Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noypi380 (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 4 March 2006 (→‎Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut

Tambayan Philippines is a notice board for articles related to the Philippines. You are welcome to post a notice here for any questions, suggestions, concerns, or anything at all about articles that are Philippine-related.

Tambayan is a Tagalog word which means hang-out. This page aims to be like Wikipedia's own Village Pump, but targeted for Philippine-related topics.

Wikipedians who live in or are associated with Philippines are encouraged to join Category:Filipino Wikipedians.


Click here to start a new discussion


Article collaborations

Notice Board

This is a section for announcements and news.

Archives

Tambayan Philippines archives:


Philippine Wikipedias

Featured Article Translation Project

The aim of this project is to translate English Wikipedia Featured articles to the main pages of existing Philippine-based Wikipedia.

Request an article

If you have a Philippine-related article in mind, you can request it here.

NOTE: Please add your request at the end of the list.

Regional notice boards
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Languages
See also: WikiProject directory

Discussion

City infobox

What do you guys think about replacing the current {{Infobox Philippine city}} (see it in action in the Manila article) with the one I implemented at Valencia, Negros Oriental? More neutral colors and standard design. It's based on the generic city infobox (see Ann Arbor, Michigan). Coffee 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral colors are always a safer choice. --Coffee, you just explained something to me. I grew up in the American Southwest, which is desert (no trees). Once, on a hike up Pikes Peak we passed under some trees and I was struck with déjà vu. The greenness of the leaves must be something I had seen as a baby, and had kept in my memories, somehow. --Ancheta Wis 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I liked the infobox shown on the Valencia article, there should be links explaining what "Income Class" and "District" are. Perhaps an additional maps indicating the location of the province within the country. Circa 1900 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No personal offense to Matthewprc but I don't like how the current template looks. The green is too bright; subtlety is better. I much prefer the original look or the one used in Valencia. (Disclosure: I created the original look.) Anyway, Whatever the final design is, I would suggest that either the spot where the seal would be placed should have a white background, or all the seals must have a transparent background so that we don't have the white square look. --seav 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to change all the seals of cities that use the template to transparentize the background. We can put links on income class and district to explain what those mean. I don't think we can put another map showing the location of the province within the country, but we could wikilink the province name to direct readers to the province article that has the corresponding map. That's how the US cities do it, at least.
Also, the new template would do away with the "founded" parameter. I don't think it's a good idea to put a "founded" date in the infobox when this date would mean different things to different cities. For example, in the Cebu City article the foundation date is the date of Legazpi arriving in Cebu; in Muntinlupa City it's the date that the city "starts being under the religious supervision of the Augustinians"; in Manila I just don't know what that date means; and many other cities just use the template without filling in the date. Putting this field in the infobox gives a false sense that the dates mean the same thing in differnet places... I think it would be better to just mention it in more detail in the history section of the article. Coffee 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of founded, how about cityhood? Majority of the cities in the Philippines became cities after the 1991 Local Government Code was passed. --seav 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I agree that cityhood should stay. By the way, there seems to be a new CSS thing (used in Template:Infobox Film) that allows something to be hidden if the field is blank. We could use it on the cityhood field so that we don't need a separate template for municipalities. Coffee 14:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Very major" revisions on the peso

Okay, since I think that the post posted below might not get enough exposure on the talk page that it was posted on (Talk:Philippine peso), I decided to post it here as well.

An anonymous user has deleted much of the history section of the article on the Philippine peso. I wonder why this was done and whether the material is worthy of reentry into this article.

The deleted information includes:

  • Philippine currency in the pre-colonial era
  • More information on Spanish pesos
  • More information on the peso fuerte ("BPI pesos")
  • More information on the laws regulating the peso during the American era
  • More information on Philippine pesos during the American era
  • World War II pesos ("Mickey Mouse money")
  • The peso to 1965

Before the revisions, I was also going to add sections on the history section pertaining to the peso during the Marcos era and the peso today. Anyway, consensus would be very much appreciated.

To see the info before it was deleted, please visit the history page.

