This page 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.

Good Day to you, dear P199. First of all, I would want to go directly to the point. Naga City's article in Wikipedia does have some mistakes, but they are not false, and are verifiable with references, links, and pictures. If you may wish so, remove the bold prints, but please, I humbly beg for your mercy, not to take away the pictures, for they represent the truth from the city. They are referenced to wikimedia anyway, but please, do not remove the pictures, and the other sourced, and verifiable truths about Naga City

May you read this solemnly, and consult your humble conscience if there is a need. Just post back in the section, and I will find time, to have a reply to you. ---110.93.93.250

• Thank you for adding many nice pictures to the article. The pictures are not a problem but the strong propaganda tone of the info is. See my further reply at Talk:Naga, Camarines Sur#Clean up. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello right back my friend. Regarding your observations, wouldn't having the additional census infobox be information overkill? The same basic population info appears in the Census table.

As far as the big thing, do you think it's too much? I find the smaller print (even bold) doesn't stand out enough. Plus, I didn't want to make a header for it that would appear in the contents section. BTW: what is inconsistent formatting?

Let me know. Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism before the one I reverted to on President of the Philippines. I usually do check previous versions, but there was a ridiculous amount of vandalism going on last night and only a handful of vandalism fighters, so I wasn't as careful in checking if previous versions were free of vandalism as I usually would have been. My apologies. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• @AddWittyNameHere: No problem. I was a little harsh in my comment. I too have made this same mistake before. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It sometimes annoys me as well if I see someone revert to an also obviously vandalized version, but indeed, it's a mistake all of us make once in a while, especially when high-speed reverting vandalism for a while, I'd guess. Last night was crazy. Between reverts, warns and posts to the AIV and UAA, I racked up 120+ edits in maybe 1h30m. Have a nice day, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• @AddWittyNameHere: Wow. Fighting vandalism is a full-time task! What tool do you use to monitor it? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Depends on the situation. I usually use Huggle to do the obvious work (like people randomly removing a couple thousand bytes of information from an article, replacing words with obscenities, making personal attacks against others and introducing deliberate factual errors (like changing someone's weight to "100000lbs" or someone's height to "19ft") and similar stuff), open the page in-browser if I see a good-faith change that has to be reverted or have reason to suspect subtle vandalism, vandalism in previous edits or am plain unsure if something is vandalism (like additional information in a referenced paragraph, where I have to check the source to see if the added information is covered, or quotes with expletives that may or may not belong in said quote, removal of seemingly sourced information with the claim that it's not covered by the source) and, if something has to be reverted, usually use Twinkle to revert it and leave a warning if necessary. I usually do the same if I have to comb through several revisions to find the last non-vandalized revision. Occasionally, I use my WP:Rollback-privilege in its pure form, but that's almost only when I'm in-browser and dealing with a vandalism-only account or IP that keeps doing the same edit to the same page and where I have no reason to check the actual edit in-depth.
• I also tend to use the Recent Changes page and the filter logs. Once in a while, I keep an eye on the User Creation log to scan for problematic usernames, or more commonly, the New Editors Contributions log (which I scan for problematic usernames, usernames that show blatant COI when combined with their edit(s) and for vandalism). If I find an IP or user engaging in more varied vandalism, or subtle vandalism, I usually check their contributions as well to see if there's anything else that needs reverting, though I usually only have time to do that if the Huggle revert-per-minute rate is 8 or below. (I suppose it's no huge surprise when I say that by my estimate, about 70% of my edits are in some way related to dealing with problematic edits or editors? XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to run into someone else with the same project. You, User:GenQuest, myself and a handful of others seem to be digging hard into that backlog. My goal is to get it down to less than 10,000. Nice to see that you've joined the project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @NickPenguin: Thank you. There are a few other projects I work on, but I have worked on the merge backlog from time to time before. I just thought it would be time to add my name to the WikiProject. Kudos to you too, because merging is a tedious task. BTW, after a merge, you need to add the ((merged-to)) and ((merged-from)) templates on the talk pages. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haloarchaea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Halobacteriaceae, order Halobacteriales in Class III. Halobacteria of the phylum Euryarchaeota (International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes, Subcommittee on the taxonomy of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. What I added is mostly about Hull's fame as a wild place to drink. But there was a small section already in the article about it being a POW location during the war. Does the POW paragraph look awkward, mixed in with all the bar and drinking stuff? I'm wondering if it needs it's own section. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No disrespect intended but......really? I think you're being a bit too picky over things I am doing to improve these pages. I have already conceded in the issue of large font 8-way headers. Making the waterway fonts blue and surrounding the name with ~~ watermarks ~~ is only there to improve the page. Please stop reverting edits only because they are visually unappealing to you (and you do appear to be the only one). I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but will not waste any more time if this is to be a regular occurrence. Sorry dude, really not pleased. Gordalmighty (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Gordalmighty: Sorry you feel that way and I don't mean to aggravate you. I do appreciate your efforts on Quebec municipality articles. But my point is that changes like this affect not just the Quebec municipalities. The ((geographic location)) is used in 10s of 1000s of articles. So by changing the look it is no longer consistent with other places. Why should only Quebec have unique formatting? These geo templates were in place already a long time (even before my involvement), why reinvent the wheel now? Normally changes that affect so many pages should be discussed first to get consensus (WP:BRD). Moreover visual changes are highly personal (thus to consider them improvements is also personal), so if we don't keep them consistent, the next editor will change it all according to his/her preferences! Anyway, besides tweaking templates, there is still so much to do on these articles, like adding real content. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the reply P199. I will suspend this part of my edits for the moment. I may consider one day getting a concensus on it (however it's done), but I'm dropping it for now. Sorry for the shit. Peace. Gordalmighty (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize my cousin has been doing to you, and wikipedia. I traveled to Manila, while my cousin used my account to attack, and bash, and worse, vandalize the legitimacy of the articles he has disturbed. I have already changed my password, in order for my cousin not to enter it anymore. Please just forgive him for the trouble my cousin has committed

Thanks for messaging me...Dominic McArthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic McArthur (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain the rationale of why you keep on reverting edits with regards to the other official names of Bacolod City in Hiligaynon, Tagalog, and Spanish, the other official languages in the city? If there is no need to translate the name "city" in EN wiki, then you also have to delete these official names from ALL Philippine cities, not just Bacolod. By this regard, I will revert your reverts on Bacolod's page until you can give either a suitable explanation and apply the same to other Philippine city pages. Thanks. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• @RepublicaNegrense: Think about what you just wrote: Does this city really have 4 official names in 4 languages? No. It is merely the translation of the same term "city". As English WP, we don't need to know what city is any other language. If someone needs to know, they can click on the links for the foreign-language Wikipedias. And yes, me and other editors are trying very hard to clean this up from other PH cities (and municipalities!!!) as well (for example see contributions by WikiEditor50). But I can't have every LGU on my watchlist, and we can't keep up with editors who revert! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Are you applying this merely for Philippine wiki entries for Philippine LGUs or is this a universal decision? Let me cite you non-Philippine cities: Ceuta and Melilla. The different words for cities is not just merely there to translate but are official names of the city. Thus far, by city ordinance, the Hiligaynon, Tagalog, and English names of the city have co-equal status, while there is no repealing ordinance that made the Spanish name not official anymore. As far as I know, you only led me to another user talk, not a current discussion. If there was any discussion page about this being participated by other wiki editors, please link me to that one first. Just like how "city" was removed from the header title of each city that does not have the same name as the mother province and each edit cited a discussion page. Thanks. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines‎. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear P199,

The Legazpi Page has suffered a series of serious cases of vandalism, most of which were done by the user Dominic MacArthur. I humbly request from you sir/ma'm to please block his account and his IP address. Thank you.Unique Albay (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

P199, edits in Naga, Camarines Sur, Legazpi, Albay, Bicol Region, and other pages, vandalized by User:Unique Albay, has resulted to a total outrage. Some important data, valuable knowledge and sources, regarding the topic, have been tampered with false, and bogus edits done by the said user. May I wish it would not result to edit war, but the user has been stubborn about it's stand. I wish your helpful cooperation to this outrage and help to seek the truth.

