merge those, actually I am planning to create articles about barangays in Dasmarinas.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unless the barangays of Dasmariñas are inherently notable on their own, I would advise you against doing that. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2013 Philippine Standardized registration plate.png
image:2013 Philippine Standardized registration plate.png has been nominated for deletion -- `65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Tallest building in the Philippines
I could ask this in the reference desk but this is about inconsistencies so here it goes. Which is taller, the Gramercy Residences or the PBCom Tower? According to our article on the tallest structure in the Philippines, the Gramercy Residences is about 300 meters high making it taller than the PBCom Tower, but our article on the tallest buildings say that the PBCom Tower is taller and the Gramercy Residences is less than 250 meters tall. Why the inconsistency? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Usually these kind of discrepancies hang on whether you count antennas, spires and other such appendages - the List of tallest buildings in the world introduction explains it. Usually if you're talking about "structures" you're including things like broadcast towers so antennas on residential/office buildings would be included; if you're talking about tallest "building", then you ignore things like antennas. I don't know the details here, but it will probably be something along those lines. Le Deluge (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- PBCom is taller. Gramercy was apparently "shrunk" to 250 m based on one of their YouTube videos, after years of claiming the building will be 302 m. This building is too controversial as it is. :| --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
20th meetup in Manila
Hi guys. Who wants to have a Wikipedian meetup in Manila sometime next month or so? It's been a while since we had a meetup. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
AfC submission
Please have a look at this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- While the subject is notable, this AFC needs a couple of more references... –HTD 05:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
tanong ko lang po kung ano ang meaning ng 8 raises ng sun sa ating flag....
Encyclopeida.Rizaliana.Student.front.JPG
image:Encyclopeida.Rizaliana.Student.front.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Governor-General of the Philippines page cleanup
Can someone please help in this page, Governor-General of the Philippines, to remove the numbers of Acting and Real Audiencia Governor-Generals. And also remove the dates and portraits of monarchs and add the US Presidents and Japanese Emperor. Use Governor-General of the Union of South Africa as reference. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I added the U.S. Presidents though the formatting may not be the best. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Education section in General Trias, Cavite
We better re-write that part in the article, as it would obviously be better if it's presented in prose, not in some mere, indiscriminate list of schools. The Cincinnati article could serve as inspiration. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Bump discussion of move of Sangguniang Panlungsod to City Council
I just wanted to bump up the discussion happening here -- Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod#Requested move. Should Sangguniang Panlungsod → City councils in the Philippines, Sangguniang Bayan → Municipal councils in the Philippines, and Sangguniang Kabataan → Youth councils in the Philippines? No consensus has been reached. Join in! --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached and so no move occurred. Among other things, these means there is an inconsistency across legislative bodies. There are the articles above for city's and municipalities' and then there is Provincial boards in the Philippines. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear experts on the Philippines: This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iloilo State University of Science and Technology is having trouble getting out of the Afc, and on looking closely I think it's because the school has changed its name and so much of its history is under another name. Universities are all considered notable, so we'd like to get this one passed. Now, apparently it used to be called Iloilo State College of Fisheries and we have an article about that. One of the sources provided says that it used to be called Western Visayas College of Science and Technology, and we have an article about that. Can someone who is familiar with this area please look at these articles and see what should be done here? Should the articles be combined? If not, can references from one improve one of the others? Thanks for any help you can give. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The Pearl of Allah.jpg
image:The Pearl of Allah.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Fort Bonifacio is Makati's
So the Court of Appeals had decided Fort Bonifacio is part of Makati. But this would still likely be brought to the Supreme Court, should we make changes now? See new item here: [3]-- Namayan (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the last decision we had wasn't final, after all? –HTD 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the decision of the Court of Appeals wouldn't be final too if Taguig raises it to the Supreme Court.-- Namayan (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pateros has joined in the fight as well, so who knows now who Fort Bonifacio belongs to. [4] --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the decision of the Court of Appeals wouldn't be final too if Taguig raises it to the Supreme Court.-- Namayan (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Meetup in Manila?