--Akira123323 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just revert it. That IP address only has 3 other edits before this, and one of them appears to be another case of blanking vandalism. Coffee 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been done. Hopefully it doesn't happen again, but then again it can happen at any time. --Akira123323 08:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apayao, Kalinga, Cebu, etc became disambiguation pages

User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally moved many provincial pages and modified the original to become disambiguation pages. Please discuss this on his talk page if you agree or disagree. --seav 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Cebu province and even Quezon province, but Apayao province and Kalinga province does not make sense. Circa 1900 13:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what he did, too. I think we should revert his changes, and make a page called Cebu (disambiguation). I'm all for consistency on this issue, so another alternative would be to make all the Philippine province articles have the "province" after their names. --Chris S. 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays of Bago City

Argh. A few barangays of Bago City got their own articles... We should have a consensus on this. --seav 00:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tobias Conradi just wikilinked all the barangays names, and there are some articles with the same names as Bago City barangays. Coffee 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I request an admin to file a request for article deletion? The article questioned is 2005 Charter Change in the Philippines. According to policy, that article should not be here. Pls see this policy article for reference. Cha-Cha is not definitive. That article can only exist if there is an ongoing ratification/plebisicite process. And that's being liberal. Strictly, it can only exist after ratification, assuming that happens, which again is a long shot. Better yet the article should not exist period. There are also lots of other stuff that should not exist that are popping out, in disambg pages, etc, so we have to be vigilant. We need to police more of our own. Thanks. :) --Noypi380 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. You don't need an admin for the deletion vote. YOu can post the vfd. Or I can do it for you. Once you post a Vfd, it will most probably be voted for deletion by the majority.--Jondel 08:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noypi I hope you don't mind , I used your words for reasons for deletion.--Jondel 09:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no prob. :) I voted already too. ;) --Noypi380 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Philippines

I'm thinking of starting a Category:People from Metro Manila, People from Bulacan, etc. I wondering if you don't agree and if this will cause trouble. Circa 1900 13:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In fact, we should probably have categories for all the provinces too (like Category:Bulacan, etc). Coffee 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead! Be bold!--Jondel 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made 80 categories for the provinces and Metro Manila. If you're going to make "People of X" categories, make them subcategories of those. Now to populate these categories with articles... Coffee 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have two little problems: how would I call them? For example, is it People from Manila or Manilenos?. Another question: how about the "divided provinces" (Negros, Samar, Cotobato, etc.)? Would it be Category:People from Negros Occidental and Category People from Negros Oriental or just Category:People from Negros? Or Category:People from Negros, Philippines? Also, I think the Category:People of the Philippines looks like a good head-start. I'm also planning to include Fil-Ams. Circa 1900 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Category:People from Bulacan" format would be best. That's how they do it with US States (see Category:American people by state). And people from Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental (and similar cases) should be kept separate, as they're different provinces. Coffee 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am now on the process of creating the categories. However, I don't know where places of origin of these people, so much help will be appreciated. Circa 1900 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misspelled "South Cotabato", hope the admins would correct it. Circa 1900 08:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fixed. Coffee 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of Dasalan at Tuksuhan?

Someone marked Dasalan at Tuksuhan for English translation. People were confused at first as to what language it was. [Should I be writing this request somewhere else? It's already listed under pages needing translation into English. --TheBoompsy 06:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. Thanks. --Jondel 07:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the Philippines

