Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Emergency: List of programs broadcast by the List of programs broadcast by Associated Broadcasting Company

Can an admin move it back to List of programs broadcast by the Associated Broadcasting Company? I made a big boo-boo. Also, delete the very long name as a redirect. --Howard the Duck 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I moved back to the correct name. Now we need an admin to delete the incorrect redirect. --bluemask ^(talk) 10:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Howard the Duck 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Coffee 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Associated Broadcasting Company-rleated articles aren't following naming conventions. I've listed them at WP:RM. --Howard the Duck 08:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Tobias Conradi

I am involved in a dispute with Tobias Conradi. He is insisting on making Cebu, Pangasinan, and Iloilo disambiguation pages instead of Cebu (disambiguation), Pangasinan (disambiguation), and Iloilo (disambiguation). He wants to move the provincial pages to the namespaces with (provinces) in them when there is clearly no need to do so. How should we go about doing this? Should we put this up for a vote in each of the talk pages? I've already set up guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)#Provinces, but he is apparently just ignoring me and accusing me of abusing my admin powers. He even went to my old RfA and put details of my abuses there. Ay, buhay. --Chris S. 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already something called Primary topic disambiguation. If the word is predominantly used for one of several things, then that thing can use the unqualified article name with a link to the disambiguation page at the top. This is similar to Rome. So as long as we can show that the names are used principally for the provinces then Wikipedia guidelines back this position. You can also check to see what the incoming links are to see what fraction of them refers to the province. --Polaron | Talk 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time. See Talk:Provinces of the Philippines#Ambiguous Provincial Names. His opinion is that the provinces are not that important or significant enough to warrant the "primary topic disambiguation" honor. Some province names do need to have the base name as a dab page especially for international usage (e.g., Antique, Aurora, Kalinga, Laguna, La Union), but for province names where all the references so far point to Philippine-related topics and all those topics are primarily related to the province (e.g., Aklan, Pangasinan, Biliran, Iloilo, Cebu, etc.) I personally think these provinces should have the "primary topic disambiguation" honor. Possible exceptions are Samar, Leyte, and Cotabato; with the first two, you equally use the name to refer to both the province and the island, while the latter just has too many distinct references. Davao is the prime example of a dab page for primarily PH-related topics. I think we should put all provinces to a consensus vote. BTW, I really hate the "Iloilo Province" name, I much prefer "Iloilo (province)" if dabbing is the result. --seav 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Argeed. If a great majority of the incoming links are about the province then that should be enough to qualify primary topic disambiguation. Also, I oppose appending "province" to the province name unless it is part of the name. The parentheses method is better because we can use the pipe trick when writing articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And so far, that applies only to Mountain Province. But thaaaaaaaank you for the pipe trick! That's awesome! --Chris S. 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quick to rely on the number of incoming links as a gauge on the importance of an article. Provinces link to each other all the time, thanks to the lateral links at the bottom. Furthermore, cities and municipalities link to their mother provinces as well. (Locator maps too.) That provides a good number of links already. You should provide a much more better case for arguing for importance. See the aforementioned Talk:Provinces of the Philippines#Ambiguous Provincial Names for some discussion. --seav 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see that I'm not alone. That's the reason why I made the MoS for Philippine related articles, because of all these non-standard ways of doing things Now, where should we hold the vote? On each individual countries' pages or somewhere else? Or even here at Tambayan? He's being very ridiculous, with the way he's acting. He's looking into ways I abuse my admin position - asking other people - rather than working with me. --Chris S. 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He should assume good faith, anyway, I agree that the most used entry can be, and should be the article on the base name. Try talkin it through with him. To fix the problem, let's just finish the MoS first, and then we can apply the style in the articles.  :) --Noypi380 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to get back to making the MoS Wikipedia policy. I'm going to have to figure out a way of getting that off the ground. --Chris S. 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Chris, you didn't "abuse" any power. :O When one wants to move an article to a occupied link with no content you can always, from wiki, ask an Administrator to have it deleted. :) Tobias probably didn't check Help:Moving a page, when he accused you of abuse. No worries. Cheers. There's a pipe trick? Help:Pipe trick. I shuda found that out dati pa! haha :) --Noypi380 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets make the Philippine-related MOS official by having a dicussion at the talk page. --Howard the Duck 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted a message on his talk page to voice my opinion. Polls should be avoided unless absolutely necessary... maybe you could just link him to this discussion to show that we're all on your side of this dispute. By the way, WP:CSD G6 says that admins are allowed to delete pages to make way for page moves that reverse redirects. Coffee 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I just found this link: Wikipedia:How to create policy. I'll read up on this and see how we can make it officialy policy. --Chris S. 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Manila Wikipedians Meet-up

Who's interested in having one? It'd be nice to put faces to the contributors. =) --seav 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Me. Where and when. Some of us are students ya know. Somewhere convenient and sometime convenient cguro. --Justox dizaola 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel interested myself, although convenience is also of the essence. --Sky Harbor 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why we talk about the details here, if people are interested. We should maximize the convenience for everyone involved. It should most probably be on a weekend in a place very accessible to public and private transport. --seav 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in a meet-up, but I'm not currently anywhere near Manila. :/ Speaking of matching faces to contributors.. seav, I think I remember finding you a long time ago on Friendster, though I can't remember how. :p Coffee 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalker! Joke, hehehe. --seav 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Medyo mahal ang pamasahe, mang-gagaling ako sa
Tokyo !! :P--Jondel 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lapit lapit ng Tokyo kung iku-kompara mo sa American Samoa :D --Weekeejames 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dewdz, i propose na ganapin ito sa Robinsons Ermita or SM Manila. It will be very accessible to the LRT. Gamitin natin ang SRTS. --Justox dizaola 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking either Ayala Center or Ortigas Center or Araneta Center. accessible to MRT, LRT-2, and are important transportation hubs. --seav 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The question now is where are we going to meet in the first place? I'm fine where we're going to meet in general, but we also need somewhere specific. Although as a Makati resident, Ayala is nice (lol). --Sky Harbor 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Talo kita. Stateside kasi ako. :-D --Chris S. 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ok ako sa LRT or MRT vicinities, tutal taga aparri lang naman ako =p †Bloodpack† ^argh! 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talaga? Taga-Tuguegarao ang lolo ng lolo ko. --Chris S. 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

errr...joke lang po =p †Bloodpack† ^argh! 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Uy, please tell me if the meet is pushing through. I'll go if the venue is anywhere near an LTR or MRT station. Perhaps we could set an agenda aside from just getting to know each other... like perhaps planning out how we could get more Filipino editors... --Nino Gonzales 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try setting up a coordination page for meetups. Getting an agenda in on what we plan to do would be nice too, although how can we promote the Wikipedia (especially those in Philippine languages) effectively? --Sky Harbor 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I talked to a friend who teaches in UA&P about what this guy (User:Fuzheado), who teaches in Hong Kong, is doing--teaching his student how to do research by improving Wikipedia articles. He got very excited. Imagine if we could get just a handful of teachers--that would already be thousands of new Filipino wikipedians.--Nino Gonzales 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If people are interested, here's a nice starting point for ideas: Wikipedia:Meetup. SG Wikipedians recently had their own meet-up (Juno 2006) and all they did was go around Singapore. =) --seav 10:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Any news about this meet-up? Tuloy ba? I'm willing to meet you guys. :) --Jojit fb 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice for a tl: admin

At the Tagalog Wikipedia, tl:User:Qahaluluhah contributed two interesting articles tl:The Ministry In The Church Of The MessiYàh and tl:Pangalan, clearly POV. Any advice on how to proceed? --bluemask ^(talk) 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. --seav 06:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete the first, (really) rewrite the second. An article on what a name is would be notable (but rewritten to match the content), but an article on a not-so-notable (possibly Christian) sect is not. --Sky Harbor 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another dispute

I seem to be getting in disputes with non-Filipinos over Filipino topics lately. Bakit kaya? ;-) Some of you might remember that I put up Category:Filipino people by ethnic or national origin and its 18 categories up for deletion. These categories were created by User:Lagalag, and frankly it's ridiculous. He categorized people like Visayan murderer Paco Larrañaga as a Basque Filipino and Spanish Filipino probably because of his last name; NEVERMIND the fact that this murderer said he was Basque or Spanish or that it even mattered at all. He did the same thing with actor John Prats making him a Catalan & Spanish Filipino because of his last name. Former President Marcos & Rizal were put under Japanese-Filipinos even if the Japanese part of them is unnotable (my g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather was Swiss, and it be ridiculous for me to say I am a Swiss Filipino). You get the idea.

Anyway, the CfD failed to get consensus. But the fact still remained that many of these people are still miscategorized. So I removed the categories. Now, User:Hmains is very unhappy because he claims I subverted the process. So now he's going back and reverting everything I did (oodles of articles). Any idea on how to handle this? --Chris S. 21:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

May I assume that these non-Filipinos are actually Filipinos pretending not to be? hehe :) Anyway, I get the idea, notability is not only for the text in the article, but also for its categorization. Lets try to make consensus again. Kulang na lang may Marsian-Filipino cat, lol.:) --Noypi380 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No sources =no categories. That's the best solution hehehe. --Howard the Duck 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Remove the categories. My grandparents were venetian mrchants na naligaw sa ilocos kaya dun nagstay, but that does not make me italian-filipino, right? ^_^ --Justox dizaola 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless the ancestry of celebrities makes it (or them) notable, what's the point of categorizing them as such? I may be of four ethnicities (Filipino, Chinese, Spanish and French), but would I be willing to classify myself as one or the other? It seems irrelevant unless the ethnicity issue makes it relevant. --Sky Harbor 12:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moving

I'm hoping an admin's magical powers may do these:

• Regional Science High School (RSHS) -> Regional Science High School
• Programs broadcast by ABC -> List of programs broadcast by the Associated Broadcasting Company

Thanks. --Howard the Duck 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Chris S. 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay --Howard the Duck 06:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One more: Talk:Programs broadcast by ABC -> Talk:List of programs broadcast by the Associated Broadcasting Company and deleted Talk:Programs broadcast by ABC. --Howard the Duck 07:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. But what do you mean "deleted?" Did you mean delete? Right now it's a redirect to the page you wanted me to move it to. --Chris S. 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(The extra "d" made all the difference lol). What I meant was to delete the Talk:Programs broadcast by ABC after it was moved. --Howard the Duck 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi redux