Hi guys. Again, I'd like to ask all Filipino Wikipedians if we can have a meetup sometime in August. Come on, it's been a while since we've last seen each other. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Update: there will be a meetup on Friday. For those who are interested in meeting Kaldari (a Wikimedia Foundation developer), you're more than welcome to come. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
PDAF scandal sandboxes
During the meetup yesterday, Bluemask suggested creating sandboxes for articles involving the PDAF scandal and Janet Lim-Napoles (who by now should be notable enough to get her own article) so that we may work on them together prior to publishing them, as well as to avoid being sued by Napoles and company. For now, there will be three sandboxes:
- List of references for both articles: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/PDAF sources
- Article on the PDAF scandal: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/PDAF scandal
- Article on Janet Lim-Napoles: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Janet Lim-Napoles
Feel free to dive in if you'd like (and seriously, please do)! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article exists, but it is short (2013 Pork barrel scam, which needs to be moved). We can definitely expand it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Sky Harbor for efforts to improve the PDAF scam article. As the moment I don't have enough dedication to improve the article myself. I just thought that the issue has enough notability to have its own article and decided to "plant the seed". We need all the help we can get. --Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Major editing at Malolos Constitution
User:Silverfish2910 deserves a round of applause for some major and useful additions to the Malolos Constitution article, adding particularly some of the influences on the document. I've added what I can, mostly historical context. Additional work is still needed. Go and see what you can contribute to flesh out the missing pieces. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here is a list of the sources I am using. If you have them, please help! No textbooks, please! Only original source documents if possible!
- Achtǘtegui, P & Bernad, M. (1960). Religious revolution in the Philippines. The life of Gregorio Aglípay, Vol 1. Quezón City: Ateneo de Manila.
- Atkinson, F. (1905). The Philippine Islands. Boston: The Athenæum Press.
- Burguete, R. (1902). ¡La guerra! Filipinas. (Memorias de un herido). Barcelona: Casa Editorial Maucci
- Calderón, F. (1907). Mis memorias sobre la revolución filipina: segunda etapa, 1898 á 1901. Manila: Imp. de el Renacimiento.
- Castillo y Kabangis, J. (1950). Malolos y sus prohombres. Estudio critic-histórico. Manila.
- de Llobet, R. (2012). Manila Response to the 1812 Constitution
- De Viana, A. (n.d.). Saga of the Philippine Reform Movement. Manila: National Historical Commission of the Philippines.
- Forbes-Lindsay, C. (1906). Philippines under Spanish and American Rules
- Gedacht, J. (2006). Strange Career of American Colonial Schools Industrial Education and the Philippines, The.
- Guevara, S. (1997). Laws Of The First Philippine Republic, The (Reprint Ed.). Manila: National Historical Institute.
- Harper’s Weekly. (1899). Harper’s Pictorial History of the War with Spain. New York: Harper & Brothers Pub.
- Kemmerer, E. (1908). The progress of the Filipino people toward self-government
- Las leyes de burgos de 1512, precedente del derecho internacional y del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos
- Majul, C. (1999). Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine Revolution, The. Manila: Univ of Philippines Pr.
- Malcolm, George (1921). "The Malolos Constitution". Political Science Quarterly 36 (1)
- Malcolm, G. (1926). Constitutional Law of the Philippine Islands. Manila: The Lawyers co-operative Pub. Co.
- Malcolm, G. (1951). First Malayan Republic: The Story of the Philippines. Boston: Christopher Pub. House.
- Palafox, Q. (n.d.). Cádiz Constitution of 1812 and the Reform Movement, The.
- Payne, S. (1973). A History of Spain and Portugal, v. 2. Wisconsin: Univ of Wisconsin Pr.
- Reyes, R. (2008). Love, Passion and Patriotism: Sexuality and the Philippine Propaganda Movement, 1882-1892. Washington: Univ of Washington Pr.
