Main

Discussion

Assessment

Requests

Members

Articles (Featured · New · Popular)

Portal

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics at the Reference desk. Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Pinoy Wikipedia on social media        This box: view talk edit

I am confused by the title of the US Naval Base Philippines article. Is there something wrong with it? - MistahPeemayer (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, shouldn't Naval Base Cavite, Naval Base Manila, Naval Station Sangley Point, and Danilo Atienza Air Base been merged into one article? Or least create one navy and air force article each? Borgenland (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Base Cavite (U.S.) and Naval Base Manila (Philippines) should be merged, if we're basing it with what was done with Fort William McKinley being merged to Fort Bonifacio.

U.S. Naval Station Sangley Point seems to be a different installation from Naval Base Cavite.

Danilo Atienza Air Base is an air base and is theory different from a naval base. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird article. It seems to be inching towards the space of an article titled American military presence in the Philippines, an overarching topic it's surprising we don't have. There are the specific base articles as well as article like Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement, Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–Philippines), and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement which would fit within it. CMD (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been named United States naval bases in the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it for now. I agree with Howard the Duck's suggested new title. However, it IS also weired that we don't have an article covering the US Bases (not just Navy) more generally, as CMD pointed out. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have individual articles on the individual bases/installations, but not an encompassing article for the US presence in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two centavos: I don't think we want an article for "Presence," but I think the "Bases" as a collective had a history which cannot be covered by just the individual articles. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the maintenance of US bases in the Philippines may have been coordinated in some way and can be looked up as a collective, more so to the two bases in Central Luzon, Subic and Clark. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember those days, but not well. Some quick googling turned up a few items that ought to be useful: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The need is less because of their operations, and more because they were a major geopolitical bargaining chip for decades. An alternative is a page for the US Bases Treaty which is a separate document from the Mutual Defense Treaty. But "US Bases in the Philippines" is the broader more recognizable topic. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article at US Bases in the Philippines. Please improve (it could use a lot of improvement). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while patrolling for NPP. I think it'd be better if we merged in the naval bases article with this one, but I'm unsure of how it'd fit in the new article. Perhaps we can even expand the scope of the article further to reach a comprehensive "American military presence in the Philippines" article that was suggested by Chipmunkdavis. Chlod (say hi!) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re. merging the Naval Bases article into the US Bases article. It should merge into the Subic Bay Naval Base article, which is the one it actually overlaps. But should we notify any existing US Military or US Navy wikiprojects first? I believe United States military presence in the Philippines needs to be a different article from the Bases article; a lot of overlap but vastly different emphases. I was thinking there should be an article on Philippines - United States Defense Cooperation, but United States military presence in the Philippines would suffice. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers should go through a merge proposal first, and we can notify other WikiProjects about those. But we should probably plan around how to lay these articles out first so that we don't end up making a mess of merges, moves, and splits. If there's enough content about the bases themselves that it would be better to split from an eventual "United States military presence in the Philippines" page, then we should probably go with that. But otherwise, it might just be better to transform the bases article and increase its scope. Chlod (say hi!) 03:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the expediency of the merge/split tactics, but I also believe the bases played too important a part in Philippine history not to have their own article. Lumping them together with things like EDCA or the VFA or Balikatan would be a disservice to Philippine history, not least the organizations like the Anti Bases Coalition who engaged with the bases issue for a long time. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did stuff to remove/minimize the doubtful statements from a dubious source, yung Aginid ek ek na yan, kaso may epal na hindi nga Pinoy na ni-revert, "did not appear constructive" daw.

Paki-compare please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lapulapu&diff=1216879282&oldid=1216879187 130.105.195.12 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a call center, but English only, please. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. As a non-Tagalog non-Pinoy, I don't follow this at all. It confuses Google Translate [10]. A look at Epal (politics) helps, but I still don't follow it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is complaining that the article is giving undue weight to the Aginid, which is said to be of dubious historicity. They did a few edits reducing its prominence, but a registered editor reverted said edits because, from the anon's POV, they weren't "constructive".

Granted I've not had the opportunity to really review the edits just yet, but for the sake of the anon: this is what edit summaries are for. Your edits were made without really justifying why. You say that yes, the Aginid is dubious, but wouldn't it be better that it be clearly spelled out in the article as opposed to it being removed?

Also, to Howard and Bill: this is not the first time people have used the national language here, and I trust that you two have been here long enough to know that it will probably not be the last. We've never had an "English-only" policy on this noticeboard as far as I can recall, but I agree that as a matter of courtesy we should at least have the common sense to use English whenever possible. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is subject to the normal en.wiki WP:TPG, including WP:ENGLISHPLEASE, but I would agree this isn't something that we should expect new users to know. On the topic, it's clear why the IP was reverted, the edit was unexplained blanking and easily mistakable for vandalism. At a quick look and a reading of [11] and [12], my proposal would be not having an Early Life section at all (seems misleading to imply we know that much), and instead expand have an Oral history or Aginid subsection (the current In urban legend and folklore subsection could use great improvement). CMD (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "The Aginid chronicle, whose historicity is doubtful,17 calls him Lapulapu Dimantag.1718Looking at source 17 I see, "The dance-epic 'Agnid Bayok sa Aong Tawank' was written down [in historical records]". I might myself conclude that something taken from a dance-epic is probably not rock-solid historic fact. Instead of stating that conclusion in wikivoice, however, I would likely characterize it as a dance-epic.