So today he hit Sarangani, Cotabato, and Quirino - all of which have been reverted (eh, parang bagyo sa 'Pinas ang pinag-uusapan ko! hehe). He is not happy that Jondel protected Cebu and Pangasinan and so he's been calling it admin abuse. Another admin warned him for acting the way he his. Coffee & seav have also been helpful. In any case, since we as Tambayan members and Filipino wikipedians have a consensus on how these pages should be handled, I am asking you all to help out in making sure the province articles stay that way; I or another editor may end up violating 3rr or something. I've tried reasoning with him, and that doesn't seem to work. He seems to believe there's no consensus. In any case, just an update. --Chris S. 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think Cotabato should be a disambiguation page, like Davao and Zamboanga. Unlike Cebu and Cebu City, Cotabato City and Cotabato province are distinct and unrelated entities. But that's just me. --seav 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point and pardon if I mistakenly included you in the consensus. In any case, I see it this way, and let me know what you think. Currently, there are no provinces named Zamboanga and Davao. Hence, there is nothing currently notable that would justify it having its own namespace. Because of this, it would make sense for Zamboanga and Davao to be disambig. pages. On the other hand, there is a province called Cotabato. A province is more notable than a city, is it not? So that's why I think Cotabato province deserves its own namespace and also because Cotabato City already has its own suffix (City). That's the rationale I am going on. However, if my opinion does not reflect the consensus of others here, then by all means I'll revert Cotabato to Cotabato (province). --Chris S. 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, this pages should redirect to dab pages: Cotabato, Quezon and Rizal. --Howard the Duck 05:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And Quirino? I am inclined to agree with you on Quezon because of Quezon City and the fact that it seems that people (including myself) tend to call it "Quezon province," but wouldn't a disambiguation statement suffice (the For other meanings, blah blah blah thing)? --Chris S. 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quirino should remain at Quirino. Cebu (province) should be at Cebu, Iloilo (province) to Iloilo, etc. The province should be the primary topic disambiguation. Then a dab note at the top. It's not that hard to click, especially, if its at the top. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Quezon and Rizal shouldn't be dab pages but rather be the province pages. You never refer to the city as simply "Quezon" and I think it's well established that when you simply say "Rizal" as a location, it means the province. The only instance when you refer to the people with simply "Quezon" or "Rizal" is when it is clear from the context that you are referring to a person. Same with Quirino. --seav 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMO, Cotabato City is actually more notable than Cotabato province, being an important port city and the administrative capital for both ARMM and SOCCSKSARGEN regions. In any case, when people simply say "I'm going to Cotabato." Does that primarily mean the province? Or the city? Anyway, my opinion is not set in stone and I'm perfectly okay with having a dab notice at the top of the province article. --seav 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at how the American states and city articles are done here. New York City and Washington, D.C. are far more notable than New York and my home state of Washington, respectively. But yet, they have their own namespaces. Usually, when people talk of New York, they mean the City. Same with Washington, which causes us Washingtonians to have an annoying tendency to say "Washington State" all the time for fear that people may confuse our state with the US capital (and they still do.. *grumble*). Furthermore, Washington is named after George Washington, so this means that Quezon, Quirino, Rizal, can stay the way they are. What do you all think? --Chris S. 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If the current principal usage of these names are for the province then the province articles should be at the unqualified names. --Polaron | Talk 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess, Cotabato/City could follow the Washington/D.C. example. Just make sure there are plenty dab notices everywhere. =) --seav 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Map request

To the mapmakers out here. I have finally gotten around to giving Bikol languages an overhaul. To improve the article and to reduce the confusion by all the names of places where certain Bikol dialects are spoken, the article needs a dialect map.

I have taken the liberty of making this easier on the potential mapmaker. I need a very large map that encompasses the whole Bicol Region. Such as the one I edited and uploaded here. This has the color scheme I am aiming for. I patterned it after the map at Provinces of the Philippines where one color represents a region, but shades of a color indicate the province. As an example, the largest dialect group, Northern Bikol, is going to be in red. Bikol Daet, is going to have its own shade. Then Bikol Naga will have another. And then Bikol Legazpi, which extends all the way from Albay to Sorsogon will have another. The same principle works for the others.

Another version of this map, by linguist Jason Lobel, is available here. And then here's a link to his classifications if there are any doubts. At the very least, I'd like the dialect names next to each color, and if possible city (and maybe municipality) names. I don't know how feasible that would be. Diyos Mabalos / Maraming Salamat in advance. --Chris S. 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i could make it. Coffee 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo. Thanks! You rawk. :-D --Chris S. 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

History of the Philippines FAC

I've nominated History of the Philippines at FAC (see entry) and it would be much appreciated if you can give your input and help bring it to FA status. Concerns brought up so far have been mostly about references. And, umm... I gotta ask, please don't vote support just because it's a Philippine-related article. :p I'd feel better about it if it reached FA status on its own merits. :) --Coffee 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA. I'm adding it to my watchlist because FAs tend to get degraded over time (I lost 2 FAs that way, but your work has just bumped up my counter as well!). --Ancheta Wis 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yehey, my first Featured Article! I've nominated it to be featured on the main page. The image I put on there is just the flag of the Philippines, but if anyone has any better ideas for the image please go ahead and change it... :p --Coffee 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Philippine municipalities

FYI: On the Dutch Wikipedia, I have just completed the writing of the last municipality. I guess it is the first wikipedia (after the English Wikipedia) to complete all 1501 municipalities. Magalhães 08:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!--Jondel 12:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. :) Coffee 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Andres Bonifacio

I don't know why NightStallion insists that the name use diacritics.--Jondel 11:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we think about it, if the new Manual of Style guidelines on Philippine-related articles passes, then we would have to put in the diacritics, regardless of whether we want it or not. But as for this case, I don't know. --Sky Harbor 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh sorry. If there should be then there should be.I thought most Philippine related names don't have diacritics. --Jondel 12:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I object this diacritics stuff. This is the English written Wikipedia. If they wan't pronounciatoin guides, make a spoken Wikipedia instead. Also, the reason why José Rizal is spelt as José is that it is the recommended, and several books spell it that way. I have yet to see a book spell Andres Bonificio with diacritics. --Howard the Duck 12:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. Actually, the English Wikipedia (and even English as a whole) has little tolerance for diacritics, unless they are really needed. Besides, I'm anti-diacritic on the name of Bonifacio myself. --Sky Harbor 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the MOS should that, no diacritics unless it is widely used, or is preferred by the person himself, or for the letter "ñ". --Howard the Duck 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to type with diacritics. We'll have to accept the "ñ"s we've inherited.--Jondel 13:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, that's what we get from Spain. The ny digraph or niy' trigraph would work wonders for a Filipino (or Tagalog) sans diacritics. And yes, we should change the MoS to state that we should not add diacritics unless it is widely used. --Sky Harbor 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that it should be Andrés Bonifacio with diacritics. The diacritics policy I proposed in the MoS is a compromise. It all boils down to how the person's named was use in that time. Andrés Bonifacio and other people in the Philippines wrote his name that way at that time. The Philippines was part of Spain and using diacritics at the time was the norm. His name is most likely written with a diacritic on his baptismal record, which was in Spanish. Now, had Bonifacio been born 100 years later, it would be acceptable for the namespace to read Andres Bonifacio because it reflects current Philippine conventions - which is basically the American tendency to remove diacritics.

In any case, whether or not Bonifacio's name is written WITH diacritics now is not really relevant because he wasn't born in this era and not a modern figure. For this reason, I am equally opposed to both Corazón Aquino and Carlos García. In any case, you can see historical documents using the diacritics such as:

• Isagani - Filipino magazine in Spanish
• An book in English
• History book in Spanish by one of the signers of the Malolos constitution
• source in Spanish by Isabelo de los Reyes
• a source in Tagalog (too small, but it's in the text not the title)
• Kapampangan novel Ing Buak nang Ester (Tagalog: Ang Buhok ni Ester)
• Census of the Philippines 1903. Written by the US government in English
• Report from US Secretary of War Jacob M. Dickinson to President Taft in 1910
• Magazine, the Philippine review 1917

You get the idea. The idea that English Wikipedia is anti-diacritic is not entirely accurate. The English Wikipedia is pro-accuracy, which is why it uses diacritics in the name of Spanish president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, former president of France François Mitterrand, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős, Czech composer Antonín Dvořák, former president of Poland Lech Wałęsa, Vietnamese president Nguyễn Minh Triết and so on so forth. You get the idea. To exclude the diacritic is to spell the name incorrectly. I hope you all take this into account. --Chris S. 07:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, but then we would have then to use the most popular and/or accepted name. And in this case, the non-diacritic name is used extensively. Also, to quote WP:NC:

"Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages."

We can always have have the diacritic name as a redirect. But Mitterand, Dvorak (BBC misprounced his name hehe), etc. are known by many to be spelled with diacritics. We have to use the most popular name, or else, it will be Britney Jean Spears instead of Britney Spears or Amanda Leigh Moore instead of Mandy Moore. Frankly, it is only here at Wikipedia where I saw Andres' name with "é".--Howard the Duck 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to bring myself to agree, seeing that Mitterand's name sans ç is widely written as such in the American press when he was alive. However I am willing to settle for this compromise provided that the accented name stays as such in the article if the namespace isn't.

My rationale for the policy that I proposed was - use only the accents if they are used in the era they are used in. This way, the intended spellings can stay the way they are. If you look at the Japanese MoS, something similar was done for Japanese names where name order (i.e., first name & last name being first or last) and the criteria was the Meiji era. So I was thinking that the same could be done for the Philippines.

Which makes me think - is Andrés Bonifacio's signature available somewhere? Maybe that could settle it. --Chris S. 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can find Boni's sig with "é" I'm for renaming. But as for know, "Andres" is the most popular, so "Andres" should it be. --Howard the Duck 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Could the MOS be a guide instead? Is this cast in stone? Maybe we could make some exceptions. Exteme anti-conialists may reject anything that smacks of Spanish. Anyway these are the factors involved, usage in the govenment, mainstream, Andres'own usage (from his signature) and traditional Spanish. Maybe his signature could settle the issue. hmm , I'll see if I can google images with keywords 'Andres Bonifacio signature'.--Jondel 05:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All MoS's are guides - they are to reflect consensus (Take a look at the notice at the top of WP:MOS.). Right now we're in the planning/proposal stage. So it's good that we're talking about this aspect right now so we can come to a consensus. Also, I don't think we should be in the business of bending over backwards for the extremists. In any case I found Andrés Bonifacio's signature, and he doesn't write his first name completely. Baptismal records have the names with accents. For example, my lolo's baptismal record from 1900 lists his grandfather's first name as Hilarión. One thing we have to keep in mind was that Philippines was a part of Spain. It was a Hispanic country and that's why we should follow Spanish conventions for people born around that time. --Chris S. 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rail map

As part of giving Philippine National Railways an overhaul (albeit with a lack of resources) towards FA status, the last of the Strong Republic Transit System articles to probably get this status, I'm looking for potential mapmakers who can be kind enough to produce a map of the Philippine railway network (excluding the LRT and MRT) for the PNR article. So far, this would only cover the Manila-Legazpi line, as well as the train services up north from Manila. As of the moment, this is the only map I could find with the rail lines: http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/images/bigmap.gif, which is on the Philippine government portal, as well as (probably) the map of Manila on its article. Since PNR only operates rail services on Luzon (it doesn't operate the Panay Railway), a zoom-in would be nice.