There has recently been an edit war over the capital city of the Philippines. If I understand the situation correctly, this should be no big deal, but those of you from the Philippines who know more about local terminology should decide whether Wikipedia should list the capital as Manila or Metro Manila or the NCR, etc. Keep in mind that apparently some citizens of the NCR outside Manila proper might be offended if the capital is referred to simply as Manila. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The capital city of the Philippines is Manila. Metro Manila is a region, so it is not the capital city. Circa 1900 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I just wanted to make sure the relevant articles maintained a neutral point of view since at least one anonymous user insisted several times in good faith that Manila was not the capital. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 04:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The capital city of the Philippines is Manila, but the seat of government is Metro Manila: Manila (executive and judiciary), Quezon City (upper legislative), and Pasay City (lower legislative). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.151.2 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2006.
So I can understand why some residents of Quezon City and Pasay City might want their hometowns to be mentioned. Nevertheless, every other reference that I can find simply identifies Manila as the capital, so I guess that's what Wikipedia needs to do. --TantalumTelluride 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no laws defining Quezon City, Pasay City or even Metro Manila as the capital. Presidential Decree No. 940 transferred the capital back to Manila on 24 June 1976 from QC. I repeat: NO law defines Metro Manila as the capital, as of now. If anyone can prove otherwise, fine with me. Circa 1900 18:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what might the proper nomenclature be? In Mexico, it's Ciudad de México, D.F. (Distrito Federal); in the US, it's Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia); by analogy, might it be Manila, NCR, perhaps? --Ancheta Wis 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply Manila is fine. --seav 04:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Washington (not the state) is coextensive to District of Columbia (dunno about Mexico City and Distrito Federal). However, Manila is not coextensive to NCR. Circa 1900 04:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on airports

Hey what to you think of this idea. We rename Ninoy Aquino International Airport to Manila NAIA, and Diosdado Macapagal International Airport to Manila DMIA This is similar to the London Heathrow and the London Gatwick that are being used. I have two reasons for this. First, to shrink the article titles so that it is easier for people to link to it. Second, as the highway is built, DMIA is planned to serve Manila, the way Gatwick serves London, despite the distance. What do you guys think? Pls archive Tambay na rin, for Tambay is getting too long. Thanks. --Noypi380 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles names are fine as they are now... just like John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris. The naming convention is to prefer spelled out phrases to acronyms (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)). You can link to the articles using Manila NAIA and Manila DMIA if you want, since they redirect to the airport articles.
And I archived old discussions. :) Coffee 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are fine with me. Thanks. ;) --Noypi380 13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nl:Wikipedia:Mededelingenbord voor aan de Filipijnen gerelateerde onderwerpen

Starship Troopers Trivia

In the Starship Troopers novel by Robert A. Heinlein, Juan Rico, the protagonist, is a Filipino or of a Filipino family. --Jondel 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the character in the film wasn't Pinoy eh. Seems that the original novel would be an interesting read, since it has more diverse characters. --Noypi380 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the ships used by the Earth fleet is named after Ramon Magsaysay. RashBold Talk 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Pasig City stampede

An article on yesterday's stampede at the Philsports Arena is currently on VfD. Your votes are appreciated.

The article is saved. It is now agreed that it be called PhilSports Arena stampede. Pls contribute if you can. --Noypi380 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Philippine Cyberservices Corridor

Pls vote here in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Cyberservices Corridor, and a related article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberservices --Noypi380 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, so status quo. --Noypi380 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is status quo, I wonder how we can integrate both the "current" corridor and the "future" corridor into one article. It seems to me like a very interesting project. --Akira123323 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes it is interesting, but I still have some issues with it when it appeared. Due to the lack of consensus, I think the safest thing to do is to let that article grow in content first, regardless of what it is really talking about, although I think it should be written in a way that suggests a planned "future" corridor is in the process of construction. Also, it should not definitely proclaim that something is there when it is in fact not there, coz our RP IT/BPO services workers know that they are not part of any "current" corridor, regardless of POV. :) --Noypi380 03:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BDO-EPCIB merger

Okay, so I got started on a project to document the Banco de Oro-Equitable PCI Bank merger. Apparently, my lack of resources prohibits me from getting more information on this topic that is shaking up the Philippine banking industry. Help is very much appreciated. --Akira123323 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....I think that article has more than enough data already. Just some tweaking and some updates would be enough, then the article can stabilize after the merger. ;) --Noypi380 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog Wikibook maintenance

The Tagalog Wikibook is undergoing maintenance to reorganize it and to put it to higher standards. As such, much content will be put in, and this is a very big undertaking. Please help. Thanks. --Akira123323 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

Hello. I think the following articles need to be improved: Demographics of the Philippines and Ethnic groups of the Philippines. Here are the changes I'm proposing. Since these articles tend to change a lot, I wanted to align with you guys before I do some work, so we could pull the cart in (more or less) the same direction...