- Sevilla, J. (1922). Sa Laḡit nḡ Bayaḡ Pilipinas: Mḡa dakilaḡ Pilipino o aḡ kaibigan nḡ mḡa nagaaral. Manila: Sevilla at Mḡa Kapatid at Kn.
- St. Clair, F. (1902). The Katipunan: The rise and fall of the Filipino commune.
- War Department. (1903). Compilation of Philippine insurgent records, I. Telegraphic correspondence of Emilio Aguinaldo, July 15, 1898 to February 8, 1899, Annotated. Washington: Government Printing Office.
- War Department. (1905). 5th Annual Report of the Philippine Commission 1904. Washington: Government Printing Office.
- Worcester, D. (1914). The Philippines, past and present, Vol. 1 & 2.
- Yacano, B. (n.d.). Aquinaldo Revolutionary Government In Luzon
- --Silverfish2910 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Rounds of applause are inappropriate here. Go give him a barnstar (preferably the Philippine Barnstar) instead. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- 10 days after Silverfish was deemed worthy of a barnstar, it was still not awarded. So I have now awarded it to him on his talk page. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Rounds of applause are inappropriate here. Go give him a barnstar (preferably the Philippine Barnstar) instead. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Help populate Category:Images of the Philippines
Guys, I just made Category:Images of the Philippines today. Can you help populate it with subcats or images? Other countries have the same category at Category:Images by country--Lenticel (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I really think we should address the Works of the Philippines government category. Because Wikimedia Commons now allows free uploads of Philippine government works, the images in that category ought to be moved to Commons. After all, they're no longer non-free images. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "After all, they're no longer non-free images"? Is Philippine government work no longer in the public domain? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The opposite, actually. For several years the Wikimedia community believed that although there is an explicit declaration in Philippine copyright law that "no copyright shall subsist in any work of the government of the Philippines", a follow-up provision in the law said that permission is required to use the work for profit (commercial use), which may even lead to the payment of royalties. This was interpreted to mean that although works of the government are in the public domain, for the purposes of Wikimedia they are not considered "free" and may only be used under a claim of fair use.
- What do you mean by "After all, they're no longer non-free images"? Is Philippine government work no longer in the public domain? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some time last year, Commons admins concluded that the commercial use provision in Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code was a non-copyright restriction, effectively permitting the free upload of Philippine government works to Wikimedia Commons. Government websites are increasingly noting that their contents are in the public domain. This is why the contents of the Works of the Philippines government category have to be moved to Commons: there, any Wikimedia project may use the image, whereas here, use is limited to the English Wikipedia, and is restricted at best (prohibited at worst). --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Is (Philippines) needed on articles that have no other similar title?
The article on the Maritime Industry Authority has a (Philippines) at the end. See Maritime Industry Authority (Philippines). However there is no other article with the title "Maritime Industry Authority". I suppose that it is conceivable that one of the few other English-speaking countries would name an authority the "Maritime Industry Authority" but that hasn't happened, or at least there is no article on it. So, is the (Philippines) modifier needed? I noticed that a number of articles have such a modifier when there is no other conflicting article. It seems to be a common practice. Is it a practice that we should end? (For only those articles for which there is no similar-named article applying to another country.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- This practice you have observed is termed "preemptive disambiguation" in Wikipedia. If you carefully read WP:PRECISE, you will come to the conclusion that preemptive disambiguation is not needed. So if we are sure that there are no other articles with the same title or potential other articles (a Google search can quickly confirm it), then feel free to remove the "(Philippines)" from the title. --seav (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is very helpful to have the WP that I need. I will go ahead and try to move the articles that I see. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Filipino Wikipedians, I need your help and comments about the two articled that I've linked in the title. I'm proposed deletion on these two articles, because I find out that these articles are clearly a hoax. Why? because I come up with an investigation, and I've found out that these 2 are not announced by ABS-CBN, and not existed in those place either. I need your cooperation for this to prevent the other Filipino readers here on Wikipedia believed in this kind of trick. Thank You and Mabuhay ang Pilipino!.Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 08:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- This source mentions a certain Vigan-based DWNP, and a Scribd document mentions a similarly-named station in another province. Practically all mentions of the supposed "station" link back to here, so it does smell like a hoax. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hm. What does WayKurat have to say about it? It could be tied to one of a number of vandals on both this Wikipedia and on the Philippine-language Wikipedias who are notorious for making these kinds of hoax articles. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Could be, although idk if Bertrand and company have something to do with the hoaxing. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a possible hoax, as well as the contributor's other articles. The creator of these articles assumed the name "Peter Musngi" (ABS-CBN's head of radio operations) and I have seen a lot of hoaxers uses names of famous celebrities/radio station names/radio-TV executives to create new accounts. This has been the case before with User:Lpkids2006 before. -WayKurat (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe in you WayKurat, I guess indeed that this user must be blocked as well to prevent vandalising things. Also if you will seen the article again, some IP address adds again a hoax DJ, and my suspected user is still Petermusngi. And one thing, go thru DYRV and DYIL articles as well, I do believe that these are hoax AM stations either so I've proposed deletion to it as well.Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a possible hoax, as well as the contributor's other articles. The creator of these articles assumed the name "Peter Musngi" (ABS-CBN's head of radio operations) and I have seen a lot of hoaxers uses names of famous celebrities/radio station names/radio-TV executives to create new accounts. This has been the case before with User:Lpkids2006 before. -WayKurat (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Could be, although idk if Bertrand and company have something to do with the hoaxing. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hm. What does WayKurat have to say about it? It could be tied to one of a number of vandals on both this Wikipedia and on the Philippine-language Wikipedias who are notorious for making these kinds of hoax articles. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Bigpoliticsfan proposing a speedy deletion on List of ABS-CBN channels and stations
Hi again Tambayan Philippines. I just want you to know that Bigpoliticsfan is declaring a speedy deletion on the link article on the top due to CSD#G3 reason. I contested it, and I have to say that this user must be block or ban instead. I just need your help once again guys. Please review it properly to avoid irrelevant notices without any reason. Thank you and MABUHAY TAYONG MGA PILIPINO. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Cebuano speakers wanted
Hey all. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) approached me for some translation work on the WP:VisualEditor documentation. Even though I'm a native Cebuano speaker (Mindanao Cebuano), I have problems translating the more technical terms.
So if any of you have the time and the expertise, please take a look at the translation page and try to translate what you can into Cebuano. Feel free to amend any of the stuff I've already translated if you think you can phrase them more efficiently. Salamat.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I presume you're also translating the interface itself into Cebuano? It would be nice if another Philippine-language Wikipedia can roll out the VE on time with a complete interface. :) (Tagalog is the other one, and I wonder if Waray-Waray, Bikol, Kapampangan and Ilokano will do it as well.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- AFAIK, it's only the tutorial. But yes it also seems to be slated for translation into Tagalog, Kapampangan, Winaray, etc.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Translation for the interface itself is not taking place at mediawiki.org; rather, it is taking place at Translatewiki. I've been working on the Tagalog translations for around the last month now, and it would be wonderful if others will take up doing the other Philippine languages. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for spreading the word, Obsidian Soul.- Ultimately everything needs to be done. I don't know much about how to use Translatewiki's system, so I suggested the user guide. There's never any shortage of work to be done. The curent target date is Tuesday, September 24th, so we've got a little more than two weeks to get as much done as possible between now and then. (If the date changes, it will be later, not earlier.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Translation for the interface itself is not taking place at mediawiki.org; rather, it is taking place at Translatewiki. I've been working on the Tagalog translations for around the last month now, and it would be wonderful if others will take up doing the other Philippine languages. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, the new translation system used on Meta, mediawiki.org and other Wikimedia wikis has also been implemented on Translatewiki, so translation should be straightforward. There's no point in translating the user guide if the interface itself isn't translated, which is why both have to be done whether we like it or not. (Link to interface messages here.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Tagalog Wikipedia
Hi there, may I ask if the Tagalog Wikipedia is still active? Just wondering because its priority becomes less and less to used by Filipino contributors? Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 03:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. One thing, I've left a request for permission there.