The color scheme for the map of the Pan-Philippine Highway, for example, is adequate. Since I don't know which line would be Northrail or Southrail, the respective green and orange designations per SRTS guidelines can't work. But, then again, we might never know which line's which (the PNR website is down for some reason).

Thanks a bunch! --Sky Harbor 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Can we rename Araw ng Kalayaan? If it has an English equivalent, it must be moved. :) --Noypi380 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not Independence Day (Philippines)? (I dunno if other independence days are in their native languages.) --Howard the Duck 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of other independence day articles are named after their native equivalent, like Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel), Gwangbokjeol (South Korea), Hari Merdeka (Malaysia) and Yaum e Azadi (Pakistan) to name a few. -- Mithril Cloud 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. :) --Noypi380 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But since English is co-official in the Philippines and since this is an English wikipedia, maybe the English name should take precedence. --Chris S. 01:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True. I actually got the idea from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use_English). So should it be moved? --Noypi380 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving it. Coffee 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved. :) --Noypi380 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

80th province

Looks like we now have a new province (80th so far): the ARMM Regional Assembly made the province of Shariff Kabungsuwan out of the first district of Maguindanao, invoking powers granted to it under RA 6734, I think. There's an article on it in the Philippine Star, and is endorsed by Zaldy Ampatuan, although it still has to undergo the plebiscite process. --Sky Harbor 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find much other info about this Shariff Kabungsuwan. I guess we'll wait for the plebiscite before updating all the articles. Coffee 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but Kabungsuwan is a myth rather than a historical character? And now a province, so a couple of articles would be made right there. :) --Noypi380 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the voters approve this, the province is still not in existence. --Howard the Duck 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming in the Philippines article

Thought I may give you guys a heads up. --Howard the Duck 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines

Come and join the fun! --Howard the Duck 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I thought this is what Tambayan is for. --Chris S. 14:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, now I get it why you are guys aren't excited... for it will be divide efforts. Why don't we merge the Wikiproject with the tambayan? --Howard the Duck 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both of these pages serve the same purpose (to improve Philippine-related articles), especially now that the project page of Tambayan has been expanded. Right now the only thing I see on that page that isn't covered on other pages is the "to do list".. perhaps the "Article requests" section of Tambayan could be turned into a "to do" section? And article requests could be a subsection of it. Coffee 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Message from the founder:

I created this WikiProject because I thought there was no WikiProject for all Phiippine articles (I didn't see any in the WikiProject list which was generally for all Philippine-related articles). You may do what you wish but I would want that this WikiProject (at least) be mantained and become a subpage of Tambayan instead of making it a redirect to Tambayan. For my sake.

- Emir214 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is about time that Philippines gets its own Wikiproject underway. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we upgrade the Tambayan page into a Wikiproject? That way, we can post talk page notices, COTWs, etc. --Howard the Duck 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just make Wikiproject Philippines redirect to here? --Chris S. 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets just upgrade this page. --Howard the Duck 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's it! I am closing down the WikiProject! - Emir214 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I redirected it to the Tambayan user page, sadly. - Emir214 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a RWNB and a a WikiProject? Do WikiProjects have more "perks"? If they do, lets upgrade Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines. --Howard the Duck 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there really any perks with upgrading this to WikiProject status? It seems that as of the moment the majority thinks that the current setup is best, since we can't wrest commitment from all members of a designated WikiProject. This is more of a compromise, or better, a laid-back approach to a WikiProject, in my opinion. --Sky Harbor 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can edit {{Philippines collaboration}} so that it resembles {{Football}}? --Howard the Duck 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Football? You know what, let us hust have a voting to see which will be better, a WikiProject or the Tambayan to end this discussion. - Emir214 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was posting talk page notices ("This article is part of WikiProject Football"]]. For me, that's the basic difference between the RNWB and a WikiProject. --Howard the Duck 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, let us just have a voting to see which will be better, a WikiProject or the Tambayan to end this discussion. - Emir214 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think voting's necessary, everyone seems to be happy here. That's consensus there, no? --Chris S. 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that Voting is evil. --Howard the Duck 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion and WikiProject is useless. (closed) - Emir214 10:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) So you are saying that my efforts to create a WikiProject is useless, Chris S.? - Emir214 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets not divide our efforts here. There should only be one central place for Filipino Wikipedians to meet up and improve articles. Like what I've said before, I'm open to the idea of "upgrading" the Tambayan into a WikiProject. --Howard the Duck 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's useless. No need to reinvent the wheel. --Chris S. 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine! If that's how you feel, I'll be leaving the Tambayan (I already removed my username) and instead support the WikiProject (someday the WikiProject may be better than the Tambayan). Everyone else who are willing to support me and the WikiProject are welcomed to do so. Goodbye Tambayan Philippines forever! - Emir214 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the animosity? Would the WikiProject and the Tambayan be in competition with each other? Would it be redundant? Isn't this a bit stupid? There is a Tambayan already, I dunno why the efforts should be split - and two competing projects at that! This is the epitome of the Filipino's utak talangka (crab mentality), isn't it? I'd say we merge the efforts into one page, I don't care which would be retained, but there should only be ONE Philippine project. --Howard the Duck 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Today, Tambayan is divided into two, the main Tambayan and the breakaway group WikiProject. If no one will participate fine! There are many other Filipinos to back me up in this one! TAPOS ANG KUWENTO!!!! - Emir214 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with an attitude like that I think your WikiProject is doomed to fail. You have very misguided misconceptions of what collaborating with other editors is about. Or perhaps in general. I see that you're 12 years old, we are not out to get you or anything. We just want to write good articles. ;-) --Chris S. 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have fun. I didn't mean to offend you, I'm just saying what I think. There is no need for a Wikiproject when one already exists. Tambayan is a Wikiproject in everything but name only, imho. --Chris S. 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just two questions, why is this WikiProject (Tambayan) not in the List of WikiProjects and why the other WikiProjects such as Canada are using the WikiProject name? - Emir214 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? --Chris S. 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And just to point out, the WikiProject for Canada is not as active as WP:CWNB. --Chris S. 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For everyone concerned, the Tambayan is a regional notice board, it is not a Wikiproject, but I may add the participants of the Tambayan may have produced 3 FAs 3FLs, 2 FPs, 5 GAs and 9 DYKs, more than some other WikiProjects. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, since we've evolved from our regional notice board roots. Kaya seguro dapat lang natin ilipat? But first, rather than voting (since voting is evil), let's start with a straw poll so we can see what the others think. A question like "Do you support the move of Wikipedia:Tambayan to WikiProject Philippines?" Keep in mind that it's just to gauge consensus, not to force a decision. --Chris S. 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to do that on a subpage. --Howard the Duck 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, goodbye. I guess I'll be the only user to support the WikiProject. Again, goodbye. - Emir214 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, Emir214...Comment lang po ako. Alam mo tama ang sinabi ni Howard tungkol sa crab mentality nating mga pinoy. Ang hilig-hilig natin sa mga break-away thingie. Hindi na kailangan talaga ang wikiproject mo dahil halos lahat ng mga pinoy wikipedians dito na talaga tumatambay. Kaya nga tawag TAMBAY, eh. Pero hindi rin ibig sabihin useless ang wikiproject mo. Hindi rin dahil lang sa may Wikiproject na ganyan tulad mga taga ibang bansa eh dapat makigaya tayo (gaya gaya mentality) - oh bagong concept yan para sa bagong article. In fact, mas maganda nga kung unique eh. Ang Canaduh ba may tambayan? Wala. Tayo lang meron. We should be proud of it, and help develop it to the fullest. Ang efforts mo para sa wikiproject Philippines mo, dito mo na lang i-contribute. Let's unite sa lahat ng aspeto. Pati din dito sa Wikipedia! I-merge na lang natin ang dalawa and let wikiproject Philippines redirect to the TAMBAY page. --Weekeejames 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:::WALANG UNIFICATION! WALA! WALA! WALA! NAGMAMATIGAS AKO, ISA PANG NABASA KO YANG MERGE MERGE NA YAN AY BAKA I-AFD KO PA YANG TAMBAYAN NYO! -Emir214 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Let's just talk about this on the WikiProject talk page. As for me, I am not changing my mind. So what I'm 12 years old. I have started many articles at a young age. So what? - Emir214 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ibig sabihin, ikaw ang bunso dito. Ang batang matigas ang ulo, pinapalo sa pwet ahahaha :P --Weekeejames 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert the page from its previous version because of the threat above (although kahit ipa afd nya pa, di naman ibig sabihin i de delete na agad ang Tambayan page). I think the threat is serious by nature and I wonder if it violates any of Wikipedia's rules and regulations and if the user is ought to be castigated with some admin disciplinary action. Anyone...admins/sysops? --Weekeejames 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be three years older than the person in question, but I can indeed say that I would prefer a nice, peaceful co-existence of both projects. We won't lose the WikiProject as what's being championed here today, but we can coordinate here and do work there, ensuring a nice deliniation for which page is being used for what. As for discipline, it does nothing. It will only exascerbate the problem. --Sky Harbor 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user on his talk page. --Chris S. 05:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, he's been blocked for another reason. --Chris S. 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... having another page is just dividing our efforts. We've already built up this nice little community, and we all just want to improve Philippine-related articles. I don't see the point of having another page with the exact same purpose. Coffee 03:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is like the problem with the Basketball Association of the Philippines and Pilipinas Basketball. Only one has to go. I wonder how we should resolve this. --Howard the Duck 05:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I am with whatever the majority decides. It doesn't matter to me, really, if this project is moved. At the same time, I am against the idea of two separate projects for the reasons that Coffee outlined. Like I said, no need to reinvent the wheel. We have a great thing going on here and it has been working for quite some time now. --Chris S. 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines

Anyone interested? Since User:Emir214 apparently left Wikipedia for good, and with no active members, I'll list this at WP:MFD. Any objections? Also, we should really be a WikiProject by now, so that things like things would not happen. --Howard the Duck 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See the reason why I left on my userpage. - Emir214 12:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't leave per se; he's active on the Tagalog Wikipedia. You never know what could happen next, but we should anticipate a return if possible. --Sky Harbor 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we don't even need to send it to MFD... we could just redirect it to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, and merge any salvagable fuctions of the two pages. --Coffee 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is better, but changing it into a redirect would make it easier for anyone to reestablish the WikiProject. I do like the talk page notices, though. --Howard the Duck 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion. Let wikiproject be. Wikipedia, by miracle everyday and every minute, always gets to correct itself automatically, so unnecessary excess pages will always be deleted due to the needs of memory and bandwidth. We don't have to do anything just yet. If we are ready to be one in our efforts as a Filipino wikipedia community, the time will come. And emir, be mature and assume good faith, don't let opinions that differ from yours discourage you from contributing. That is what a dialogue is all about. Happy editing all! --Noypi380 02:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about copying the code/moving Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines, then we'll retain Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philippines primarily on the appearance of the WikiProject page? Either way, it seems fine for now. --Howard the Duck 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not. I'm expecting wikiproject to be deleted anyway, eventually. :) --Noypi380 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Already made it a redirect of the lousy Tambayan. Your friend thinks its vandalism. - Emir214 not registered

If you think Tambayan is lousy, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should still work with the community. Don't take it personally if you don't always get what want. It is normal to be emotionally attached to your contributions, everybody is! :) But everybody trusts each other to modify, edit, etc. everything for the better. So, I suggest you "unretire" yourself, contribute in the articles you like, and have fun. The people who spoke above do not have bad feelings for you, and neither should you have bad feelings for them. Happy editing as Emir214! :) --Noypi380 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a talk page notice I created from hacking other Wikiproject's notices:

	WikipediaTambayan Philippines/Archive 5 is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines
The Tambayan is a regional notice board a improve all articles related to the Philippines.

What do you people think? This is a neat way on organizing and keeping track on articles, and helps in the prevention of summary deletions of pages, as well as to give advertisement on this page. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent cities

Right now we have a messy situation with independent cities and their footer navigation templates. For example, Template:Negros Occidental currently includes Bacolod City, even though Bacolod is supposedly independent from the province. But the Bacolod article doesn't even use that template, and instead uses Template:Indy Philippine cities. In other situations, the city was removed from the province nav template. This makes things all very inconsistent and confusing. Clearly we can't pretend that the city is not at all associated with the province (people in Bacolod would still put "Negros Occidental" in their address), and we can't pretend that the city is part of the province, so I'm thinking of this compromise:

I'm not sure how accurate the wording there is, but the footnote would make it clear what Bacolod's status really is (also see Template:Asia). So this template could be used in addition to Template:Indy Philippine cities. What do you think? Coffee 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Parang kaso ng Zamboanga City. I wouldn't even agree to use a provincial template on the Zamboanga City article, and worse, noting that the independent city is included in the provincial template for "statistical purposes". When an independent city is indeed 'independent' from a province, then that city should never be included in the nav provincial template (kahit na for stats purposes pa). On an independent city article, the provincial template should never be used. The indy template exists for this purpose. Worst, both templates should not be used together in an article on an independent city. That would make it even more confusing. --Weekeejames 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an acceptable solution for most independent cities. For Baguio, Zamboanga City and Davao City, I don't think we should put templates yet (or maybe the region templates would fit). We should resolve this mess once and for all (and put it in the MoS or WikiProject LGUs). --seav 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Being independent cities, the region templates should suffice. Just indicate in the region templates which are independent cities (italics, asterisk, etc.). --Polaron | Talk 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia should be helpful, while being accurate. It doesn't seem right to place the Western Visayas template in the Bacolod City article when it is more helpful if the Negros Occidental template was used. Bacolod City, while administratively and fiscally independent of the province, is ethnologically, sociologically, economically, culturally, and linguistically integrated with the province. I think TheCoffee's proposed template is better. Maybe change the footnote wording to something like "Though administratively independent from the province, Bacolod City is the province's capital and is associated with the province in other ways." --seav 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Though Baguio and Zamboanga and Davao seem to be more aware of their independence, Bacolod and other cities are still closely associated with their provinces. In any case, using a template like the one I'm proposing would be nothing but helpful. Actually, the reason I brought this up was because, as a reader of Wikipedia, I was looking at the Bacolod article and was a bit miffed when I didn't find the Negros Occidental nav template at the bottom. Coffee 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the notice doesn't belong there, since that should be left to the articles to explain. Also, how long has this concept of independent cities been in place? Or more specifically, that cities are no longer a part of the province? It's quite odd to me, quite frankly. --Chris S. 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the template, and at first I placed the template along with the province template in the same page. Then somebody removed the province template, leaving only the indy cities template. Now for me, the template should be used on its own, or with the region template. The confusion arises on how to classify which cities are independent, and on the degree of their independence. On the Cities of the Philippines page, I've used the footnotes [a] and [c] as basis for their inclusion on the indy cities template.

Now if we will include the region templates on the article, I suggest we don't add the cities there, so that the indy city template will be useful, saying that this city is in this region, but is independent from the province.

Now on the question how did madness arose, the constitution said that those cities whose charters say they're independent from the province are "independent" (or they're province-level subdivisions, just as Hong Kong SAR). The ultimate basis, for me, is if a city votes for the provincial governor, they're a part of that province, if they don't they're independent. --Howard the Duck 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cebu City residents don't vote for the officials of Cebu province. They even have their own representatives in the House. But does that mean that Cebu City is alien to the province such that we exclude Cebu City in the footer for Cebu province? I don't think so, because Cebu City is tightly integrated to the province (e.g., Metro Cebu), even though it is independent administratively and fiscally. --seav 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If Cebu City residents do not vote for the provincial governor, then Cebu City should be off {tl|Cebu}} and Cities of Cebu, however, we should think of a way how to say that Cebu is culturally and politically integrated to the rest of the island, just that they're not part of the province. Wikipedia has to be accurate, and saying Cebu City is not a part of Cebu will be fine. --Howard the Duck 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, and I think it's better sounding in English anyway, how about the title saying "Cities and Municipalities in Negros Occiental"? Then in addition to the Cities and Municipalities field, there will be an extra field labeled Independent Cities. This way it: (1) Gets rid of an unnecessary and unslightly footnote at the bottom (2) Gives a very brief idea of the political status of a particular independent city while (3) Directly shows the province its located in and (4) Attempts to be both helpful to the Wikipedia reader while at the same time accurate. I personally agree with seav's & TheCoffee's sentiments regarding Cebu City & Bacolod City, respectively and their feelings mirror mine as far as my hometown of Angeles City is concerned. What do you all think? --Chris S. 07:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"In" is better. Also, we might as well decapitalize "Municipalities", and remove "City" from the Cities roster.

Now, it would mean that Bacolod City is at Negros Occidental when it does not. I think if we'll have a footer on the province template, like this:

The province template will appear at all cities and municipalities of Negros Occidental, while only the Indy cities template and/or the region template will appear at the Bacolod City article. In that way, a link to "Bacolod City" still appears on Negros Occidental related pages. What do you think? --Howard the Duck 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, wait. I thought it was in Negros Occidental, but not just administered by it? --Chris S. 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not "in" Negros Occidental, it's a separate entity. When a city doesn't vote for the governor, it ceases to be a part of the province. --Howard the Duck 08:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because a city doesn't elect for its governor only makes it independent politically and otherwise. Of course, Philippine government statistics with regard to this are very inconsistent, and the base of culture with regards to a city is in itself controversial (residents of independent Iloilo City still view themselves as part of Iloilo as an example, while residents of independent Zamboanga City don't view themselves as part of Zamboanga del Sur). The only way we can resolve this is through some form of consensus regarding this very contentious and overdue issue. Then again, isn't Bacolod Negrense? --Sky Harbor 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Our contitution says:

"Article X, Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials."

In plain English, the highly urbanized cities, and cities whose charters prevent them from electing provincial officials (not all chartered cities), are independent from the province. Component cities are part of of the province. The only criterion is whether the voters elect provincial officials. If they do, then they're part of the province, if they don't they're independent. The footers at the templates, IMHO, will be enough to explain the situation in a summarized form. --Howard the Duck 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, appreciate it. However, while you have outlined the administrative, legal, and political aspects of the relationship between an independent city and a province, I don't see any indication that it is separate in terms of geography. For example, Cebu City is the provincial capital of Cebu, after all but despite being an independent city it's still part of Cebu ditto for Iloilo. On Mandaue City's website, it says "Official website of the industrial capital of the province of Cebu." A similar thing is said on Angeles City's webpages. Heck, even the Philippine Postal Corporation's ZIP codes place these cities in provinces. Also, what is the implication of this? Do the size (area) of the of the provinces have to be changed to reflect that the city is supposedly not part of the province? I'm trying to understand the best I can, so please bear with me. :-) --Chris S. 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC) PS: Oh, and here's how I think the template should look. The less explanatory text, the better. Also, it's a sort of compromise because perspectives differ on whether or not a city is considered part of the province.

In terms of geography? When you say geography, they're landmasses, water bodies, natural forms, etc., not political (man-made) divisions. Cebu City is part of Cebu Island, but Cebu City is not a part of Cebu Province. Nor is Cebu Province=Cebu Island. See the Philippines for example, "administrative divisions" are on a separate section with that of "Geography". Perhaps these idependent cities, with a very few exceptions is said to be a part of the economic and cultural life of the province, but they're not a part of the province themselves.

What is the implication? I think the province pages had been updated already (the independent cities are separated, dunno who did it).

Also, a province is supposedly "rural" (this is the reason why Metro Manila was created because it's too urban to be a province). --Howard the Duck 09:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To nitpick a bit, geology is different from geography. Geography is the study of places on earth and how man uses it and its relationships with its surroundings, so geography also tackles man-made spatial constructs. Otherwise, there's no sense having separate B.S. Geology and B.S. Geography diplomas in U.P. (And note, U.P.'s B.S. Geography is under the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, not the College of Science.) But don't ask me about B.S. Geodetic Engineering. =) --seav 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, question, how can an independent city be a capital of a province it's independent of? The province of Cebu is supposedly Cebu island, Bantayan, Mactan, whatever else, but minus Cebu City & Mandaue. But yet, its provincial capital is in Cebu City as opposed to, say, Lapu-Lapu City which is part of Cebu? What this is telling me is that these cities are still attached to their mothers' apron strings. --Chris S. 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC) PS - When I mean geographically, I mean that some of these cities are inside the province... i.e., Angeles.