Demographics of the Philippines

  • Make the Demographics article quantitative as far as possible. Remove descriptions of ethnicities, languages. If people want to know what Aeta or Taglog or mestiso means, they can go to the main articles of these topics. This seems to be consistent with other demographics articles.
  • Simplify the intro
    • Racial
    • Linguistic
    • Cultural/Religious/Political
  • Move the History section to Ethnic groups of the Philippines
  • Modify the Ethnic Groups in accordance to the discussion in WP:TAMBAY#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity
    • What name do you suggest to encompass the 'lowland Austronesian-speaking groups'? I also suggest that you put into account the old demographic sources that User:Al-Andalus has removed. So far, he heas removed everything that is contradictory to his point of view. He also removed one source dating to the Spanish times that shows that 35% of the population of Luzon was Spanish-Filipino Mestizo. :) --Matthewprc 02:53 03 February 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at the long (and now archived) conversation about this some weeks ago…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity --Nino Gonzales 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups of the Phil

Principles:

  • Proportionality. Larger (e.g., Tagalogs) or significant (Chinese commercially, Spanish historically) should get more space than almost invisible minorities like Indonesians or Malaysians
  • Filipino is beyond ethnicity (see WP:TAMBAY#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity)

Outline

  • Intro (broad description)
  • History (from Demographics)
  • Ethnic groups (north to south? for each group: size; location; language/s; culture; some special thing about them… e.g., commercial role of the Chinese; a picture of a member of that ethnicity)
    • Ilokano (pic of Marcos)
    • Kapangpangan (pic Arroyo?)
    • Pangasinense (pic of Ramos)
    • Tagalog (pic of Rizal)
    • Bikolano (Raul Roco)
    • Bisaya (Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Waray, etc.) (Pedro Calungsod)
    • Moro (A datu)
    • Mountainfolk (Igorot, Lumad, etc.) (a Negrito, a Lumad in traditional garb)
    • Chinese, Chinese mestiso (Lucio Tan and Kris Aquino)
    • Spanish, Spanish Mestiso (An Ayala and a mestiso actor)
    • Other minorities (American, Koreans, South Asians, etc)

Suggestions? --Nino Gonzales 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is fine, but the pictures you suggested are somewhat not representative of the majority. Marcos is a Filipino-Japanese-Chinese Mestizo (he doesn't look like the typical Ilocano), Rizal is a Tagalog-Chinese-Japanese-Negrito-Spanish Mestizo (doesn't look like the typical Tagalog). It would also be better to use the terms Kapampangan (rather than Kapangpangan), Bangsamoro (rather than simply Moro). Spanish Mestizo is a large grouping/category enough to have its own section, but the Spanish is not.(There are only 16,000 pure Spanish in the Philippines, half of which are even Basques [ethnologically independent of other Spaniards]). The largest foreign (NOT mestizo)minorities based on surveys are as follows (largest to smallest : Chinese (1 Million), American (110,000), South Asian (70,000), Indonesian (55,000), both Korean and Arab (22,000). The smallest minority is French (400).
Yup, Kapampangan… my mistake. It seems Moro or Muslim Filipino is more appropriate. It seems that Bangsamoro refers to the “nation” and not to the person. It seems it is equivalent to Katagalugan or Kabisay-an rather than Tagalog or Bisaya...--Nino Gonzales 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake too!...But recently, more and more Muslim Filipinos refer to themselves as the 'Bangsamoro'.--User:Matthewprc 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why not this?: Outline