Many people have lost credibility to Wikipedia, especially to these pages, because of this insolence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Corrset (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why cower behind a single-purpose account? Both User:Unique Albay and User:Dominic McArthur have made very questionable edits and both really should first learn the policies and guidelines of WP!!! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• In my defense, I have not included facts and assertions that are baseless or false. I have indicated citations and references for verifiability. Should my edits result into an edit war, I will always be ready and armed with sources that will back up my statements. Although as of the time being, I still don't have all available sources and references, I promise to provide them as soon as I have them. For the violations I have done, please describe what they are so I would know what I should do. Thank you. Unique Albay (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethan Corrset, may I ask why the statement that Legazpi is the largest in Bicol was deleted? Please explain. In common parlance, largest city of any place in the world refers to the most populous city of that area. Also, there was no mention of "capitol" in my edits. I mentioned "capital." Please explain how a region cannot have a capital when a capital means the seat of government and the administrative center of a certain place. Also, the strategic location part was deleted for no reason! It was not false, just not backed up by sources, which can be provided, although not so easy because government facts in the Philippines are so hard to retrieve! Another deletion was about the Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972. Why was it deleted? It shows the history behind how Legazpi was chosen as the administrative center of Bicol Region. Do you seriously think we can retrieve a 1972 plan? You must be kidding!Unique Albay (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the place to discuss article issues, use the article talk pages! I will provide my thoughts there. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Content dispute and incivil behavior on Naga, Camarines Sur and Legazpi, Albay. Thank you. -- Tito Pao (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, P199. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/DeCSS haiku.
Message added 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, P199. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/DeCSS haiku.
Message added 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

On 15 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carling Campus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at one time Nortel's Carling Campus in Ottawa, Canada, represented the city's aspirations of becoming a technology hotbed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carling Campus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Northern Mindanao may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ((small|¹) [[Cagayan de Oro City]] and [[Iligan City]] are highly-urbanized cities; figures are excluded from

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baungon, Bukidnon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to April and wet from May to December. In 1997, the heaviest rainfall was recorded in January with {{Convert|497.8|mm}. April has the lowest amount of rainfall with ((Convert|24.3|mm)). The average

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[1]

Please cite what rule I violated and why is it against Wiki-policy to know what happened to your fellow editors. That's uncivil of you not to even talk about it in my talk page.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If falls outside the intended scope of Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, which states: to "discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects." And there is also WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Anyway, looks like other editors interpret this differently, so nevermind... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stroboscopic effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 128.211.168.1 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the LGU articles. You may consider working on the weather averages per administrative unit. Like http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Itbayat-weather-averages/Batanes/PH.aspx, format can be www.worldweatheronline.com/Municipality name-weather-averages/Province/PH.aspx --Exec8 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Exec8: Yes, sure, that is a good idea. But I won't have as much time to work on WP over the next couple of weeks, so it'll go slow... I checked the website above, and I am not so sure how accurate this info is. Does Itbayat really have a weather station? I don't think so, therefore this weather info is either general or interpolated. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and culture, since 2012.<ref>[http://nophi.net/site/magfest-x-roundup/ MAGFest X Roundup, Part One]</r [http://www.otakuusamagazine.com/SearchAudience/News1/A_Fond_Look_Back_at_MAGFest_11_4911.aspx A
• File:GaylordNationalResortAtrium.jpg|Indoor Atrium Lobby]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it important to separate as far as possible physical geography, i.e. islands, from administrative divisions, i.e. municipalities. My idea was to merge all the Camotes islands under the Camotes Islands umbrella, and reserve the municipalities' pages for topics which are at that level. So I put Lake Danao into Pacijan island, together with brief notes of beaches, but I would place items such as transport (ports), industry, churches, schools etc., into the municipality pages. I would then cascade upwards (merge) the four islands into the Camotes page. Apart from Pacijan, which I worked on yesterday, the other three pages are complete stubs with zero info outside of their infobox-style data. (I created the infoboxes earlier this week). For instance the mangrove swamp between Pacijan and Poro was designated a protected mangrove reserve some years ago. That is nothing to do with any municipality.

I don't think because a geographical entity happens to lie within a municipality that that is a reason for its inclusion on the municipality page. I'm thinking here of Tulang, a small dot of an islet administered within brgy Esperanza of San Francisco and whose entire population was evacuated off before Yolanda. All the houses were destroyed; I can't ascertain whether they've been re-established but I doubt it. Tulang obviously is not part of Pacijan, so can't be included in it. It is already distinguished within the lede of Camotes Islands, and I think should be merged into it.

Then there is Poro Island. That entirely contains two municipalities. It would not be logical to include it in one municipality and not the other, nor to include it in both. I think it necessary and right to maintain the geographical entity – island – separate from its content, municipalities. In which case it follows that Poro and Tudela stand clear of their physical geography.

So if Poro and Tudela don't include island geography, then it follows that neither should Pilar / Ponson Island nor San Francisco / Pacijan

As an aside, I think the main problem with Cebu is that it is very hard to extract physical geography information, such as land area and population of Cebu island only, from the predominantly administrative oriented other. I had a similar difficulty a couple of years ago with Bantayan Island and Bantayan municipality. It took quite a while to sort out the jumble, not helped by the official municipality web site which had (still has) everything jumbled together.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 08:32, wikitime= 00:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved this to Tambayan talk to get a wider range of opinions. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 19:46, wikitime= 11:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Following the MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Health in Norway, the article was moved to Health in Norway. Please review the article when you get a chance and see if anything further should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

On 10 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Tremblant, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there is a distinct difference in land use between the northern and southern half of Lake Tremblant (pictured) in Quebec, Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Tremblant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a long time ago now, but I think it's near Lunenburg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah when I was adding something to Pamilacan I noticed your code for extracting census year. I must say that this whole wikidata thing seems to have been designed by people who don't have much of a clue about the real world (cf. extraction of coordinates). What I'd really like is (working) ability to extract from other pages' data. For instance for Bantayan Island to get population stuff automatically rather than having to faff about with #expr:s. Minor problem is that population data isn't present within wikidata for any of the three municipalities. I haven't checked, but I imagine it's the same story for Camotes.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 22:24, wikitime= 14:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: There are bots adding info to Wikidata, but it can be edited manually like WP. So you can add population data: go to "Statements" section, click "add"; type "population" in the property box, then type in the number with "+-0" at the end (i.e. "74785+-0" for Bantayan, Cebu); click "save"; then click "edit" to add qualifier data. As for extracting from other pages' data, that would indeed be great and there was some talk on implementing this. But this seems to be stalled... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• OK. I know when I tried before it kept adding ±1 which drove me up the wall. How about getting the census year in? Actually, the data is quite iffy - one time I looked at the geodata it was for another place entirely, can't remember what I was looking at. And it tells me that Bantayan is the birth place of a major Philippine porn star (male)! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 23:05, wikitime= 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Unbuttered Parsnip: As for the census year, click "edit" next to the population number, then "add qualifier"; type "point in time" in property box and then the date in the data box (i.e. 2010-5-1 for the last PH census). You can add another qualifier: type "determination method" in property box and then "census" in the data box. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is going to take a looooong time. Wikidata is so unwieldy. I was able to retrieve value of "point in time" (census year), but it initally threw an error when I tried for value of "determination method" (census). Wait, that method is to retrieve a date. What is needed is Wikidata|getRawQualifierValue (without Raw it returns wikilinked value). And it is camelcase, so for my purpose it needs to be ((lc:((#invoke:Wikidata|getRawQualifierValue|P1082|P459|FETCH_WIKIDATA))))
  • Module:Wikidata/doc is a useful page.
  • Doesn't appear to be any way of getting areas into wikidata.
  • I may be gone some time! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 10:37, wikitime= 02:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I changed various municipalities to use wikidata for popn and its qualifiers. @Frietjes: then developed a template (((Population census prose))) which writes the same text, and she has installed it in those municipalities.