The cities, though independent are the capitals of their mother provinces. This is peculiar in the Philippines (see the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao]] setup, for example, Isabela is part of Basilan, although Isabela is not part of ARMM, in which the rest of Basilan is part of. Another one is that the de facto capital of Rizal is Pasig City for the administrative offices are there. There even some who say that since Pasay and QC house Congress, they too are capitals. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or lets put it this way, Lesotho is entirely surrounded by South Africa, but it is an independent country. Same as the independent cities. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, independent cities are much more closely associated with their provinces than the relationship between Lesotho and South Africa. The NSCB groups Bacolod with the other Negros Occidental towns, without even giving any indication of it's administrative independence. I'd insist that the {{Negros Occidental}} template be on the Bacolod City article in some form or another, for ease of navigation. Two navigation templates is far from too much... Coffee 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd still want the indy cities template displayed on the Bacolod City article. A link to Negros Occidental at the infobox will be sufficient enough for me. (And a great majority of Lesothans work in South Africa, so they're quite closely related. In fact, "South Africa" is mentioned every other paragraph in the Lesotho article.)

Another Bacolod-Negros Occidental and Lesotho-South Africa comparison: they're both an equal political status with each other, with Lesotho and South Africa as countries, and Bacolod City and Negros Occidental as "province-level" subdivisions of the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 12:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A closer analogy might be the independent cities of Virginia in the U.S. These independent cities are not part of the county but some of them are the county seats. --Polaron | Talk 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Howard, are these independent cities autonomous? Is that what the law is saying? --Chris S. 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not just autonomous, they are independent.

• Autonomous - relationship between ARMM and the Philippines
• Independent - relationship between Lesotho and South Africa

--Howard the Duck 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There goes the confusion. Just because a city is independent does not mean it is autonomous. And just because a city is autonomous does not mean it is completely independent. Let's put this issue of independent cities in a particular context: independence (and autonomy, for that matter) from (and in relation to) a province, and not in the context of a wider perspective (in relation to the whole country - the ARMM, as an example or worst, the Lesotho & South Africa analogy). This way, it should be less confusing. There are factors to consider all these confusions (case of Cebu City as capital of Cebu province), NSO's own confusion and etc, historical as well as cultural factors, etc. Take the case of Iloilo and Zamboanga Cities. Even though Iloilo City is independent, its residents still consider it to be part of Iloilo because the independent city can always trace itself back to Iloilo. But not in the case of Zamboanga City and the Zamboanga provinces. Zamboanga City cannot be traced back to the so called "Zamboanga province"(s) because those provinces were once part of the bigger Moro province encompassing all of Mindanao and the Sulu islands. The Zamboanga provinces (del Norte, Sur and Sibugay) got their names from Bella Zamboanga, the independent city. Zamboanga City gave these provinces their names and identities and not the other way around. This is not only a cultural but a historical factor as well.

To make it simple, these explanations should be embedded on the articles themselves, and not on the templates. It shouldn't be the templates' purpose to explain why it's 'in' there or 'not in' there, why it's 'of' there and 'not of' there, for 'statistical purposes' or 'not for statistical purposes' and etc...the Provincial template should only be used on articles about provinces, Indy template should only be on articles about independent cities, and the Region template for articles on the regions. Mixing them makes it more confusing. Let the articles speak for themselves. The templates should only be there to augment the articles and guide the readers, not to misinform or disinform. --Weekeejames 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the explanations should be in the articles, but the templates are there in order to help the reader navigate the associated articles. What we're saying that apart from Baguio, Zamboanga, and Davao, all the other independent cities are still closely associated with their mother provinces and so the province templates should also link to them. When you're looking up the economy, history, demography, and culture of Iloilo City, I would think that you're more interested to go to the Miag-ao, Iloilo article later rather than the Bacolod City article, right? That's what those templates are for. And what we're debating is how to present Iloilo City's status accurately in the Iloilo template. --seav 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate also applies to all other cities with the same status as of that of Iloilo City anyhow. I understand the templates' purpose if only for navigation of articles. However as a researcher on the economy of Iloilo City for example, If it was a general knowledge that Bacolod City contributes the biggest share on Iloilo City's economy, then just because Miag-ao and Iloilo city are on the same Iloilo province does not mean I should be more interested on Miag-ao, Iloilo.

You say, "What we're saying that apart from Baguio, Zamboanga, and Davao, all the other independent cities are still closely associated with their mother provinces and so the province templates should also link to them."

But, shouldn't those province templates link the independent cities (with cultural and historical ties with the provinces) 'from' the provinces articles 'to' the independent cities articles, and not the other way around, and just leave the Indy templates alone with the articles on independent cities. Province articles can have 2 templates. Independent cities articles should only have 1 template - the Indy template. This is suggestion no. 1.

Suggestion no. 2: The provincial template should break down the cities into the diff city categories (whether provincial capital city, a component city, an indy city, etc...where nothing applies, leave it blank...where a city, like Cebu City, is applicable as both independent city and a provincial capital city, then include the city on both...otherwise, setup a rule which one to supercede the other, whether an independent city always supercede a provincal capital city). --Weekeejames 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, Bacolod City can still appear on {{Negros Occidental}}, the thing is it is on a footnote as shown on example #2 above, while Bacolod City will only have {{Indy Philippine cities}}, but a link to Negros Occidental will be provided at the infobox.

Essentially, cities, provinces and regions are political and administrative subdivisions. The templates are made to show the different political and administrative divisions, not the culture and the history of the province. As for independent cities ha capitals of a province, aside from the footnote stated in Example #2, we'll add "... although it is the provincial capital of <inser province's name here>. --Howard the Duck 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the provincial template's purpose, basically, is to show the political and administrative divisions of a province, then why include an independent city on a provincial template? The only reason I see why they are included is because of historical and cultural ties to the province. By the way I stick to my original idea...Provincial templates with different city categories should only be for articles on provinces and can link to independent cities since independent cities is one of the categories, but the Indy template should only be for Independent city articles with no link to any province whatsoever. It should be done carefully as we Zamboangeños have always resent Zamboanga del Sur's usurpation of Zamboanga City and as we don't want anything to do with the del Sur province. --Weekeejames 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

How should we resolve this. All or nothing or case-by-case basis? --Howard the Duck 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll be implementing changes by the weekend based on the second example. --Howard the Duck 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look if {{Ilocos Norte}} and {{Pampanga}} is fine already and if you have comments. --Howard the Duck 15:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may still intervene, I hope this link may help determine on how to go about with this issue [1]. The list shows which city participate in provincial elections, regardless if they have their own representative in congress or not. The independence of a city is determined by their charter, which also provides whether they participate in provincial elections or not, if they do, they are a part of the province.

Please take note:

1. An independent city may vote together with other cities/towns in the province for their representative in Congress. If an independent city doesn't meet the requirement of a population of at least 250,000, it cannot be entitled to its own representation.
2. A component city may have its own representative/s in Congress, even if they are actually component cities, as long as they meet the population requirement.

Scorpion prinz 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanford Study on Phil Genetic Mix

There are several Hispano-Filipino articles which makes a wrong conclusion from this study:

Capelli et al, A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian- Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf)

For instance, the following statement:

According to a genetic study, an estimated 3.6% of Filipinos have at least some European ancestry, a large part of this is very likely Spanish.

Can be corrected as:

According to a genetic study which included 28 genotyped individuals from the Philippines, "Some European introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%–7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%)." A large part of this European introgression is very likely of Spanish origin.

It would be great if you could help out with the corrections if you get to encounter other inaccurate conclusions from this study.--Nino Gonzales 04:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that source should be trashed. Statistically, it's a very small sample. Considerably less than one half of 1% or even .0001%! We need a far more huger sample and a study that's intended to show the genetic makeup of the Philippines (which this study is specifically not!). I mean, it's not representative of the whole Philippines, just those 28 people. For all we know, they could be all from Manila. I attempted to remove it a while back in Philippines, but Matthewprc kept on insisting on its statistical validity so it slipped back in. --Chris S. 08:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I support its trashing if used inappropriately (which is probably all usages here). 28 is actually around 0.00004%... hehe... it would be interesting to see a real study of the genetic make-up of the phil--Nino Gonzales 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets remove the mention of this study and use a better study. --Howard the Duck 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Radio and TV stations

Could those of you who work on radio and television station articles for the Philippines please hash out a consistent policy on whether they should be titled with their on-air brand names or their D--- call signs? Currently there's a mishmash of both, but you should consistently use one or the other if possible. Thanks. Bearcat 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this format for radio and TV stations in the Philippines:

• AM Stations - Callsign
• FM Stations - On-air brand names
• TV Stations - Callsign

AM stations here in the Philppines are very known in their callsigns while FM stations are known in their on-air brand name. Danngarcia 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the naming conventions suggested by Danngarcia. (So that means we'd have to create a new DZBB-TV(?) for the flagship (Manila) GMA Network station, etc.?) --Howard the Duck 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'ved already started creating new articles for the TV stations here in Metro Manila (DZBB-TV for GMA Network and DWWX-TV for ABS-CBN) although most of them are still stub articles. Someone also created articles for the TV stations in Iloilo City. -Danngarcia 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Manila Meet-up and Project: TTT

This won't push through if no one will propose a time and venue. So let me give it a shot: Sept 9, this Saturday, the Wendy's in the corner of Kalaw and Taft (near the UN LRT station).

If many people are OK, great!

If few will come, we could make it a pre-meet-up Meet-up, where we will prepare for the real meet-up.

If no one will come, I'll still be passing by the place.

My item in the agenda is a project which aims to get more Filipinos involved in Wikipedia. Please tell me if you'd like to help out. We could talk more if ever the meet-up pushes through. It's pretty simple: get teachers to use Wikipedia for teaching their students. Here's a draft of the project plan: User:Nino Gonzales/TTT. This is for the good of humanity!--Nino Gonzales 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am justox dizaola, i wish this unsigned sincei am in a pc shop and security is an issue. I will come kasi i am at manila on sept. 9 Thanks. patawad po sa ganito.

Off-topic: Can the admins italicize their names at the user roster? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 10:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot the time. How does 12PM sound? --Nino Gonzales 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some debate council thing in the morning (and early afternoon, I think). I think sometime in the afternoon would be better. --Sky Harbor 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

justoc dizaola again. early afternoon like 2pm

If one Wendy's near an LRT station, for you, is the same as any other, are you OK with the one near La Salle near the Vito Cruz station?