  • Intro (broad description)
  • History (from Demographics)
  • Ethnic groups (north to south? for each group: size; location; language/s; culture; some special thing about them… e.g., commercial role of the Chinese; a picture of a member of that ethnicity)
    • Austronesian-Southern Chinese [which is what Filipinos are]
      • Ilocan
      • Pampangan (pic of D. Macapagal, Arroyo is partly Cebuana)
      • Pangasinense (pic of Ramos)
      • Tagalog (pic of someone residing in Batangas)
      • Bicolan (Raul Roco)
      • Ilonggan
      • Cebuan
      • Samaran
      • Other Visayan
      • Maranao
      • Maguindanao
      • Tausug
      • Cordilleran
      • Mindoro and Palawan Hilltribes
      • Mindanao Hilltribes
    • Filipino Mestizo
      • Chinese Mestizo
      • Spanish Mestizo
      • Indo-Aryan Mestizo
      • American Mestizo
      • Japanese Mestizo
      • Other
    • Unmixed Southern Chinese
    • American
    • South Asian
    • Indonesian
    • European
    • Other foreign minorities (Belgian, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Jew, etc.)

--User:Matthewprc 3:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No one uses "Austronesian-Southern Chinese", this goes against avoiding the use of neologisms here. I'll say it again, use either "ethnic Filipinos" or "native Filipinos." :-) --Chris S. 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this outline would also work. Is there any particular reason why you prefer this? Why don’t we come up with some guidelines to choosing an outline and selecting what data to include in the article (this would ultimately be a matter of selection; we can’t possibly include everything about ethnic groups in the Philippines within 30KB, or within a crisp wikipedia article). My proposals are in the section below. I’ll ask Al-Andalus to contribute to setting these guidelines this since he seems to be interested in this article.

In the meantime I placed a POV tag on the article because it seems that:

  • It is written from a Pilipino racial nationalist POV, based on its categorization of ethnicities; on what it deems to be “Filipino” and “foreign”
  • It is written from a Tagalog/Manila-centric POV, based on its selection of information to include for each ethnicity

I also placed an improvement tag since:

  • It is too long
  • There are too many controversial claims without any reference
  • The POV issues

I'll also asks our admins to not allow editing from anons... --Nino Gonzales 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas are great! However, Al-Andalus has mutilated several articles, such as the Demographics of the Philippines (by erasing a vast number of other sources), Filipino people (by periodically erasing Spanish from the list of related ethnic groups), the Philippines, and Ethnic Groups of the Philippines. And we remove the term Austronesian-Southern Chinese and replace it with other terms...--User:Matthewprc 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Article

All, please help in setting guidelines for writing this article. Since it discusses something that seems to elicit impassioned edits from all sorts of POV’s, maybe agreeing in principles would make it more stable.

Proportionality

More prominent ethnicities should get more space. If people want more data, they could always go to the main articles.

  • The Tagalogs, Kapampangans, etc. should get their own sections (due to their size and visibility)
  • The Filipinos of Chinese and Spanish ancestries should also get sections due to their prominence in Philippine history.
  • I’d collapse Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, South Asians into 2 sentences. Maybe give 3 or 4 to Americans due to their influence in Filipino culture. And maybe 1 for the Japanese because of the war. If people want more details, they could always go to the pages of Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. in the Philippines

Brevity

Limit inclusion of data to those which are most significant.

  • I would limit this to language, size, location, and something unique about them (e.g., the Ilocano’s reputation of having the tendency for migration)
  • Budgeted outline
    • Intro (1 paragraph)
    • History (5 to 10 paragraphs)
    • The different ethnic groups intro (5 sentences)
      • Ilocano (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Pangasinense (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Kapampangan (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Tagalog (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Bicolano (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Bisaya (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Moro/Muslim Filipinos (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Tribal groups (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Chinese, Chinese mestizo (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Spanish, Spanish mestizo (2-3 paragraphs)
      • Other minorities (one paragraph with maybe a couple of sentences about the influence of American culture)

Collapse when you can

  • The Bisaya can be lumped together (why not?). Highlight the Cebuano, Waray-Waray and Hiligaynon speakers by noting that they are the biggest ethnolinguistic groups with Bisaya ancestry.
  • The Moros/Muslim Filipinos could also be discussed in one section
  • The tribal groups could also be in one section.
  • I would include Chinese mestisos in the Chinese section and Spanish mestisos in the Spanish section. If you include them in the other sections (there are Tagalog-Chinese, Bisaya-Chinese, Waray-Spanish, Kapampangan-American), you’d have to repeat it in every section.