- Yes, as you can see in the Recent changes list the Tagalog Wikipedia is quite active. However, compared to the English Wikipedia, it is significantly less-used: 90% of all traffic to Wikipedia in the Philippines goes here (the English Wikipedia), while only 2% go to the Tagalog Wikipedia (Cebuano is at around 1%).
- I have seen your RFA there, but as a bureaucrat I have decided for the time being to refrain from commenting on your request because I may end up being one of the bureaucrats closing the request (the others are Bluemask and Jojit fb). I suggest you solicit for input on your RFA either by leaving a message at the Kapihan, by joining the Tagalog Wikipedia Facebook group, or by soliciting the input of individual editors (but no campaigning please). --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.png
File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png
image:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Vectorized Philippine Barnstar
Created vector version of the Philippine Barnstar and Philippine Mythology Barnstar. Shall I replaced them? I credited the original authors on the vector files. I don't why there is a black square on the new mythology barnstar.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
-
original -
new -
original -
new
- The sun and stars should not have black borders on them, if possible. Otherwise, this is nice. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, I removed the black border, I will now replace the rasterized versions. I will not replace some instances of the rasterized mythology barnstar such as the agimat article.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I updated the {{The Philippine Barnstar}} template with the new vector version. Now, let's award some! -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please review "Ang Sugo: The Last Messenger"
Hi. I would like to ask if some people could check Ang Sugo: The Last Messenger — an article about an upcoming movie chronicling the life of the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo — and see if this article is, or perhaps is not, sufficiently notable, reliably sourced, and neutrally written for Wikipedia. I am making this request because a substantial amount of the article appears to be the work of a set of IP addresses which I just range-blocked in a sockpuppetry case (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhzhw). Under such circumstances, I would suspect the article might be something we would want to delete (as the work of an indefinitely blocked user, and/or because it is likely to be unacceptably biased) — but since I am not at all familiar with Philippine issues or the Iglesia ni Cristo, I would feel much better if people who are more conversant in this subject area could take a look and give their opinions. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, it's notable. Iglesia ni Cristo is one of the most prominent Protestant churches in the Philippines. However the language certainly is more than a little biased (obvious COI), with descriptions like "largest", "most expensive", "humble", etc. Especially for a yet unreleased film.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Logo for the Tagalog Wikipedia's tenth anniversary
Hi guys. Who can design a logo for the tenth anniversary of the Tagalog Wikipedia? It will replace the regular Tagalog Wikipedia logo starting December 1 (the founding date of the Tagalog Wikipedia), and it will be up probably for the next few months or so.
While we already have the tenth anniversary logo for the Philippines, I'm not sure if I want to use it, as the Tagalog Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on tenth anniversary celebrations, and other Wikipedia communities in the Philippines should have every right to use the logo as well. Hence why I'm asking if someone can design a Tagalog Wikipedia-specific logo, even if it's just modifying the Wikipedia logo or the national logo. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Now I feel old :( ---Lenticel (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- So do I, but it's good that we've lasted this long. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Help with a new stub
Tikod amo needs a lot of work. Steven Walling • talk 21:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC regarding notability of Santiago B. Villafania
Hello! I have initiated an RfC on the notability of the article on Santiago B. Villafania. The discussion can be found here. The article has only four references and the author attempted to remove the BLP tag during a recent edit. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 09:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you check the URL? If the author attempted to remove the BLP tag, he may be connected to the guy therefore violating COI. I know this Villafania guy, he used to work at my alma mater. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I actually think the editor IS the guy himself, but am assuming good faith. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still, its better to tag the editor for COI if it was really Villafania and hwaw he learned how to ref fast. I mean, would you let Floro edit his own article? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have placed a COI tag on the article, as well as a user connected tag on it's and Anacbanua's talk pages. Let's see if the IPs respond. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- No problem - and if ever, an article rewrite tag; page screams self-promotion and has no real BLP sections. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Update Kurt - an AFD's up on the article and wow, the subject responded! --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I read the thread in the AfD. Seems like he outed himself. And you had strong words for him too. ^_^ — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 11:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bet your ass I did - enough to elicit some lame lines of arrogance denial at me. Some people thumb their nose at the project, like him - and Villafania's a member of the WMPH FB group! --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Update. it seems some serious debate has emerged once again on the AFD. I won't be surprised if he summoned those people to have it Kept.the decision is Keep. There's no justice in this world.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I read the thread in the AfD. Seems like he outed himself. And you had strong words for him too. ^_^ — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 11:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have placed a COI tag on the article, as well as a user connected tag on it's and Anacbanua's talk pages. Let's see if the IPs respond. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Still, its better to tag the editor for COI if it was really Villafania and hwaw he learned how to ref fast. I mean, would you let Floro edit his own article? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I actually think the editor IS the guy himself, but am assuming good faith. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Peer review request
Please find a peer review request of the 2012 Philippine Peace Cup article, in case anybody is interested. Thank you. FairyTailRocks (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Calapan City Logo.png
image:Calapan City Logo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood is false. It's a myth. Remove/Update it
The "only 3.6%" of Filipinos have European blood clause has been discussed over and over again across various forums in the internet and from reading on the various discussions about it one can gain the following conclusions.
1) The methodology by which they concluded that only 3.6% of Filipinos are European is woefully inaccurate firstly because they only sampled 28 individuals from a single place out of an estimated 98 Million Filipinos. A sample size of 28 to represent a population of 98 Million doesn't even pass the margin of error requirement.
2) The study was not meant to describe the whole genome of a population only the Y chromosomes of a select number of individuals [By which an average of 3.6% European admixture was culled from all the people they sampled ] Even if it were true for those involved in the study it isn't completely true because the mitochondrial and X chromosome genetic materials were summarily ignored.
3) The haphazardly done and minuscule-sampled study conflicts with historical scholarship.
Books written in the Spanish era by Frenchmen and by Spanish census takers themselves record that at least 1/3 of the population of the island of Luzon (The most populous island) had varying degrees of Spanish ancestry [From Tornatras to full Peninsulares] their descendants would thus number among the millions today, a conservative 10-12 million. Yet the 3.6% assumption conflicts with that (Considering that most of the samples were taken in the south not in Luzon)
4) Other genetic findings conflict this. Genetic studies done by members of "23forme" Genome study group yield that 75% of Filipinos possess European genetic markers and the average amount of European genes among the 75% is 4.8% of their total genome (The dilution of European genes among those who possessed it is understandable considering it was Latinos [Who were already mixed with Amerindians] who emigrated en masse to the Philippines not the Spaniards [Research Viceroyalty of New Spain])
However, despite the fact that I have repeatedly outlined these facts over and over again people keep on returning and citing that misconstrued 3.6% study and reviving it like an annoying and deluded ex-girlfriend. I hope that bringing this issue to this forum will put a rest to this issue once and for all.
Thus, considering this, I would like to request that we either remove the mythological "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood" in all of Wikipedia's articles until a comprehensive genetic study of Filipinos (With a sample size significant enough) in the Philippines is undertaken.
Thank You Very Much. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I support the proposal, for all the reasons above, and because (a) "Europe" is not easily defined and (b) "European" is not easily defined (e.g. Eastern European Jews descended from Egyptian [Africa] slaves who had fled to Israel [Asia] are what exactly?) The best way to assess this -- the way that it is done in the United States Census is self-identification. Barack Obama, distant cousin of Dick Cheney, is called black because he identifies himself as black. How many Filipinos identify themselves as caucasian or partially caucasian? Genes are not really relevant; ethnicity/nationality/culture/identity is. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, self-identification is very hard to do in the Philippines, particularly when your census does not ask what ethnicity you belong to. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support, per the reasons I have stated in Talk:Filipino people. Namely:
- 1) A sample size of 28 taken from (IIRC) a couple of cities is too small for an archipelagic country of ~100 million people. The population is non-homogenious. The ethnic percentages in one island would be different from that of another.