• I have spent some time writing code to extract wikidata location data (i.e. #property:P625) in a usable form. I've now got that working too, in my sandbox. I'd like said Frietjes to give it the once-over before publishing a template. I propose initially just installing it on Cogon, Tagbilaran which is a small and rarely-visited page.

--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 18:21, wikitime= 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently moves are in hand to incorporate coordinate extraction from wikidata directly into infoboxes. So I will put this into abeyance. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 07:39, wikitime= 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will start using ((Population census prose)) when updating articles. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you participated in WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31#Template:PragerU, you are also invited to weigh in at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, as the discussion has moved there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the reversions on the page of Legazpi, Albay. From what I understood of the term ünconstructive edit, it means an unhelpful edit or one that is not beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.120.253 (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Right. Rewriting the references and changing the intro to a non-standard format is indeed unhelpful. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Then, you could have just mentioned that it is not in a standard format. Saying that it is an unconstructive edit, and completely undoing an edit, including a portion that is not really unconstructive, is rather impolite/rude for not stating the particular rule it deviates from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.120.195 (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a fairly loose interpretation of the word 'adjacent'. Really, it ought to be Madridejos to the west and Santa Fe to the southwest. Incidentally, I prefer using ((pipe)) (upright) to / (slant) as a separator.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 22:14, wikitime= 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: I have often wondered how to treat larger bodies of water in the ((Geographic location)) box, but ultimately we have to consider the objective/purpose of the box: to navigate around. By linking Daanbantayan to Santa Fe (and vice-versa), we accomplish that purpose that allows someone to navigate across the Philippines. Obviously it is not an exact science, so I had to make some judgment calls that I think made the most sense. I have no opinion on pipe versus slant, but there is no benefit in redoing all the templates for this minute difference in preference. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do like to get things right, or at least to break the rules in a standardised way, and to provide information concisely. What do you think of what I did to Daanbantayan?? OK or overkill? BTW where do you draw the line on adjacency? Any direction from any coastal municipality, you're bound to hit land somewhere. But I don't think there would be any benefit in for instance saying what is north / northeast / east of Daanbantayan. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 00:19, wikitime= 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: Yeah, the distance is overkill (especially so big???), probably better adding that to a Geography section. Where to draw the line on adjacency? Well, I agree with you: you'll hit land eventually, so there is no benefit in adding places that are far away (only adds confusion). I only added municipalities where it was very clear or obvious (like small bodies of water), and where necessary for continuity of navigational links (like across straits, see for example Tingloy or Pilar, Cebu). Yes, where it would be confusing (like Laguna de Bay) I omit LGU's across the water. I have been very consistent in this approach, so in a way, the geo boxes are already standardized (well, there were consistent before someone removed the links ;-) ). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the "official version" will be a long time coming. I was told that removing coords from the infobox entirely will cause automatic default to wikidata values, but this didn't seem to work when I tried it. I have developed a template ((parseWDCoords)) and test-implemented it on Madridejos, Cebu. What do you think?

I also think the facility to fetch data for another page will be an even longer time coming, so that for instance deriving the accumulated population of a group of islands, such as Camotes, will not be an automated feature "in our lifetimes". It could be done at page level, or it could be built into wikidata itself. As it is, I think it will be neither.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 19:27, wikitime= 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: Kudos for trying to resolve this! You must have noticed that I have brought these issues to the attention of various talk pages before... As for ((parseWDCoords)), if it is always meant to be used with ((#property:P625)), why not hard-code it into the template so there is no need to add it as a parameter? For example, its use would be ((parseWDCoords|1)), instead of ((parseWDCoords|((#property:P625))|1)). And since this template has the potential to used in 100,000's of articles, I suggest to discuss this template at Template talk:Coord or Talk:Wikidata for more ideas and feedback. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I prefer some flexibility, because (a) there could well be more than one coordinate type statement on wikidata; (b) I hold out the hope that some time in the future it will be possible to get data for a different entity. What I could do is make it optional with the default of P625. This would mean reversing the parameter order so type comes first. Tomorrow – now coming up to midnight here. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 23:17, wikitime= 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I made changes along these lines. For auto-insertion, I think the infobox should invoke all 8 elements, even though some (e.g. arcseconds) may be absent. See Madridejos, Cebu, which has no arcseconds, and Bantayan Airport, which does. I think I'll run it past Frietjes and ‎Redrose64 first for comments before throwing it urbi et orbi. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 08:03, wikitime= 00:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Thanks again to tackling this. Looks like there is finally some action on it at ((Infobox settlement)) thanks to you. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well Frietjes is doing something, not entirely sure what. Her plan is to bring in all wikidata in one fell swoop, but I think there may be difficulties, for instance with municipality seal / flag, which keeps getting removed maybe because it's not in commons. Hard to say, because Ukrainian editor doesn't answer calls. Meanwhile I think I'll press on with mine, but 'as and when' rather than a mass update. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 11:03, wikitime= 03:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Hopefully we could update details for the Lapu-Lapu City Wikipedia Page. Some contents are outdated, and lacking. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.255.12 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As a result of @BhlJRama: adding barangay maps to various (Bohol) municipalities, I have started looking at the barangays. So far, I have only looked at Ubay and its barangays (44 of them). My first puzzle is the coordinates on the article pages. It is not at all clear where these came from, but basically they have been there ab initio. The problem is that they do not at all concord with the maps published by NAMRIA. For instance Bongbong has 9°58′32″N 124°27′59″E, but my calculation from the map is 9°56'28"N, 124°27'15"E. It is pointless to try to verify with Google maps, wikimapia, etc., because they basically form a circular reference. My inclination is that in the absence of any other document, to use the values calculated from the NAMRIA maps. Incidentally these are readily available via Topographic Index Map 1:50,000. Unfortunately Ubay is spread over four sheets: 3820-I Alicia, 3821-II Talibon, 3921-III Lapinig Island and 3920-IV Mabini.

My second problem is with the maps themselves produced by BhlJRama. I think their colouring is not at all helpful, and to a large extent, with the lettering on top, contravene WP:CONTRAST. I am also uncertain of any reference points for these maps. I think they would be better as grey-shades or unshaded, with no lettering. Additions can generally be made at rendering stage. It would be relatively easy to develop a set of "location within" maps that way. I have tried contacting the user (3 times) with no response.