Controversial claims should be backed-up by generally trusted sources

Here are the sources I was planning to use:

  • Agoncillo for the objective things (the what and the when)
  • Nick Joaquin for the subjective things (e.g., what it means to be Filipino, the influence of the Chinese, Spanish and Americans)
  • CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art for the data on each ethnicity
  • A few other papers and books to fill whatever gaps there are from the above

Follow convention

Use commonly used terms and divisions

  • In outline proposal 1, the division is based on 2 very mainstream books: Agoncillo’s History of the Filipino People and Nick Joaquin’s Culture and History.
  • Discussion on terms below

Terms

  • Filipino

There are different definition. I admit that some define Filipino in terms of race, but I don’t know of any mainstream scholar who defines Filipino in terms of race. Agoncillo and Nick Joaquin does NOT define Filipino in terms of race. I suggest we avoid defining it; neither explicitly nor implicitly (through some sort of segregation). If we insist in defining it, the several generally accepted POV’s should be represented.

  • Ethnicity

From its wikipedia article, it does not (only) mean race, or linguistic grouping

    • Ok! Pero, American (120.000), South Asian (50,000), and Korean (22,000) are very large enough to warrant their own section. Do you think so?
If the major ethnic groups get a section and they are in the millions (even the "full blooded" Chinese are in the millions), maybe ethnicities in the hundred thousands or ten thousands could get subsections in a "minorities" section... or get several sentences... particularly the Americans due to their role in Filipino history, or South Asians due to some Hindu influence in Filipino culture, or to Koreans who have lately been very visible due to English schools and Koreonovelas... how does that sound? --Nino Gonzales 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail

If we want to make this article quick and crisp, I think we need to select what are the most important details we would want to include. I think all ethnicities should have the following details:

  • location
Maybe better to make it broad (e.g., Ilocanos are the inhabitants of the lowlands and coastal areas of northern Luzon. vs. The Ilocano are found in the original Ilocano provinces of Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, La Union)
  • language/s and number of speakers
  • religion

And for specific ethnicities

  • Ilocano
tendency to migrate
presence in Hawaii
Philippine Independent Church
  • Kapampangan
The Tagalog-Kapampangan role during the Spanish era
reliable soldiers of the Spanish colony
  • Tagalog
Manila
The national language
Role in Philippine history
  • Bisaya
The largest are the speakers of Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray-Waray
Bisaya vs. Binisaya
  • Moro
The largest groups: Tausug, Maguindanao, Maranao
Unconquered by Spanish
Continuing struggle for various degrees of self-determination?
  • Tribal groups
Coldillera, Palawan, Mindanao hilltribes
Least influenced by Islamic, Christian, Hispanic and American cultures
  • Chinese
Commercial role
Chinese mestizo role in the development of the Filipino nation
  • Spanish
Christianity
Cultural influence
A lot of mestizos in former agriculture centers, showbiz?

What do you think?--Nino Gonzales 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD: Cartimar

This article is up for PRODing, aka. not-quite-speedy deletion. Alphax τεχ 06:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television shows in the Philippines

The articles in this category are a mess. The articles look like a press release or a propaganda thingy rather than an encyclopedia article. What should we do? Also, some Wikipedians (who are apparently fans of these programs) are stubborn and would revert to their own crappy version. Any thoughts? Howard the Duck 08:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I am not certain however with the other wikipedians. It would be difficult to revert in these matters, as there is a clear and obvious intention of promotion with the contributors. I suggest the best course of action it to spread important wiki ideas to the contributors themselves like (1) wikipedia must have encyclopedic articles, (2) wikipedia is not for propaganda, and (3) wikipedia encourages NPOV, etc. Once the contributors realize these themselves, they themselves will be more productive, and critical of what they have written, or shouldn't have written. Finally, providing them links to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and the like helps alot. Contributors usually get excited in writing without reading up on such things, I know I was when I started. Even some of us experienced ones also forget. :) (ahem, ahem) Hope that helps. :) --Noypi380 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 in the Philippines