So that's Sept 9, 2PM, Wendy's near Vito Cruz LRT station. If there are at least 3 of us, let's push through, oks? If not, let's try again with another venue and date...--Nino Gonzales 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to go tomorrow, although I might be a little late because of the debate council thingy. --Sky Harbor 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck sa EB nyo today! Picture naman ng eb, este meet-up pala. --Weekeejames 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems there's just gonna be 3 of us... anyway, we can just discuss how we can prepare for a bigger meet-up... if you're interested, we could also talk about how to get more Filipino Wikipedians... Fuzheado says he's gonna support us... Fuzheado was one of the speakers of the conference on new media and press freedom a few months ago in AIM... He's a teacher from Hong Kong who uses Wikipedia for teaching... and he's currenltly writing a book about Wikis... I'll be there by 2:30, but will have to leave by 3. I'll bring a laptop with a Wikipedia logo so we'll know who's who...--Nino Gonzales 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a bit of a place conflict earlier: I ended up going to the original location (Wendy's T.M. Kalaw) than the new location (Wendy's Vito Cruz), of which I found one of us, but not the other. I think we need to coordinate locations better for one thing. --Sky Harbor 08:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Sorry, my fault... shouldn't have updated the proposed venue to somewhere very similar... I was there, btw, with my Wikipedia logo... hehe... anyway, it's great that you guys have met... I'm sure next time we'd be more successful--Nino Gonzales 11:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Philippines

Any suggestionsa for selected article and selected pic? --Howard the Duck 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh...how about the LRT, MRT or our newest featured article on the history of the Philippines? Don't know about the featured picture though. --Sky Harbor 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be featured so that I'll be included. I'm looking for the church pic that was posted here. That's a nice pic. --Howard the Duck 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You could use just any picture, I guess. Coffee 03:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps of the Philippines

Make it a dump of all of our map files/images. --Howard the Duck 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin move request

Can any admin move Congressional District of Marikina City to Congressional district of Marikina City and fix the resulting double redirects? Thanks. =) --seav 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Coffee 03:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Philippines

Hey guys, what do you think of this navigation template that User:Emir214 has been adding to pages: {{Philippines}} It seems 100% redundant with Template:Indy Philippine cities, Template:Metro Manila, and Template:Philippine regions. I don't mean to antagonize Emir214, but I think this template should be deleted. Coffee 03:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

List it at WP:TFD. I'll support for deletion there. --Howard the Duck 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new infobox to replace this. See User:Howard the Duck/Pinoy. --Howard the Duck 11:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Spratly Islands are missing from the infobox, btw. But it looks nice. --Sky Harbor 11:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add them, but they're at Kalayaan, Palawan already. --Howard the Duck 12:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the feasibility of the TTT project

Josh and i talked about this on the scheduled meet-up and we came up with a discussion regarding the TTT.
Here are some of the dillemas we foresaw:

• We cannot easily gain government support
• We have not enough people to do the project
• We have a lot of geographical disconnections
• Not enough $$$
  

Therefore as a solution to the problem, We have come up with this idea: Make a Wikimedia Foundation Chapter here in the Philippines. These are the possibilities I personally have considered:

• Have at least 5-10 members (non minors) register it at SEC
• To help us gain more resources, let us hook up with the Foundation Chapter at Japan and probably make us a sub-chapter for some time until we can go our own way.
  

Hoping for your kind consideration on this solution. Justox dizaola 07:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ^_^

Wow, you really think big! I was actually just thinking of startling small... like approaching a few teachers and "selling" to them the idea of using the editing of Wikipedia to teach their students some general reseach principles (NPOV, citing reliable sources, etc)... I figured that if it really works (i.e., using Wikipedia as a educational tool), then it would spread throughout the Philippine academia like wildfire! But your idea is great--a foundation would facilitate a lot of things :) ----Nino Gonzales 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As of the moment, Wikimedia Japan is merely an idea, but Wikimedia Taiwan and Hong Kong are being organized. I can't find any government information on how to organize non-profits, but I wonder if we can set up a co-op? --Sky Harbor 11:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a proposal like this: Since the Taiwan and HK are in formation and Japan is already in incubator, I porpose to make all our efforts channeled to one big chapter with subchapters in the other places. Then, for all Asia's good, the communities there will link up and we shall have a larger pool of resources at our disposal, what do you think? Jondel will really be a great help here. Also, the Wikifoundation bulid-up will make Wikifoundations everywhere in Asia spread like wildfire. Then, as we grow more autonomous, we shall keep the Big Umbrella Wikiorg as a loose confederation of friendship and will help other wikifoundations transfer their resources to the more needy ones. Por mi patria y continente, excellence. --Justox dizaola 11:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ^_^

To add something, let us incorporate Mr. Gonzales' selling thing to give us some publicity for the wiki and after we gained at least 20+ members then we shall form the foundation. --Justox dizaola 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ^_^

Wikimedia Philippines

I have started drafting the Wikimedia Philippines page. Visit User:Sky Harbor/Wikimedia Philippines. If there is consensus, I will move this to the Tambayan namespace (Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Wikimedia Philippines) and possibly to Meta also. --Sky Harbor 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

this is cool! --Saluyot 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow ang cute!!!23prootie 05:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We're looking for people to join this thing eh...we need 15 legal-age Filipino citizens to incorporate a co-op (I'm not one of them), along with all the other paperwork. I don't even know how to make an Economic Survey (technically a feasibility study). --Sky Harbor 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre coincidences in language

When a Roman sees a beautiful woman , he might exclaim "O Babae!" which means "O Wonderful!" from Greek. Duo means two in latin which is similar to dua in Visayan languages. Cepit is seize or grasp (like 'kapit'). Tata is Estrucucian and old Latin for father.--Jondel 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ever been to Nanay Mo, British Columbia? ;-) --Chris S. 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Addresses on Radio/TV station articles

Is it legit to put addresses on radio and TV station articles? Check out these articles: Radio Philippines Network and National Broadcasting Network. I think it violates Wikipedia's policy (WP:NOT). Danngarcia 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend their removal. --Howard the Duck 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam alert

Someone is spamming the Davao City, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental pages (although s/he seems to ignore the Compostela Valley page), adding his/her website at the top of the article, no less. My 3RR is running out so I figure I'd need assistance. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding links that are clearly spam is considered vandalism (if done repeatedly). Reverting these should not be subject to 3RR. --Polaron | Talk 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename again

Wanna rename Kilusang Bagong Lipunan to New Society Movement? Coz of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). There are English books that use New Society. :) --Noypi380 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing with the policy is that we should use the English name if it indeed is more popular. The question here is which is more popular: the Tagalog KBL or the New Society Movement? And if we do move the KBL article to its English name, we have to do that with all other remaining parties that use Tagalog names, as well as party-lists and coalitions, except those whose Tagalog names are more popular. --Sky Harbor 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking around, List of political parties in France gives the English names. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of recognized political parties in India gives both Hindi (or any other Indian language) and English names. In the main political party list, it says that English translations are provided, but the parties themselves seldom use the English name. --Sky Harbor 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should use the more popular in the English-speaking world. --Howard the Duck 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Any more comments for/against a move? The French example is good too. :) --Noypi380 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In the English media in the Philippines, the Tagalog name is used. So use the Tagalog name. But provide an English translation of the name. Non-Philippine examples are the Likud party of Israel, which isn't translated into "Consolidation." Also, we get CBC from English-speaking Vancouver (Canada) here in the Seattle area. On the news, they refer to the Québec political parties such as Parti Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec by their French names (or abbreviations) and not "Quebecker Party" or "Democratic Action of Québec." And finally, CNN articles like this one say "Lakas." --Chris S. 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Good examples too. Status quo then. :) --Noypi380 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Referencing Philippines

I've introduced a lot of {{fact}} tags to help in referencing the article. --Howard the Duck 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlos P. Rómulo

I think it was last month when I inserted the "Controversy" section in Rómulo's article, wherein the info was taken from Pío Andrade's book about alleged lies of the former UN official. A citation or source is now being asked for a quotation that I took from the book's introduction ("ignored by the press, the Philippine Congress, and the National Historical Institute, all of whom should have taken action to remove Romulo from the pantheon of Filipino heroes."). I don't understand. Do I still have to insert the book's name as the source of the quotation when I already wrote before that that it was already culled from the introduction?

Thanks.

Pepe alas 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Need photos for Claro M. Recto, Jose Diokno, Raul Manglapus. Also an article on Lorenzo Tanada. If anyone could help. thanks KaElin 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Recto picture uploaded Image:Claro M Recto.jpg. Scorpion prinz 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maestre de Campo or Sibale?

After fixing up Asi language, I decided to make articles for islands in Romblon that didn't have articles already. When I was done, I wondered where this island named "Sibale" that I have heard before. Well, it turns out it's another name for the island of Maestre de Campo. But it's not clear to me which is more popular/official. Which should I use? For now, I have made Sibale Island the redirect page to Maestre de Campo Island. But the people call themselves Sibalenhon. What to do, what to do... --Chris S. 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sibale is easier to type :D ! --Jondel 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the website of the Municipality of Concepcion, the island is known by three names: Maestre de Campo, Sibale and some other name given by a Spanish clergyman in the past. Looking at Concepcion, Romblon's webpage, Sibale appears thrice, Maestre de Campo only once. I think Sibale is official, but this is unknown. --Sky Harbor 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another nice map factoid

Well, it seems that the teachers are already aware of Wikipedia: in this case, another map, the map of Malolos City, made by TheCoffee, was used as the background for the front cover of the Grade 7 issue of a Philippine HEKASI/Araling Panlipunan/Social Studies magazine called the Students' Digest. I actually have the magazine at home and can provide a scanned version to show, but then again, they used this map a la-ABS-CBN, that is, WITHOUT CREDIT. --Sky Harbor 10:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Images in textbooks are always uncredited. --Howard the Duck 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Textbooks tend to credit images now (my Science and Social Studies books credit borrowed images), but the media in question is a magazine, not a textbook. On the front cover of a magazine seen by thousands (if not more) students. --Sky Harbor 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that like the SciTech magazine variety? --Howard the Duck 13:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. At least that, Budyong (for Filipino) or Tatsulok (for Math) don't take images a la-ABS-CBN. --Sky Harbor 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even a teeny weeny caption? If you can scan it then it can go at the In the press page haha --Howard the Duck 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even a teeny, weeny caption on the bottom of the cover. Well, it would be fair use, so I can't put it in directly, but I might write an article on the magazine (lol). Worse, the magazine (like most other school magazines) is DepEd-approved, so this means even the government doesn't know about this. --Sky Harbor 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet another nice map factoid

At the shock of all of the residents of San Jose del Monte City, the other city of Bulacan, we have this: the city's homepage, with Coffee's map of SJDM City being prominently displayed. And yes, this one is WITHOUT CREDIT. --Sky Harbor 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with these people! The letter to ABS-CBN is not even done yet, and there are other violators of fair use?! :( --Noypi380 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The letter is done, but the matter of sending it is another thing. We don't even have a return address. --Sky Harbor 12:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail sent to me

Did any of you get this e-mail? I checked it out and it leads to http://www.bizsum.com which is for writing summaries about books.