I know in the scale of things this is all basically trivial. However my feelings are that if anything is done, it should be done well, with reasonably true output.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 16:31, wikitime= 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: You are raising some valid concerns, and I agree that the accuracy may be questionable. And interestingly, the maps at NAMRIA are also hopelessly outdated! They are based on "aerial photographs taken in 1947-1953 and 1979". Quite frankly, I don't see any purpose for the maps because they add no value or significant info to the article. But I respect the editor's contributions. On the other hand, it may be better to bring this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, because we can try to reach a consensus there whether or not the maps should remain, or what format it should have. BTW, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure before moving sections around. Regards, P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the amount of response we've got so far, we could have kept the conversation here! I've just added to the piece on Tambayan. There are all sorts of gross errors uncovered. It doesn't seem correct to maintain what basically is a set of lies. I think the barangay pages should all be scrapped, unless there is any notable.
    Incidentally, map maker (whose name escapes me) also went and blanked all the barangay talk pages, but I have recovered them. And it was he who resequenced some of the sections. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 21:51, wikitime= 13:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Unbuttered Parsnip: Yes, it is amazing that an inconsequential topic liks Barangay article titles naming convention creates so much discussion, yet content issues that affect its quality and credibility not so... Further reply at Tambayan. Regards, P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: your recent revert at Belize Barrier Reef, the editor who added that content also added similar content to a couple dozen other articles - all sourced to the same commercial blog (dive-the-world.com). As that blog is selling a service it fails WP:RS and the repeated addition of associated urls to a variety of articles was spam. I will agree that my edit summary should have been more clear - rather than just spam, sorry 'bout that. Please review the reference used on that edit: [2] and explain how it can pass our referencing policy. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Vsmith: I hadn't noticed that the external site was added to dozens of pages, which, I agree, makes the motive of these edits appear to be purely commercial. But referencing a commercial website is not wrong in itself. In fact, many commercial websites have very reliable info, especially of specialized info in their respective field. In this case, the added information was on topic, didn't promote the business, and wasn't written as an advert (although not entirely WP:NPOV). WP:RS states that "e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available". -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ouch, just found out this is likely to be a major WP:COI. The editor in question may well be the same as this one ! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You probably noticed I was adding electorate numbers to pages. However I have come to a stop on that, as some of the data is deficient: Bogo City has numbers for 14 of 29 barangays missing, and even Cebu City has 10 barangays missing. I've not looked further. This is from the official Comelec web site. Until the numbers are present, there is no point in using them, as they paint a completely incorrect picture. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 17:34, wikitime= 09:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: What about NSCB? It also lists the registered voters, see Bohol example. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I'll work on it <tomorrow>. But that's only at mun level, whereas Comelec promised to barangay.Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 21:02, wikitime= 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've asked wikidata to add a new property PSGC code. I can't see any problems but it does take a week or so for it to happen. Meanwhile I'll wait. BTW a new property 'area' is coming soon, not before time. I think I'll also ask for income classification – settlement type is already held. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 11:48, wikitime= 03:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Unbuttered Parsnip: Great! I've wanted an area property for a long time. As for income classification, I don't care for it much, it isn't very useful... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seem that PSGC has been there all along – P988. Not much encoding though, so that may take some time. It also implies a different use of P150, which I thought just contained a type but in fact needs a list of members (pages). See Ubay, Bohol. After which I can change a couple of templates to use it (cf ((conditionalURL))), but not until.
Also, I found a better Comelec page which gives voter numbers, and in some cases a m/f breakdown. That could be interesting on the demographics page – seems like women (voters) outnumber men in most places, around 1.05♀:1♂
Income classification may not matter much in itself, but for me anything that can be moved off the bespoke page and become a candidate for automation is good. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 10:27, wikitime= 02:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. When I get the chance, I will start adding ((PSGC detail)) to the infoboxes. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked that so that first of all it tries for ((#property:P988)) then if that fails uses (({1))}. But using the template is only half the story – the property has hardly been populated at all on wikidata. Not at all on Bohol nor Cebu, which is what I've been covering so far, so I guess most places not. After these I'll move on to more of the Visayas. BTW 'area' property was approved in June 2013, but has been waiting since then for a number. I think I'll try to shake something. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 17:16, wikitime= 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In this edit you changed the page to get data from Wikidata and it's now giving errors. I cannot see what is wrong myself – the wikidata page is there and seems to have the data – but I am unfamiliar with the methods used to access it so may have more luck identifying the problem.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The other new script error page, Orangeville, Ontario has a near identical problem, but it has had it for a lot longer. It must be something other that changes to that page that's causing it, the same is probably true of Lemery, Batangas.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Found a third; reported it here: WP:VPT#Wikidata date errors--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @JohnBlackburne: I had noticed it but I thought it was just a matter of refreshing the cache, so I was waiting to see if it would resolve itself. Thanks for bringing this issue to the Village Pump. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious to ask why the commons picture that you chose in this article depicts a sidewalk in Vancouver. The caption reads "Officers of the Vancouver Police Department checking for stolen goods at a flea market", however the picture in question seems not to be of a flea market, but of a sidewalk. I am also curious as to whether this is the best depiction of stolen goods, as it is unclear that any of the items are identifiable stolen. I am further concerned with image given that faces are visible and aspersions are being cast against the person without evidence. If the person could be found, they would certainly not be happy about this Wiki page acting as judge and jury. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.150.191 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I choose this photo because it well illustrates that possession of stolen goods could get you in trouble with the law. I didn't take this photo, so I have to trust that the uploader knows best and provided the right description. It could easily be that the actual flea market is right behind the camera. No judgment or allegations are made, it merely shows a routine police check. So no, I don't think aspersions are cast (i.e. it doesn't say "officers charging someone for stolen goods"). That said, if you think there is a better image fitting this article, by all means, add it to the article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I have relisted this MfD because of sockpuppetry in the first discussion. JohnCD (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On 5 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Bog, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Alfred Bog is the largest high-quality bog in Southern Ontario, Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Bog. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thank you for your help (pass it on) Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Why you deleted my edits on Kalibo? That is the correct native name of Municipality of Kalibo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:1010:DFF7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• @2A03:2880:1010:DFF7:FACE:B00C:0:8000: "Kalibo" is the same in every language, including native languages, and there is no need to translate "municipality" as per WP:UE (see also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive35#Official and native names of LGU's). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware of what a kook this guy is? And a self-publicist under various aliases. He claims he owns Stonehenge. Doug Weller (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources differ as to which island is larger:

I decided not to weigh in on the article until I've had time to do a bit more research. Whatever the result, Samar will need to cite a source. [[User:|Worldbruce]] (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks for the info; it almost seems that the numbers between EB and UNEP are switched. I have mostly used UNEP in island articles for consistency, but I will also do more research. In this case an authoritative primary source may be needed. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I finally took the time to dig into this, see my discussion at Talk:Negros (island)#Island area. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice presentation! I'd found that the Columbia Gazetteer of the World and The World Book Encyclopedia concurred with your overall finding, but was unsatisfied because the first only said it used "official sources" and the latter didn't say anything about its sources. I'm glad you found the numbers from the National Statistics Office. I'll bet whoever compiled UNEP's table simply transposed the sizes of the two. Worldbruce (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI. In disambiguating at Hopewell Parish, New Brunswick recently, you gave up and chose to delink Hopewell, Pennsylvania. I thought of checking when the alternatives were settled, and that narrowed it down to the Chester County one. More at Talk:Hopewell Parish, New Brunswick. Your judgement was reasonable, but I just wanted to let you know that in this case it seems there was a way to reason it out. Knock on wood, hope i am right. :)

By the way, I just delinked another one where it was going to be impossible to find out which of 2 Nova Scotia places was the birthplace of an Alberta representative to House of Commons, and it really wasn't important. I did post at the Talk pages of the two alternatives though. --doncram 01:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your checking. But as food for thought: if you have to "knock on wood, and hope to be right", it is better to leave it out... It is better to leave it out than to have it wrong. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, P199. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alex ball 1992/✭NANCY✭.
Message added 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