- 2) The study being referenced was not specifically for the Philippines or the Filipino people. But a highly generalized study on Southeast Asian genetics.
- 3) The study does not extend the 3.6% European admixture conclusion for the entire Philippine population. It was only specifically for the sample. Its current usage is taken completely out of context.
- Like SkyHarbor said, the Philippine census does not ask for ethnic/racial origin (and most people don't know anyway). In the absence of large-scale reliable sources for this, I thus recommend we simply don't discuss it in the meantime.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, is there a WP article which makes the assertion (characterized as "mythological") "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood", or a substantively similar assertion? Which article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Several. Here's what I get from a few minutes of searching:
- Filipino people ("A study conducted by Stanford University based on DNA samples extrapolated that around 3.6% of Filipinos have European genetic ancestries.")
- Philippines#Demographics is another ("Meanwhile, the exact number of Spanish Filipinos remains unknown, but genetic studies extrapolated that 3.6% of all Filipinos have West European ancestry, most probably Spanish.") Take note that the latter even extends the conjecture not only to the population ("all Filipinos") but also assumes that it's Spanish. A conclusion which is also not in the study being referenced.
- Ethnic groups in the Philippines ("Although a study provided by Stanford University found that 3.6% European introgression into the Philippines was evident due to the period of colonization, it only genotyped 28 individuals from the Philippines. Results from such a small sample cannot be used with high confidence to characterize a population of 92 million persons."), this one has an explanatory note at the end.
- Miscegenation#Admixture in the Philippines ("A recent genetic study by Stanford University indicates that at least 3.6% of the population are European or of part European descent from both Spanish and United States colonization.") - it assumes Spanish and American origin this time.
- Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#Philippines ("However, a study was conducted and showed that the country has a 3.6% Eurasian population according to a study of 28 Filipino samples")
- Emigration from Europe#Asia ("Although a study provided by Stanford University claimed that around 3.6% of the population have White or Caucasian ancestries from both Spanish and American colonization, it only genotyped 28 individuals from the Philippines, a sample size far too small to draw conclusions on a population of over 90 million people.")
- I don't know all of them though. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of removing it, I would support putting in a disclaimer similar to the Emigration from Europe example. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Several. Here's what I get from a few minutes of searching:
- I am considering the addition of disclaimers into the articles that use that 3.6% so that at least the readers would be informed that that study is inconclusive and might not pass the test. Or we can also include data from historical censuses and books outlining the true degree of European introgression (Around 15% according to that European migration model). Nevertheless such things would only unnecessarily lengthen the statement and it might be just easier to just delete the 3.6% myth. The problem is that it is so prolific and it also very ingrained. We should have stopped this unfortunate misinformation years ago. D:
- Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree per WP:DUE. It simply is too small and too tangential of a study. While I might agree that if thoroughly explained it might be justifiable to retain it in articles which discusses the genetics of Filipino people in detail, in most of those articles the Philippines is only a minor entry and would not warrant paragraphs dedicated to it. To put it in context, you'd have to write a lot to explain the background of the study. That it was only paternal for example, or that it only has 28 samples, and that the study was not even about the European admixture in the Philippines or the Philippines itself. The study was about how much of the Austronesian haplogroups are derived from the north (i.e. China, Taiwan, etc.), and how much were indigenous to the islands. It just happened to contain a few samples from the Philippines. The explanation in Emigration from Europe does not quite cover everything that makes the study problematic.
- If you read the actual paper, you'd find out that their sampling of the Philippines is actually more of an afterthought (emphasis mine):
- The following samples were also analyzed: (1) Southeast Asia—Toraja and Palu (Sulawesi), Kota Kinabalu and Banjarmasin (Borneo), Pekanbaru (Sumatra), Mataram, and Alor (Lesser Sunda); (2) Melanesia—Fiji, Vanuatu, New Ireland, Madang (Papua New Guinea), and Irian Jaya; and (3) Polynesia—Tonga, Western Samoa, French Polynesia (mainly from Tahiti), and Atiu (southern Cooks). In addition, 28 individuals from the Philippines were genotyped.