Subject: regarding our plan to 'hire' a Wikipedia contributor 
Date: 9/19/2006 11:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time 
Hi there Chris.  I am Jojy Azurin. I just signed up in this PhilWiki 
Yahoo group.  
We are looking for at least 1 Wiki contributor.  I know that you are 
one of the best local experts on Wikipedia.  And I would like to seek 
advise from you on this matter.
Can I call you? Can you provide me your landline?  Many Thanks

I don't plan on answering it though. --Chris S. 05:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Yes, I sent you that email. And no, I did not send emails to anyone else. It was supposed to be a private message only for you. And when you did not reply, you did not hear anything from us anymore.

I was just surprised you posted the contents of my private email in a public forum. So I am also forced to clarify my email in this forum as well.

First of all, I apologize if you interpreted it as a spammy email or as a plan to spam Wikipedia. We are newbies to Wikipedia. We feel that we also have content that we can provide to Wikipedia. The business books do provide a lot of relevant content. Our content have already been referenced a lot of times in Wikipedia by several contributors. We just wanted a more orderly way of contributing.

I emailed you asking only for help from a kababayan on how to contribute properly within the terms and conditions of the site. Our company's brand and reputation is more important than trying to spam any site.

So I hope that clarifies the nature of our email. Maraming salamat and more power to all Filipino contributors!

Jojy 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. I have had similar mails before, but this one seemed more specific. It just seemed all suspicious to me. I'm flattered that you were interested in me, but I am declining the offer (probably moot by now). Thanks. --Chris S. 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi! Am I welcome? Help!

Honestly, I still consider myself as Web semi-literate. There's too much info here I don't know where to begin.

Hey Chris S., remember me (Jomar)? I'm from our yahoogroups. Are you reading this?

This site is awesome!!! I'm a big fan. I can't believe that I'm already here! I even feel like a rockstar already!

¡Saludos a todos!

Pepe alas 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jomar! Long time no see. Don't know where to begin, huh? Well, what kind of topics interest you? What do you know about? Look around and see how you personally can contribute to that topic. Also, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. --Chris S. 09:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Webpurok"

On the Tagalog-language Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikibooks), the convention is to use the name website in Tagalog spelling, in this case, websayt. Well, the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino decided to invent a new word for website: webpurok (see their new wiki here). Should we adopt? I personally prefer websayt. --Sky Harbor 08:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lambatpurok is better, but I'd recommend we follow the KWP. --Howard the Duck 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My Tagalog-English dictionary says that lambat means net. Then again, the KWF is using webpurok, but it doesn't sound right for some reason. The only other website with pages in Tagalog, the government portal, still uses website over webpurok. Should we adopt this new word? --Sky Harbor 09:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok so, sapotpurok. The thing is, we should follow what the authorities here. Wiki might be the first reference website so do it, so lets take the advantage. --Howard the Duck 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid neologisms. --Chris S. 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sapot is a black mantle. But anyway, we can use webpurok, as since the KWF is using it. The question is whether there is a clamor to move to webpurok from websayt. --Sky Harbor 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sapot means web, as in sapot ng gagamba (lol). Since webpurok is now correct and official (although it doesn't mean websayt is wrong), I feel we should use webpurok. (And websayt isn't Tagalog spelling either, its the Filipino spelling, there is no equivalent Tagalog term for website). --Howard the Duck 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blame my Tagalog-English dictionary (it never said sapot meant web). I also checked the news section of the KWF wiki, and it seems that one of the commissioners of the KWF made the KWF wiki. I'm not sure if that commissioner made use of the word webpurok as an invention, but just to be safe, we should check. Then again, if the KWF uses it, why not the rest of us? --Sky Harbor 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons. (1) It is not listed in any "Filipino" or Tagalog dictionary. (2) Google results for "webpurok" show only 211, sites all of which have ties to that particular KWF site. (3) It is not clear if that KWF site is the real deal (why isn't it on a gov.ph domain name?) (4) One says "website" in Tagalog/Filipino. (5) From a linguistic standpoint, a self-proclaimed language "authority"'s prescription is hardly the gospel, the last word on a language issue. If the word catches on and is widely used (look what happened to salimpuwit coined by the purists) should it be used on Wikipedia. But you and I know that ain't likely to happen anytime soon. --Chris S. 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then again, as much as I would love to prefer websayt over the odd-sounding webpurok, the KWF doesn't even promote new words that they do invent that often. I have yet to see the word webpurok on any KWF publication. --Sky Harbor 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the (new) website's legitimacy, it was founded by a commissioner on the behalf of the KWF. Not all Philippine government websites need to necessarily end with .gov.ph (examples include the National Youth Commission and the Presidential Commission on Educational Reform). Even the Philippine government portal recognizes the KWF wiki as official (see here). --Sky Harbor 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008

Hey there guys! Why don't we include a city in the Philippines in the unofficial bids for Wikimania 2008? I was planning on including Cebu. Because the 2006 ASEAN Summit is gonna be held in Cebu. The acommodation, transportation, etc. in Cebu is also cheap and a lot of Filipinos would be able to join Wikimania 2008. chris 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to get Wikimedia Philippines organized first, since looking at the candidates for Wikimania 2007, excluding Alexandria, London and Turin are cities with Wikimedia chapters, and Taiwan is forming one. It would be nice though if Wikimania 2008 were to be hosted in the Philippines, and with Cebu being somewhat central, it seems somewhat ideal. --Sky Harbor 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

List of ABS-CBN personalities

I really don't we think we need these:

• List of ABS-CBN personalities
• A - D
• E - H
• I - L
• M - P
• Q - T
• U - X
• Y - Z

--Howard the Duck 16:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

At the very least those should be merged to one page. 192.127.94.7 07:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it makes it quite monolithic and large, which is bad considering article size. --Sky Harbor 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is listcruft at its finest. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Manila's map correction

Manila's map should be rectified to show a small strip of land of the Cultural Center complex as part of Manila. Please refer to [2]. I have made visits to the Manila City hall, and their maps show that Manila's and Pasay's boundary is projected perpendicularly from Roxas Blvd., showing Manila's jurisdiction over an isosceles shape strip of land in the CCP complex, as well over the Manila south cemetery as an enclave within Makati. Scorpion prinz 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. I'll get to it. Eventually. I'm still debating whether I'd stick with the old raster image or make it into an SVG image. The problem with SVG is that I can't control the fonts unless I convert the text into outlines too. Anyway, I want to have a comprehensive list of changes that need to be made. Everyone, please visit Image talk:Ph map manila large.png and add to the list of corrections. --seav 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Philippines

Is a candidate for featured portal status. The nomination page is here. --Howard the Duck 09:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix the formatting...the portal looks all messed up on my computer. Yes, I've tried everything, but I think the formatting in one of the sections needs to be rectified. The "Did you know" section, which normally takes half-a-page widthwise, extended to the full length of the page. --Sky Harbor 13:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the screw-up; the selected picture is at fault. Take a look it is fine already. BTW, what browser do you use? IE or Firefox or other? --Howard the Duck 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I use Firefox most of the time. --Sky Harbor 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its fixed now. What the portal needs is content for selected article, picture and biography. I can keep up the DYKs and the News section. --Howard the Duck 13:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy Grail Found

Hey, I just found a video of the audiovisual of the Philippine National Anthem which can be seen at sign-off and sign-on of tv stations. I linked it to the Lupang Hinirang page. Maybe you would mind visiting. It could be found HERE! Follow the link and you will see. I'll ask him where he hacked it. --Justox dizaola 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The real holy grail, my friend, is a video of the Philippine National Anthem being sung in the original Spanish. --Chris S. 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To find that would take a lot of time and patience, as it is illegal per the Flag and Heraldry Code of the Philippines to sing the National Anthem in a language other than Filipino. --Sky Harbor 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, I know. Such a stupid law. I wrote about my disdain for it in my blog. --Chris S. 07:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the Philippine National Anthem video used during the centennial celebrations. It's 13.8MB and in mpeg format, am I permitted to upload such videos here? Which format will be best so it can be played in the browser? Scorpion prinz 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about uploading only the audio part in .ogg format? --Howard the Duck 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aight, however the CD where I extracted the audio file that I have is copyrighted. Scorpion prinz 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

the first 30 seconds may be fine. --Howard the Duck 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nominee

Anyone who wants to do an article on Edgar E. Escultura ? I'll get around to this, but feel free to start it.--Jondel 11:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG. Escultura is quite controversial for claiming that the celebrated proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by Andrew Wiles is flawed. He claims that the real number system is itself contradictory and since FLT is based on the real number system, therefore, the proof of FLT by Andrew Wiles is also wrong. --seav 13:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I substantiate EVERY claim I make anywhere, anytime and I don't hide behind username.210.212.209.114 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) E. E. Escultura

P.S. Escultura has the habit of "spamming" blogs with long explanations of his ideas. (See this post, for example.) If he gets wind of this (especially any Wikipedia article on him, expect just a little bit of chaos from him. This Nobel Prize nomination will make him an insufferable person. seav 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I open my entire work for critique by the science community so that it can prove me wrong or live with it. My ideas are not simplistic and take some amount of space to explain, especially, if they are about this 360-year-old conjecture called Fermat's last theorem. 210.212.209.114 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) E. E. Escultura

Would he be notable for other achievements? Hmm, maybe we should skip this one.--Jondel 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is excusable for you folks not to know mathematics but absolutely inexcusable not to know English for that is your bread and butter here. Through your sister website, WikiPinas, you repeatedly referred to Rony Diaz's Manila Times 2005 article, UP prof proves Princeton man wrong, and yet the content of your comments here and your article in WikiPinas has nothing to do with the content of that article. Rony was not remiss in his job as a journalist for he listed my articles in world renowned peer reviewed international journals where I did this feat of proving Wiles wrong and FLT false. How can that be a hoax as WikiPinas and your only source of information, Aleck Pabico's pcij blog, claim it is unless you and pcij do not know English or have malicious intent? Only those who cannot understand English can call it a hoax with a straight face. It only reveals the negative aspect of the Filipino character which you have trumpeted to the whole world and is quite embarrassing. Only Alecks is still squeaking behind the enormous discussion of my work worldwide across the internet to promote his hoax story.