(Comment for you from another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my decision, I got nothing more to add. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, you reverted an edit I had made to the Romblon article. Thank you for that reversion -- it fixed a screwup on my part. An edit summary on the reversion would have been useful, though. I should have put that info into the Romblon, Romblon article, and I have now done that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Wtmitchell: Yes, I wanted to add an edit summary, but inadvertently clicked on "rollback" on my watchpage which bypasses the option to do so. I noticed you already figured out that the info was misplaced on the province article instead of the LGU. Thanks again for adding it at the right article. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi P199. Would you be interested in starting a WikiProject for Temagami? I'm kind of busy right now but I might be able to work on it sometime later on. There is currently over 100 Temagami-related articles and there is a lot more to create. Volcanoguy 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: thanks for your efforts trying to improve WP. I think WikiProject Ontario is sufficient. There are hundreds of Ontario-related articles that are in need of improvement, and the Temagami area is not more important than other areas in Ontario that need attention. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

True, but there are only a few communities in Ontario that have several WP articles. When a locality has at least a few hundred articles a WikiProject can be created. Volcanoguy 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: I suggest to bring this idea to WikiProject Ontario talk page (or maybe WikiProject Canada talk page) for a centralized discussion. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is, I had a stroke about 6 months ago. I've more or less got over, except is although I can read and listen fine, I am very hard to write, and speak also, although getting better with that. Not that I ever spoke at Wikipedia! Two problems are (a) I've least a lot of words: even though I think of things I can't put into words; (b) even know I can sentences / paragraphs, actually writing is like a foreign language, such as Martian, and takes me a long time to form writing, and often miss a word or two.

I do have things to talk of article structure. The basic form is OK, so History and Geography can be second-level sections, or can be Geography and History. But Geography has third-level sections, such as 'Physical geography', 'Land form' (and geology), 'Demography', 'Barangays', 'Culture'.

And what not to have includes WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RS and general WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 15:23, wikitime= 07:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, those sketch maps of various municipalities in Bohol to me are just that, sketch maps and should be in an encyclopedia. I've not seen all of them, but those I've seen are not good. In Ubay for instance are terrible. I did see all of them when they were made in March/April because then is when I was ill. None of them add anything to the articles, and I thing they all be got rid of.

Another problem I have got now, is because of a few new editors want unencyclopedic tosh in such as Bien Unido, Bohol. Two of the editors are less than two months old / fewer than 200 edits. I've just had to cite ((copyviocore)) to both. A third editor, more than three years but only 1000 edits, thinks that write the same paragraph but changing the sentence sequence will get rid of the copyvio problem. He usual makes just un-English changes.

I hope you could help by showing them what is good and what is bad. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 04:40, wikitime= 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Today there is a fourth new editor same as the other three. All started about end of October, made less than 200 edits, tinker with municipality articles in Cebu and Bohol. One also changed wikidata. Editors' names are SanJoSugbu, PureTrade, Chinchinhan, VanHalers09. An there's another Iamtheyeishow has been around about 3 years, but has not done much until the last few months. I think there all coming from NCR. Need looking. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 20:24, wikitime= 12:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: Yes, I will keep an eye on these editors and the Bohol articles. This is a normal problem for wikis. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed my name was mentioned here. With regard to the edit I made in Bien Unido, Bohol, I believe that a copyvio problem is not applicable to that article. Inline citations are added with different sources and not just merely 'changing the sentence sequence' via single source. But if you find my edits not helpful then I will stop making any edits here in Wikipedia once and for all. I had the impression that Wikipedia is not a monopoly for senior editors. Also, I would like to respectfully apologize if my edits are "un-English". Wish you two the best of luck. I appreciate both of your efforts to keep the articles encyclopedic as possible. Keep safe and God bless. peace y'all – User:Iamtheyeishow (talk) 10 December 2015

@Iamtheyeishow: In order for text not to be copyvio, it needs to be significantly different than the source, just adding a citation is not enough. As long as your edits are inline with all WP policies and guidelines, you are most welcome to edit. Yes the number of WP policies and guidelines can be overwhelming (even to experienced editors), but as a new editor, just be open to guidance from others. Don't let yourself be chased away by some blunt comments or actions of others (that is unfortunately a bit too common here on WP). And don't hesitate to leave me a message if you need help. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me say (again), I had a stroke in April. I'm mostly OK now but although I can read and listen OK, it's very hard to write and speak. I talk in shorthand and [[WP:~~~]]. We need good articles, not tosh, WP:NOT. Editors to improve articles, not change what is already there. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 10:46, wikitime= 02:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lighthouse Reef at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

On 22 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lighthouse Reef, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the most dominant fish species of the Lighthouse Reef in Belize are the creole wrasse and blue chromis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lighthouse Reef. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I hope not to bother you, but I really need some feedback or advice. As you might have already noticed, I have finished expanding all tables of the administrative divisions of Philippine provinces. However, a guest user (was it Unbuttered Parsnip?) expanded the table further for the Siquijor article, which led me to think if I should use the format he used (rather than the one I did) for standardization purposes.

The format he used was very impressive, but the main problem I thought of was:

• Provinces with many cities and towns (such as Cebu) would have their list even be longer (because of the two lines taken by both the converted area and population density figures).

One solution I had thought of: The converted figures (km² and sq mi abbreviations) can be displayed in one line (just like what I did in Agusan del Sur), but the abbreviations' presence in each of the cells might appear 'redundant'. (The abbreviations can be hidden so that they only display the numbers, although I believe they might be needed in this format since the table will be wider).

I would not want to continue with the other provinces without being sure which format is truly better. Also, could you please check on my sandbox to see which table has the best layout to use for the rest of the provinces? Thank you very much. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Thanks for your hard work on the province articles. If you are concerned that the tables get too long or wide due to all the added info, you have to consider what the purpose is of the tables. A table lets you quickly compare and rank the LGU's. So it is helpful to have both the km2 and mi2, but it is not helpful to have the coordinates. This doesn't provide any comparative data, and sorting by coordinates is fairly meaningless. In my opinion, the coordinates column can be removed and then there will be enough space for both km2 and mi2 on 1 line (ZIP code is also a bit overkill because it also doesn't provide comparative data). As for your sandbox, I prefer table 5. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response. I have to agree that the ZIP code is not really helpful/useful in the LGU table (at the time I added them, it was just an to add "extra data" to the tables. And some towns have multiple ZIPs; for 'special economic zones'). As for the coordinates though, I believe removing them would be worse than better since the LGUs are also geographic features; it allows users to know which towns/areas are adjacent to each other, and which town is at the edge of the provincial border. Besides, almost all coordinates (except for the italicized ones) I have added in the province tables point to the town center (I had gathered the info using multiple sources; OpenStreetMap, GeoNames, MapCentral, & Wikimapia). There are quite many instances where the "old/classic" coordinates of towns/cities (the ones in infoboxes, which have even been saved in Wikidata) are inaccurate (that is, they point to the 'generic location' and not the town center). Also, coordinates in the table allow the display of all cities/towns in a single map (using WikiMiniAtlas or OpenStreetMap); very useful if users want to see all component towns/cities of a province in the map. I will try using the dms format instead of decimal degrees to truncate the length of the coordinates. I will also remove the ZIP codes. Again, thank you very much. Your advice is highly appreciated. I will use Table 5 then for all province tables to make consistent.

P.S. Instead of removing coordinates, would it not be better to remove "income class"? If you check on the Philippine Statistics Authority source, these classifications are outdated (dating back to 2007 or 2008). Even if we have the DILG LGMPS (Local Governance Performance Management System) website, which has updated income class data (2012 I think is the latest), the income class is prone to vandalism/untruthful edits by some users (especially local residents who want their town to appear "richer"/more developed than the others. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Agree. I never considered the income class as meaningful, and it is a constant target for vandalism. I would love to see it removed even from the LGU articles, but that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Okay, I will then also remove the (outdated) income class data from the provinces' LGU tables only (not from the infoboxes or article namespace).