- Considering that, now look at the table of sample sizes. The Philippines has the smallest sample size of 28. Taiwan for example has 246, Melanesia 342, Polynesia 200, Southern China 80. Even individual cities and islands in Indonesia and Malaysia (here identified as "Southeast Asia" with a total of 312) had more samples each than the entire Philippine archipelago. Yes, some countries/regions have smaller sample sizes (Irian Jaya has 19, Western Samoa has 16), but those are still relatively massive when you consider that Irian Jaya has a total population 2.8 million people of while Samoa has around 180,000 people, in contrast to the ~100 million people of the Philippines. Furthermore:
- The 10 Y chromosome microsatellites and 9 UEPs confirmed the importance of male-mediated European gene flow into Polynesia (Hurles et al. 1998). Using a collection of European samples typed in our laboratory for six markers (DYS388, DYS393, DYS392, DYS19, DYS390, and DYS391), we identified as European those haplogroup B and haplogroup D (fig. 2) haplotypes that either matched a European haplotype or were separated by one or two mutational events. This must be taken as approximate, because homoplasy could lead to false identification of a haploytpe as European, and our data set may be missing European haplotypes present in the region. Using these criteria, we identify a total of 48 chromosomes as European, ranging in frequency from 0% in Western Samoa to 29% in French Polynesia. Some European introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%–7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%).
- One word: approximate. And the fact that it does not say that the Philippines has 3.6% European admixture at all. Merely that they found 3.6% European introgression from [their sample size in] the Philippines. The two statements are not synonymous.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I support removing it for the reasons stated above, and for one more -- WP:THIRDPARTY. The study itself is a primary source. It is not a third party source that has commented upon the study, its accuracy and usefulness. We need the latter and without the latter, the info should be deleted. An encyclopedia remember summarizes what experts think. Experts have presumedly spent years researching, thinking about and debating the topic and then write they write books, articles or other summaries of conclusions. Encyclopedia then take several experts' summaries and further summarize to as small, compact and coherent a few paragraphs as possible. We do not summarize studies or other primary sources. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I support complete removal also, based on the valid arguments by Obsidian and Iloilo Wanderer (a disclaimer will still give undue attention to this faulty research, and thereby perpetuate the "myth"). Instead, it would be good to mention this study and the reasons why it should not be added to the main article on the respective talk pages, to inform editors that may be inclined to reinstate the info. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a side note, I've corrected the serious confusion at WP:THIRDPARTY. This particular source is primary but independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I support removing it for the reasons stated above, and for one more -- WP:THIRDPARTY. The study itself is a primary source. It is not a third party source that has commented upon the study, its accuracy and usefulness. We need the latter and without the latter, the info should be deleted. An encyclopedia remember summarizes what experts think. Experts have presumedly spent years researching, thinking about and debating the topic and then write they write books, articles or other summaries of conclusions. Encyclopedia then take several experts' summaries and further summarize to as small, compact and coherent a few paragraphs as possible. We do not summarize studies or other primary sources. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- One word: approximate. And the fact that it does not say that the Philippines has 3.6% European admixture at all. Merely that they found 3.6% European introgression from [their sample size in] the Philippines. The two statements are not synonymous.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite, IMO. To clarify, the study itself is quite acceptable and as a peer-reviewed paper, quite reliable. The problem is not the study itself, but our usage of it in these articles. Again, undue weight. We simply ascribe conclusions to it that are not present in the study, as well as inflate its scope and significance beyond what the study is about.
- Because again, the way the study is used in those Wikipedia articles makes it seem like the study is about European admixture in the Philippines when that simply isn't the case. The study is highly generalized. The Philippines itself is only mentioned thrice. The section on European admixture constitutes only paragraph. And is only included in the study for the purposes of explicitly excluding them, so the study can focus on its actual topic - the origins of Austronesian genes prior to European colonization. Thus it's quite ironic that we're using it instead to verify European introgression. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)