Aginid is new to me. The ref-18 source says that it "is probably the only pre-colonial chronicle of the history of Cebu [...]" and goes on to say, " Amidst strong support by some scholars to institutionalize the Aginid, the Cebu Normal University published it in 1998." I could not find "Dimantag" in source 17, but source 18 says, "Extracted from Marivir Montebon’s book Retracing Our Roots – A Journey into Cebu’s Pre-Colonial Past are excerpts of the story of pre-colonial Cebu according to the Aginid" and, apparently relying on that, sometime later says, "At this time, Lapulapu Dimantag arrived from Borneo and asked Humabon for a place to settle. [...]", using the name Lapulapu Dimantag. I haven't seen that book myself, but see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, is this the first time we’re shutting classes due to hot weather? I am considering whether to mention it in 2024 in the Philippines and other possibly related items if it is indeed unprecedented. Borgenland (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last year they did this as well. I can't remember if they did the same during the pandemic.

This is also one of the reason why they are reverting back to the June-March calendar. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, here's an article from last year. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think it's not necessary. Schools are yet to be fully back to normal since covid anyway, and I get the feeling this is going to be more common in the future anyway, so the "baseline" isn't really baseline.[13] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The boodle fight is also not traditionally Filipino, in the pre-Hispanic sense at least. It started as a military practice and spread to civilians for tourist traps etc. and somehow got distorted into a "traditional practice".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321976928_Everybody_was_boodle_fighting_military_histories_culinary_tourism_and_diasporic_dining

Not sure what should be done. Maybe a split or rename/move to just boodle fight since lots of cultures also eat with their hands. 130.105.195.12 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest making it clear that it's an AFP tradition (which draws from US Miltiary tradition) which separately became associated with Kamayan. If sources are available. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is largely made out of fluff sources, not academic. The entire thing needs work. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northbay Boulevard South 1, Northbay Boulevard South 2, Northbay Boulevard South 3, Tangos, and Tanza are old/former barangays of Navotas. Since early 2018, Navotas now has NBBS Dagat-dagatan, NBBS Kaunlaran, NBBS Proper, Tangos North, Tangos South, Tanza 1, and Tanza 2. Should those old articles be deleted or merged with Navotas? (PSA source) Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all what appear to be 3-4 machine translated sentences. They should be merged somewhere. Navotas is probably fine, absent a better current option. CMD (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to risk getting shot, but I am surprised Chavit Singson does not carry any mention of his important role in triggering the downfall of Joseph Estrada or any of the related charges that he has faced, which are serious enough to be recorded. Was this already made this way or was this info scrubbed by some COI years before? Borgenland (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It waa removed on this edit. As a WP:BLP, it has to be cited. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found some refs for it. I am planning to expand on other charges plus this ticket he got for driving inside the EDSA busway today. Borgenland (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently edited the Ilocos Sur article and added a lot of material about the Crisologos. I was also surprised that it avoids the Crisologos and Singsons. I would edit more, but I know less about the Singsons than I know about the Crisologos. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Baguio City Economic Zone same with the one in Camp John Hay per [[14]]? I am confused as to which site should I link to an event relating to it in 2024 in the Philippines. Borgenland (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a map, but some generic sources ([15], [16], [17]) show the address of Baguio City Economic Zone (BCEZ) is in Loakan Road, so it might be different from the one in Camp John Hay. Although this source suggests BCEZ encompasses a portion of Camp John Hay. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't lived in Baguio in a very long time, but there used to be an EPZ on the way to PMA which was not part of Camp John Hay. (This was while John Hay was still a US base. I am old.) I always thought that the BCEZ referred to the old EPZA compound. Perhaps I'm wrong. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot day in Davao del Norte with Edwin Jubahib's suspension as governor. Should related infoboxes be revised to indicate a new governor or does the suspension have to be officially served and received before his vice can be proclaimed? It's a standoff in the provincial capitol right now per media reports. Borgenland (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across Quezon City Jail and found it sad that it remains a stub despite being a major prison. Inviting everyone to try and expand it. Borgenland (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still wonder about the several non-Filipino musical artists/bands that are mostly known within PH (e.g. Fra Lippo Lippi, Marlo, Pomeranz, Price, Stephen Speaks, etc.). How they got to be known in PH while being practically unknown in the West? Admit it, we don't have good music charts before Billboard launched PH charts, but it still makes me wonder why they still get so much radio airplay in PH.

Similar question goes with songs from Western acts that are mostly familiar to Filipinos due to being played on the radio. Too many to think of, but some of them are being mentioned as being no. 1 hits in PH (often without contemporaneous sources such as a music chart considered suitable as source here). Most of those are usually from past century and are album tracks that has never been released as singles (especially those from the album-oriented rock radio era). Some examples I can think of, excluding those from the artists mentioned above: "Always Somewhere", "Holiday" and "When the Smoke is Going Down" (Scorpions), "Till Death Do Us Part" and "You're All I Need" (White Lion), "Dying Inside" (Timmy Thomas), "Marry Your Daughter" (Brian McKnight?).

Beside the thing with Western musical acts mostly known in PH but not so known in the West, I would like to see a list of best-selling singles and musical artists. The thing we currently have is a list of best-selling albums. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]