@Sanglahi86 and P199: Income class is not outdated. It is shown by PSGC/PSA at e.g. http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=071247000&regcode=07&provcode=12 It shows how much does each location know its income from central government.
"Centre of town" is completely no use – what is it for. Nearest to one minute of arc would be close enough. Have comparative of eastings or northings would be useless, even they could be either (or both). 194.75.238.182 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit was done based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Sections. Hyderabad article has a title named Cityscape which is a good article. So, I've added it that way. If have more info can share. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities page has different order.--Vin09 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vin09: Thanks for your efforts in editing WP. I noted that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities#Sections (WPIndia) is very similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure (WPCity), but they don't have to be exact same because WPIndia is tailored to Indian cities, whereas WPCity is a much more general guideline. As for "Cityscape", it is not mentioned in WPIndia and its content at Hyderabad does not match the sections that you renamed at WPCity. More comments at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Do you do photo requests in the Montreal area? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Yes, sure. One caveat: it may not be until the summer before I will get a chance to fulfill the request. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine! My requests are listed at Commons:Commons:Picture_requests/Requests/North_America#Greater_Montreal.2FCommunaut.C3.A9_m.C3.A9tropolitaine_de_Montr.C3.A9al WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, great. I can work on several of these locations over the next couple of months. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, that vandalism you just warned him for (well caught btw- I must have missed it) was from two days ago. So he might have learned by now. Or he might not, and just be preparing a slow-burning edit war. Merci bien! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, Fortuna. Please keep an eye on it as well because I don't think he might have learned by now. No one else warned him (or even noticed) and he is not giving up. Salut. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree with reducing the number of photos on the page. But why retain that stupid picture of a tourist taking photos? Roundtheworld (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Roundtheworld: no particular reason. Feel free to remove or replace it. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
33		Atimonan (talk)						Add sources
23		Paete (talk)						Add sources
387		Batangas (talk)						Add sources
13,359		Philippines (talk)						Add sources
33		Pagsanjan (talk)						Add sources
23		Catanauan (talk)						Add sources
595		Provinces of the Philippines (talk)						Cleanup
254		Tagaytay (talk)						Cleanup
108		Samar (province) (talk)						Cleanup
330		Geography of the Philippines (talk)						Expand
22		Amadeo (talk)						Expand
62		Highways in the Philippines (talk)						Expand
305		Moro conflict (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,081		Filipinos (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
895		Federalism in the Philippines (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
42		Central Luzon Television (talk)						Merge
1,310		Erie Canal (talk)						Merge
2,374		Amazon River (talk)						Merge
261		Philippine Marine Corps (talk)						Wikify
120		Philippine Constabulary (talk)						Wikify
34		Dinalupihan, Bataan (talk)						Wikify
3		Antonia Maria Verna (talk)						Orphan
3		Amiram Barkai (talk)						Orphan
5		Alex Oprey (talk)						Orphan
7		Manila East Road (talk)						Stub
29		General Nakar (talk)						Stub
3		Nila Aguillo (talk)						Stub
26		Tagkawayan (talk)						Stub
14		National Christian Life College (talk)						Stub
10		Trinidad, Bohol (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the use of Wikidata, I had noticed on several province articles that both ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) and ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) shows the old 2010 population figures, so I merely replaced the template with the actual 2015 population.

Also, it appears the population figures in some provinces infoboxes are hidden when using the above-mentioned templates (I preview-tested it in Capiz and the population info was not displayed).

I also tested in the Capiz infobox using ((PH census|current)) under the | population_footnotes parameter but the source template was not displayed at all. When replacing it with ((PH census|2015)) though, the source was correctly displayed, so this is what I used.

Yes, I had left the ranks untouched since the province/primary LGU table/s were not yet updated at that time. Thanks for updating the primary LGU table, I will use it in updating the population ranks.

Also, I will try checking if both ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) and ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) templates work correctly in some provinces. Otherwise, I would (temporarily) use the data figure itself instead of the templates, until you might find a better solution since I am not very familiar with the intricacies of Wikidata. Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, could you please advise on how to correctly add numerical data in Wikidata? I was hoping to update some area and population of some provinces. However, the saved entry is displayed as 4,165.25±0.01 square kilometre (as in the case of Abra). How do I remove the ±0.01 and prevent it from being saved? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: Type in 4165.25+-0, and it will display 4165.25. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you for the information. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The ((PH census|current)) (and ((PH census|2015))) source templates are too broad. Would it not be better if the template could support specific regions, like for example ((PH census|current|ARMM)) or ((PH census|2015|EasternVisayas)) to display the exact PDF (2010 census) or XLXS (2015 census) document links? Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: seems like a good idea to me. I will try to modify it tomorrow. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: Done, see Template:Philippine census reference/doc. See also example at Koronadal. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Marvelous work! Thank you for the info and update. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem with default 2010 census source

Hello. The codes ((PH census|2010)), ((PH census|2015)), and ((PH census|current)) in several province articles under Demographics section shows the source specific for regions instead of the generic/default source:

PSA; Census of Population and Housing (2010), Population and Annual Growth Rates for The Philippines and Its Regions, Provinces, and Highly Urbanized Cities (PDF), retrieved 29 June 2016

and

PSA; Census of Population (2015), Highlights of the Philippine Population 2015 Census of Population, retrieved 20 May 2016

I tested the templates in my sandbox and they worked perfectly fine, but not in province articles. Purging the template and the article has no effect, so I do not know what causes the problem. Although my suspicion is that the syntax might be directly invoking the region code from Wikidata overriding the template default. I posted a similar message yesterday at User:Alice Zhang Mengping's talk page who made the latest revisions, since the wiki syntax is complex for me to understand. He has not yet responded or fixed the issue. If you could, kindly fix the template to display the default source. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: Yes, User:Alice Zhang Mengping altered the template to take the region code directly from Wikidata. As it is right now, the ((Philippine census reference)) template no longer takes a 2nd parameter for the region. So, the only thing it would need to fix your problem is an override to get the default. I will contact Alice as well to ask for this. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: I have updated the template to allow for a 2nd input so that you can override the Wikidata value. For example: ((PH census|2015|default)) or ((PH census|2015|d)) will give the generic reference. See Template:Philippine census reference/doc. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing this issue. Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Invoke code errors

Hello, could you please check the population as of errors on some PH city/town infoboxes such as Tuba, Benguet? The code ((#invoke:Wikidata|getQualifierDateValue|P1082|P585|FETCH_WIKIDATA|y)) causes the year to display as 2010, 2015 census instead of just 2015 census. I have verified that using the code ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) correctly displays 2015 census, but I do not know which articles have these error. I find AWB very complex to use, but if it is possible to search and replace these invoke codes, could you please check and fix the remaining errors on those city/town pages? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: The problem with the #invoke code is that it grabs all qualifier years from Wikidata if there are multiple entries. Yes, I'm in the process of updating all LGU's with the new census info (working on Benguet right now), including replacing the #invoke code with the ((PH wikidata|population_as_of)) template. It will be a while before I get through all provinces, so in the meantime, just replace it when you come across it. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will replace them when I encounter some. It seems QuickStatements in Wikidata doesn't have the ability to set the rank as either preferred or deprecated, so when I added in batch the 2010 population of PH cities/towns, it set them as normal by default. As of now, I am just waiting for PreferentialBot to set the latest population as preferred.