Perhaps we can create this article, just like 2005 in Australia. Circa 1900 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. :) Very, very relevant potential article. You can end the article with the December film festival, etc. --Noypi380 02:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, started it already for you, 2005 in the Philippines, 2003 in the Philippines, and 2000 in the Philippines. :) --Noypi380 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was lazy these past days. Circa 1900 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy from wiki? Pwede ba yn? Hahaha Maybe lazy from actual work or job? hehehe ;) --Noypi380 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, perhaps both. I've also created the 2006 in the Philippines article. Circa 1900 05:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cebu Daily News

So, I was in a department store last Saturday when I stopped by a rack of newspapers to look at the headlines-- and lo and behold, on the front page of the Cebu Daily News, I find my locator map of Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte. It had some modifications to show the other cities and municipalities. It gave no credit to me or Wikipedia (in fact, the graphics were attributed to a "Jessah Diaz"), but I guess I should be flattered. :) There's an image of the front page here. Coffee 07:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't guarantee but probably the CDN (which is an Inquirer affiliate) decided to give credit to whoever made the modified map rather than to who made the original. --Akira123323 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can relate. A few months ago, I was browsing the September-October (?) issue of FU magazine and, lo and behold, I saw my Media:Ph_map_cavite.png map placed in a feature article about Caylabne Bay Resort. The map was modified: the Puerto Azul location was wiped out, the Caylabne location made larger, and some highway markers (e.g. 7-11, Petron) were added. They could use it but they have to license it under the GFDL, which I don't think they have space for. I kept mum about it since it's not a big deal really (but I really would like some attribution, which the GFDL or the CC-Attribution licenses enforce). --seav 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays again

Barangay articles are popping up here and there, and I'm rethinking my opposition to their creation... We have 41,939 barangays, with an average population of 2094. France has 36,782 communes, with an average population of 1738. Seeing that there are articles that list all of the communes in France (like Communes of the Côtes-d'Armor département) with all of them wikilinked, I'm suppose that they have consensus to keep articles on communes. With that considered, we don't seem to have much of a case for opposing barangay articles. Coffee 05:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All around, the consensus has been to keep articles on small villages, communes, and the such. I don't see why we can't have articles on barangays. Sure, there's a bunch of them, but they exist after all. No need to rush ahead and create articles on all 42K of 'em, but no need to have them all deleted as they pop up. However, I do think they should be merged into articles about any cities or municipalities they are within, if possible. — TheKMantalk 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think the first question we should ask is, if we're going to have barangay articles, should we have articles for each and every one just for the sake of consistency or should only some barangays have articles? My position on barangay articles is all or nothing: either all have articles or none have articles. If we're going to have articles for each and every barangay, then we'd be hard-pressed to write a decent encyclopedic article on Barangay 276, Manila or Barangay 88, Pasay City. And do you really think we need articles each for Talaba I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of Bacoor, Cavite? If the decision is to have articles for some prominent barangays, then we face the problem of the criteria for which barangay should have an article or not.
I think that barangays should not have articles for the meantime, if ever the community decides to have some of them. One major problem of Wikipedia is of too little depth and an excess of breadth disproportionate to the depth. I think the efforts of the community would be better served in improving the current articles where there is no debate whether the article should be there or not. We don't even have a Filipino-produced Featured Article yet!
As for enthusiastic newbies creating articles for their barangays, my suggestion is to merge them into the city/municipality article or to start a Barangays of/in X article, just like Barangays in Cebu City.
--seav 13:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Note to admins: somebody(s) vandalized Mike Abundo. I reverted it back to the orig, but I just want you guys to know. Pls check the history of it. I'm not the expert but I think something has to be done. Lastly, is the Mike Abundo article supposed to be there? I'm not sure anymore. --Noypi380 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like vanity to me, seeing that it was made by a User:Mikeabundo. I'm gonna try this new WP:PROD thing... Coffee 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-> Delete(?) --Jondel 08:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Abundo agreed to userify the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Abundo. --Jojit fb 08:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines as Latin America

http://news.yahoo.com/i/734;_ylt=AstpBrFDVcWtIsdd_jSTdZFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines&oldid=42128498"