Tambayan Philippines Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 March 4. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

The template does not specify whether it is about past or current disputes so i've readded [[ Palmas island. -23prootie 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does leave the impression, that the territory's status has to be resolved. If it has been resolved, it simply is not anymore disputed. — scorpion prinz 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But if past disputes are all resolved then this template would cease to exist.-23prootie 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. If all disputes are resolved, this template would be irrelevant. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are no more disputes, we'll have to delete this. --Howard the Duck 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, no more disputed territories this should be gone. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But why keep this template in the first place if it is to be deleted anyway? Why can't historical disputes be included for historical purposes? and when all disputes are resolved, why can't we rename this template to historical territorial disputes of the Philippines? 23prootie 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until there are active disputes, there should be no historical ek-ek here. --Howard the Duck 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets put it this way, once it is resolved, it's not "disputed" anymore so it is senseless to add entries which aren't disputed. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But your acting as if this never existed so that the problem. Anyway I'm putting it inn this template so it does not get lost in the multitude of wiki articles.23prootie (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets put it this way, does Template:NBA include the defunct franchises? No. Neither should this. When the NBA dissolves, now that's the time to add all of the defunct franchises, or even delete the template. --Howard the Duck 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the source for this being a disputed region? The only reference I've found for it says its part of the Bicol Region, not really near any contested areas. [1] 76.235.196.28 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the Philippines claim Labuan too? Labuan was never part of Sulu. The Sultanate of Brunei granted only the northeastern part of Sabah back then to Sulu. Labuan actually remained under Brunei even when that part was submitted to Sulu.__earth ^(Talk) 13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]