Also, I could not find the correct format to use in adding decimal numbers and the unit of measure using QuickStatements; I would have used it to add in batch the land area figures and its references of each town, so that their corresponding Wikipedia articles could already use the PH wikidata area template and also the population density. The problem is that QuickStatements appears to support only whole numbers and disregards the decimals and unit. Looks like we will have to do it manually.. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noted the rank issue and was going to inform you of that. But you already noticed too. Anyway, I don't have experience with QuickStatements, looks like a useful tool though... Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,257		Joe Sugg (talk)						Add sources
384		Bacolod (talk)						Add sources
39		University of the Philippines Mindanao (talk)						Add sources
361		Iloilo City (talk)						Add sources
57		Gubat, Sorsogon (talk)						Add sources
230		Samal, Davao del Norte (talk)						Add sources
59		Bayugan (talk)						Cleanup
28		Zamboanga (province) (talk)						Cleanup
84		Philippine dance (talk)						Cleanup
151		Surigao del Norte (talk)						Expand
108		Zamboanga del Sur (talk)						Expand
114		Zamboanga del Norte (talk)						Expand
125		Surigao del Sur (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
9		Calintaan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,784		Mindanao (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
46		Stochastic context-free grammar (talk)						Merge
44		Romblon, Romblon (talk)						Merge
9		Romblon (island) (talk)						Merge
15		Libagon, Southern Leyte (talk)						Wikify
6		Calamba Institute (talk)						Wikify
6		Mandaue City Comprehensive National High School (talk)						Wikify
3		Silvino Barsana Agudo (talk)						Orphan
3		Prehistory of Marinduque (talk)						Orphan
6		St. Joseph College Olongapo (talk)						Orphan
16		Ariel Vanguardia (talk)						Stub
87		Bicolanos (talk)						Stub
20		General Luna, Quezon (talk)						Stub
6		DWGM-TV (talk)						Stub
11		DWRD (talk)						Stub
6		Information projection (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Following your reversion [3], to Natashquan, Quebec (township) the article now contains WP:REFBLOAT, contains the dead link [4], and the References section now contains four large red "cite error" messages. What is your plan for fixing all of that? --Cornellier (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cornellier: Thanks for pointing that out. References fixed. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
72		Catarman, Northern Samar (talk)						Add sources
14		Sulat, Eastern Samar (talk)						Add sources
363		Eastern Visayas (talk)						Add sources
363		SM Supermalls (talk)						Add sources
168		MassKara Festival (talk)						Add sources
182		Lucena, Philippines (talk)						Add sources
26		Philtranco (talk)						Cleanup
8		Organization of Japanese forces in Southeast Asia (talk)						Cleanup
6		Binalbagan Catholic College (talk)						Cleanup
217		Sulu (talk)						Expand
125		Biliran (talk)						Expand
4,245		Houston (talk)						Expand
33		Kier Legaspi (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
44		Naval, Biliran (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
178		Catanduanes (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
757		Reservoir (talk)						Merge
319		Globe Telecom (talk)						Merge
217		Metres above sea level (talk)						Merge
19		League of Cities of the Philippines (talk)						Wikify
8,505		Rodrigo Duterte (talk)						Wikify
84		Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited (talk)						Wikify
4		Dayangdang (talk)						Orphan
3		Andaket (talk)						Orphan
5		Prehistory of Pampanga (talk)						Orphan
23		Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Masjid (talk)						Stub
12		Mercedes, Eastern Samar (talk)						Stub
16		Pulupandan (talk)						Stub
11		Llorente, Eastern Samar (talk)						Stub
21		Salvador Benedicto (talk)						Stub
17		Sarangani, Davao Occidental (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
197		Alveolar cells (talk)						Add sources
28		Division of City Schools – Manila (talk)						Add sources
10		Balangkas, Valenzuela (talk)						Add sources
227		Masbate (talk)						Add sources
117		Masbate City (talk)						Add sources
11,276		O. J. Simpson (talk)						Add sources
388		Legazpi, Albay (talk)						Cleanup
49		Tourism in Manila (talk)						Cleanup
16		Triangle Park (talk)						Cleanup
168		Sorsogon (talk)						Expand
26		Myers Motors (talk)						Expand
65		Iriga (talk)						Expand
48		Rinconada Bikol language (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
509		Bulacan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,153		Spratly Islands (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
515		Pleural cavity (talk)						Merge
1,226		Group of Eight (talk)						Merge
64		Cuboidal epithelial cell (talk)						Merge
7		Marikina Heights (talk)						Wikify
3		Baguio City Federation of the Sangguniang Kabataan (talk)						Wikify
4		Jappic (talk)						Wikify
2		Buria clan (talk)						Orphan
2		Commission scolaire du Littoral (talk)						Orphan
3		DYXS-TV (talk)						Orphan
18		Albay Gulf (talk)						Stub
17		Lagonoy Gulf (talk)						Stub
26		Masbate Island (talk)						Stub
18		Bicol Peninsula (talk)						Stub
42		Victorias (talk)						Stub
4		Quebec Route 169 (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
15		Bataan Provincial Expressway (talk)						Add sources
527		Pampanga (talk)						Add sources
16		Tegucigalpa Olympic Village (talk)						Add sources
25		Brooke's Point (talk)						Add sources
36		Culion (talk)						Add sources
242		Dasmariñas (talk)						Add sources
144		Misamis Occidental (talk)						Cleanup
152		Women's basketball (talk)						Cleanup
203		Coast Salish peoples (talk)						Cleanup
114		Apayao (talk)						Expand
355		Bataan (talk)						Expand
3,854		Istanbul (talk)						Expand
158		Occidental Mindoro (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
798		Moro people (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
7,592		Romania (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
191		Separator (oil production) (talk)						Merge
2,272		Photon (talk)						Merge
118		Condé Nast Traveler (talk)						Merge
866		Music of India (talk)						Wikify
48		Moros during World War II (talk)						Wikify
16		University of La Salette (talk)						Wikify
3		Airphil Express destinations (talk)						Orphan
3		Seal of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (talk)						Orphan
10		Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale (talk)						Orphan
36		Curry Mee (talk)						Stub
8		DXQS (talk)						Stub
18		Aborlan (talk)						Stub
12		Linapacan (talk)						Stub
16		Stuffed mussels (talk)						Stub
12		Brigada News TV (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Because of the recent update of List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines containing land area, population and density figures, the lists List of Philippine cities and municipalities by area and List of Philippine cities and municipalities by population seemed to be rendered redundant. Besides, the list by area shows only the 100 largest cities/towns, while the list by population is outdated. In my viewpoint, I think these two old lists should be deleted, and we can just copy the Gallery from the list by population into the List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. What do you think? Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Sanglahi86: Yes, I agree. Having sortable tables with area and populations will render the "by area" and "by population" articles redundant. Deleting them will reduce the workload to update multiple articles after every census (or we can keep them as redirects). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I think it is better to keep them as redirects. I am not familiar with the deletion/redirect/merging process, so could you please resolve it? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Both are now nominated for deletion. Please add your delete reasons to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine cities and municipalities by area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine cities and municipalities by population. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have added my comments. I had disabled preview on first edit to save mobile data (my wi-fi promo expired), which led to a mistake edit in Provinces of the Philippines (I had manually reverted the revision). Although that aside, under the article's See also section, I had noticed List of Philippine provinces by area, which is clearly duplicate information with the Provinces of the Philippines list. Maybe another delete and redirect? Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I just redirected it. Simpler than a deletion nomination process... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please check List of smallest municipalities in the Philippines. The article says:

For the full list, see List of municipalities in the Philippines.

but is clearly duplicate information (if updated). Its only difference with List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines is that it focuses on municipalities alone. Is this article needed or should it just be redirected? Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Sanglahi86: Thanks for finding these overkill lists. Seeing that it has no activity for many years, I just redirected it. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, P199, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Template:Join AWWDCCW. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Was wondering if I could ask you about File:Kingsway Sudbury.JPG, which you uploaded several years back to illustrate Sudbury Municipal Road 55 and Frood Mine. I've certainly glanced the photo a few times and had a bit of an "okay, wait a minute here, something's not right about this" reaction, but for some reason I can't remember I always let it slide instead of actually approaching you about it — but I grew up in Sudbury, and there's definitely no part of the Kingsway where the Frood Mine (or any other mine headframe, for that matter) is that closely visible in the foreground (or even really at all.) I'll admit the photo does sort of vaguely resemble the hill climbing up toward Falconbridge Road when you're heading back downtown from Coniston, but I even took the step of double-checking my memory against Google Maps and there's no headframe visible from there either. I'm really struggling to identify where else that photo could be (somewhere in the Valley, maybe? I don't know that part of the city nearly as well, except MR15/MR80 in and out of Flake), but there's just no way it's the Kingsway. Any chance you could double check where else it might be? Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Bearcat: Thanks for taking an interest in my photo. The photo and description are correct. The Frood Mine is exactly in-line with the Kingsway when you are at 3rd Avenue, where the photo is taken (see Google Streetview and zoom in, you can clearly see the Frood Mine). The mine looks closer as a result of a high zoom, which makes far away items seem larger, see Perspective distortion (photography). Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I need your advice regarding what qualifier (for the date July 29, 2008) is more suitable to use under income classification (Philippines) (P1879). Should it be point in time (P585), or publication date (P577). The PSGC Interactive website shows the following note:

5. Income Classification based on Department of Finance Department Order No.23-08 Effective July 29, 2008.

I was thinking it should be point in time in general, but have thoughts if publication date is more appropriate especially since income class doesn't always change abruptly and can continue for many years, unlike censuses. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Either way, this is not significant. Yes, I would lean towards publication date (P577). Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The statement from the PSA is quite confusing to me. The PSA does not explicitly state the time frame when the classifications were made. It appears to simply state the classifications made were based on the Department Order released on July 29, 2008. On second thought, publication date points to "published/released work". I think criterion used (P1013) with Department Order No. 23-08 (Department of Finance) (Q27230290) would be more straightforward. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(I added details under income classification (Philippines) (P1879) to simplify things). Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The ((PSGC detail)) template used in PH cities and towns do not show the land areas, which is why we keep that very long citation of nscb just to cite the land areas instead of the efficient ((PSGC detail)). I sent Alice Zhang Mengping a request to also allow citing the province PSGC URL in cities and towns, since these are where the land areas are shown, but he hasn't responded yet. It took me much time and effort to try "decoding" the complex code Unbuttered Parsnip had made on the template, but I admit I cannot comprehend how it works. It may be easier to simply cite the PSGC List of municipalities or List of cities page (but that doesn't seem like a wise idea since the municipality list itself has 75 subpages that will not qualify as a full citation). If you have time, could you please be able to add a #switch expression to the template so that it cites the province page? I have tried testing to add that function but I really don't know. Thank you.

(Just in case it might be needed, I pasted the draft text of the PSGC of each provinces below this paragraph (I hid it so that it won't take much space). I trimmed the number to 4 digits (rrpp) based on the switch syntax format ((PH census)) has: [although Cotabato City and Isabela City might be able to use the default parameter in #switch which would be the List of cities page. Maybe we can use it for the ref URL of the city/town which invokes Wikidata Property:P988 (PSGC code):
http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/province.asp?provCode=((#invoke:String|sub|((#property:P988))|1|4))00000|))

| 1401 = Abra
| 1481 = Apayao
| 1411 = Benguet
| 1427 = Ifugao
| 1432 = Kalinga
| 1444 = Mountain Province
| 0128 = Ilocos Norte
| 0129 = Ilocos Sur
| 0133 = La Union
| 0155 = Pangasinan
| 0209 = Batanes
| 0215 = Cagayan
| 0231 = Isabela
| 0250 = Nueva Vizcaya
| 0257 = Quirino
| 0377 = Aurora
| 0308 = Bataan
| 0314 = Bulacan
| 0349 = Nueva Ecija
| 0354 = Pampanga
| 0369 = Tarlac
| 0371 = Zambales
| 0410 = Batangas
| 0421 = Cavite
| 0434 = Laguna
| 0456 = Quezon
| 0458 = Rizal
| 1740 = Marinduque
| 1751 = Occidental Mindoro
| 1752 = Oriental Mindoro
| 1753 = Palawan
| 1759 = Romblon
| 0505 = Albay
| 0516 = Camarines Norte
| 0517 = Camarines Sur
| 0520 = Catanduanes
| 0541 = Masbate
| 0562 = Sorsogon
| 0604 = Aklan
| 0606 = Antique
| 0619 = Capiz
| 0679 = Guimaras
| 0630 = Iloilo
| 0712 = Bohol
| 0722 = Cebu
| 0761 = Siquijor
| 0878 = Biliran
| 0826 = Eastern Samar
| 0837 = Leyte
| 0848 = Northern Samar
| 0864 = Southern Leyte
| 0860 = Samar (Western Samar)
| 0972 = Zamboanga del Norte
| 0973 = Zamboanga del Sur
| 0983 = Zamboanga Sibugay
| 0997 = City of Isabela
| 1013 = Bukidnon
| 1018 = Camiguin
| 1035 = Lanao del Norte
| 1042 = Misamis Occidental
| 1043 = Misamis Oriental
| 1123 = Davao del Norte
| 1124 = Davao del Sur
| 1125 = Davao Oriental
| 1182 = Compostela Valley
| 1186 = Davao Occidental
| 1247 = North Cotabato
| 1280 = Sarangani
| 1263 = South Cotabato
| 1265 = Sultan Kudarat
| 1298 = Cotabato City
| 1602 = Agusan del Norte
| 1603 = Agusan del Sur
| 1667 = Surigao del Norte
| 1668 = Surigao del Sur
| 1685 = Dinagat Islands
| 1507 = Basilan
| 1536 = Lanao del Sur
| 1538 = Maguindanao
| 1566 = Sulu
| 1570 = Tawi-tawi
| 1845 = Negros Occidental
| 1846 = Negros Oriental

Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
16,312		Philippines (talk)						Add sources
42		Pagsanjan (talk)						Add sources
147		Comparison of North American ski resorts (talk)						Add sources
149		Lapu-Lapu, Philippines (talk)						Add sources
43		Ibaloi people (talk)						Add sources
468		Cordillera Administrative Region (talk)						Add sources
761		Provinces of the Philippines (talk)						Cleanup
158		Samar (province) (talk)						Cleanup
392		Tagaytay (talk)						Cleanup
33		Amadeo (talk)						Expand
227		La Union (talk)						Expand
222		Abra (province) (talk)						Expand
7		Bangsamoro declarations of independence (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
455		Jeepney (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
33		Kalinga-Apayao (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
719		Special economic zone (talk)						Merge
1,138		Drainage basin (talk)						Merge
513		Franciscans (talk)						Merge
186		Highland (talk)						Wikify
184		Philippine Constabulary (talk)						Wikify
1,224		Manuel L. Quezon (talk)						Wikify
4		Amitava Datta (talk)						Orphan
3		Akshar Deep Inter College (talk)						Orphan
4		Archaeology of Ferizaj (talk)						Orphan
20		Tagkawayan (talk)						Stub
25		Kabugao, Apayao (talk)						Stub
14		Macalelon (talk)						Stub
29		General Nakar (talk)						Stub
12		Flora, Apayao (talk)						Stub
6		Baptism of Fire (talk)						Stub