Since you asked for it (i.e. a story about me) I'm posting here my criticism of Wiles' proof of FLT, my counterexamles to FLT and my summation of the debate that I initiated in 1997 and have sustained since then to give Wiles, his three supporters (Sarnak of Princeton, Mazur of Harvard and Ribet of UC Berkeley) and the scientific community the opportunity to make a critique of this particular work or live with it. All the information I share here appeared in world renowned peer reviewed international journals, not in anachronistic, unupdated local publications like The Annals of Mathematics, an in-house publication by John Hopkins University in the US. Therefore, they are well-documented and respond to the false charge that I made up a hoax. The sources of informmation are listed in the references. Among the world renowned journal publishers that publish my work are: Elsevier Science, Ltd, Dynamic Publishers, World Scientific, International Federation of Nonlinear Analysts, Springer and Russian Academy of Sciences, to mention a few. E. E. Escultura

Two Fatal Defects in Andrew Wiles’ Proof of FLT by E. E. Escultura

1) The field axioms of the real number system are inconsistent; Felix Brouwer and I provided counterexamples to the trichotomy axiom and Banach and Tarski to the completeness axiom, a variant of the axiom of choice. Therefore, the real number system is ill-defined, nonsense and FLT being formulated in it is also ill-defined and nonsense. To make sense of this conjecture was necessary to first fix the real number system and free it from contradiction by reconstructing it as the new real number system on three simple consistent axioms instead of the 12 field axioms and reformulating FLT in it. With this rectification of the real number system, FLT is well-defined and resolved by counterexamples proving that it is false. (Main reference: Escultura, E. E., The new real new real number system and discrete computation and calculus, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, 17 (2009), 59 – 84).

2) The other fatal defect is that the complex number system that Wiles used in the proof being based on the vacuous concept i is also inconsistent. The element i is the vacuous concept: the root of the equation x^2 + 1 = 0 which does not exist and is denoted by the symbol i = sqrt(-1) from which follows that,

i = sqrt(1/-1) = sqrt 1/sqrt(-1) = 1/i = i/i^2 = -i or

1 = -1 (division of both sides by i),

2 = 0, 1 = 0, i = 0, and, for any real number x, x = 0,

and the entire real and complex number systems collapse. The remedy is in the appendix to the paper, The generalized integral as dual to Schwarz distribution, in press, Nonlinear Studies.

Another example of a vacuous concept is the greatest integer. Let N be the greatest integer. By the trichotomy axiom one and only one of the following axioms holds: N < 1, N = 1, N > 1. The first inequality is clearly false. If N > 1, then N^2 > N, contradicting the choice of N. therefore N = 1. This is the original statement of the Perron paradox and it is blamed on the vacuous concept N. In general, any vacuous concept yields a contradiction.

E. E. Escultura Research Professor, V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies and Departments of Mathematics and Physics, GVP College of Engineering, JNT University, Madurawada, Vishakhapatnam, AP, India http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/

Now, the summation.

Summation of the Debate on the New Real Number System and the Resolution of Fermat’s last theorem by E. E. Escultura

The debate started in 1997 with my post on the math forum SciMath that says 1 and 0.99… are distinct. This simple post unleashed an avalanche of opposition complete with expletives and name-calls that generated hundreds of threads of discussion and debate on the issue. The debate moved focus when I pointed out the two main defects of Andrew Wiles’ proof of FLT and, further on, the discussion shifted to the new real number system and the rationale for it. Naturally, the debate spilled over to many blogs and websites across the internet except narrow minded ones that accommodate only unanimous opinions, e.g., Widipedia and its family of websites as well as websites that cannot stand contrary opinion like HaloScan and its sister website, Don’t Let Me Stop You. SciMath stands out as the best forum for discussion of various mathematical issues from different perspectives. There was one regular at SciMath who did not debate me online but through e-mail. We debated for about a year and I learned much from him. The few who only had expletives and name-calls to throw at me are nowhere to be heard from.

There was one unsigned feeble attempt from the UP Mathematics Department to counter my arguments online. But it wilted without a response from the science community because it lacked grasp of what mathematics is all about.

The most recent credible challenge to my positions on these issues was registered by Bart van Donselaar in the online article, Edgar E. Escultura and the Inequality of 1 and 0.99…, to which I responded with the article, Reply to Bart van Donselaar’s article, Edgar E. Escultura and the inequality of 1 and 0.99…; a website on the Donselaar’s paper has been set up:

http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/93n3i/edgar_e_escultura_and_the_inequality_of_1_and/

and the discussion is coming to a close as no new issues are being raised. Needless to say, none of my criticisms of Wiles’ proof of FLT or my critique of the real and complex number systems have been challenged successfully on this website or across the internet. In peer reviewed publications there is not even a single attempt to refute my positions on these issues. This is also true of all disciplins where I have publications that range from physics, geological, atmoshpheric and space sciences through physical psychology, biology genetics and medicine. In the last two disciplines I have these articles: (a) The origin and evolution of biological species (the gene is the principal factor for evolution, not the environment) and (b) Genetic alteration, modificantion and sterilization. The second paper has applications to the treatment of genetic diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, lupos and muscular dystrophy. Both papers have been accepted by the journal, The Science of Healing Outcomes.

We highlight some of the most contentious issues of the debate.

1) Consider the equation 1 = 0.99… that almost everyone accepts. There are a number of defects here. Among the decimals only terminating decimals are well-defined. The rest are ill-defined or ambiguous. In this equation the left side is well-defined as the multiplicative identity element while the right side is ill-defined. The equation, therefore, is nonsense.

2) The second point is: David Hilbert already knew almost a century ago that the concepts of individual thought cannot be the subject matter of mathematics since they are unknown to others and, therefore, cannot be studied collectively, analyzed or axiomatized. Therefore, the subject matter of mathematics must be objects in the real world including symbols that everyone can look at, analyze and study collectively provided they are subject to consistent premises or axioms. Consistency of a mathematical system is important, otherwise, every conclusion drawn from it is contradicted by another. In order words, inconsistency collapses a mathematical system. Consider 1 and 0.99…; they are certainly distinct objects like apple and orange and to write apple = orange is simply nonsense.

3) The field axioms of the real number system is inconsistent. Felix Brouwer and myself constructed counterexamples to the trichotomy axiom which means that it is false. Banach-Tarski constructed a contradiction to the axiom of choice, one of the field axioms. One version says that if a soft ball is sliced into suitably little pieces and rearranged without distortion they can be reconstituted into a ball the size of Earth. This is a topological contradiction in R^3. 4) Vacuous concept generally yields a contradiction. For example, consider this vacuous concept: the root of the equation x^2 + 1 = 0. That root has been denoted by i = sqrt(-1). The notation itself is a problem since sqrt is a well-defined operation in the real number system that applies only to perfect square. Certainly, -1 is not a perfect square. Mathematicians extended the operation to non-negative numbers. However, the counterexamples to the trichotomy axiom show at the same time that an irrational number cannot be represented by a sequence of rationals. In fact, a theorem in the paper, The new mathematics and physics, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(1), 127 – 149, says that the rationals and irrationals are separated, i.e., the union of disjoint open sets.

At any rate, if one is not convinced of the mischief that vacuous concept can play, consider this: i .= sqrt(-1) = sqrt1/sqrt(-1) = 1/i = -i or i = 0. 1 = 0, and both the real and complex number systems collapse.

5) With respect to Andrew Wiles’ proof of FLT it has two main defects: a) Since FLT is formulated in the inconsistent real number system it is nonsense and, naturally, the proof is also nonsense. The remedy is to first remove the inconsistency of the real number system which I did and reformulate FLT in the consistent number system, the new real number system. b) The use of complex analysis deals another fatal blow to Wiles’ proof. The remedy for complex analysis is in the appendix to the paper, The generalized integral as dual to Schwarz Distribution, in press, Nonlinear Studies.

6) By reconstructing the defective real number system into the contradiction-free new real number system and reformulating FLT in the latter, countably infinite counterexamples to it have been constructed showing the theorem false and Wiles wrong.

7) In the course of making a critique of the real number system some new results have been found: a) Gauss diagonal method of proving the existence of nondenumerable set only generates a countably infinite set; b) as of now no nondenumerable set exists; c) only discrete set has cardinality, a continuum has none.

8) The new real number system is a continuum, countably infinite, non-Hausdorff and Non-Archimedean and the subset of decimals is also countably infinite but discrete, Hausdorff and Archimedean. The g-norm simplifies computation considerably.

We note that all the issues about the new real number system, my critique of Wiles’ proof of FLT and my counterexamples to FLT to prove it false have been debated thoroughly in my favor. Not a single hole has been punched on any of them.

Just last week, I brought this debate to the math faculties of the 12 top Universities of the US, including Ribet and Mazur (the others are on leave), by sending them these three articles and inviting their comments. I got a response from Harvard so far (not from Mazur) and I am in a debate this professor.

This twelve-year online debate that is coming to a close since no new issues are being raised is the first experience ever in the entire history of mathematics where the contributions of a mathematician are scrutinized and debated worldwide. It marks a new era in mathematics, where errors can be spotted quickly and cannot remain hidden, ushered by the computer.

References

[1] Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (1985) Philosophy of Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 52 - 61. [2] Brania, A., and Sambandham, M., Symbolic Dynamics of the Shift Map in R*, Proc. 5th International Conference on Dynamic Systems and Applications, 5 (2008), 68–72.[3] Escultura, E. E. (1997) Exact solutions of Fermat's equation (Definitive resolution of Fermat’s last theorem, Nonlinear Studies, 5(2), 227 – 2254.[4] Escultura, E. E. (2002) The mathematics of the new physics, J. Applied Mathematics and Computations, 130(1), 145 – 169.[5] Escultura, E. E. (2003) The new mathematics and physics, J. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(1), 127 –149.[6] Escultura, E. E., The new real number system and discrete computation and calculus, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, 17 (2009), 59 – 84. [7] Escultura, E. E., Extending the reach of computation, Applied Mathematics Letters, Applied Mathematics Letters 21(10), 2007, 1074-1081.[8] Escultura, E. E., The mathematics of the grand unified theory, in press, Nonlinear Analysis, Series A: Theory, Methods and Applications; online at Science Direct website.[9] Escultura, E. E., The generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, in press,Nonlinear Studies.[10]Escultura, E. E., Revisiting the hybrid real number system, Nonlinear Analysis, Series C:Hybrid Systems, 3(2) May 2009, 101-107. [11]Escultura, E. E., Lakshmikantham, V., and Leela, S., The Hybrid Grand Unified Theory, Atlantis (Elsevier Science, Ltd.), 2009, Paris. [12] Counterexamples to Fermat’s last theorem, http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/ [13] Kline, M., Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Cambridge University Press, 1985.

E. E. Escultura Research Professor, V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies and Departments of Mathematics and Physics, GVP College of Engineering, JNT University, Madurawada, Vishakhapatnam, AP, India http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/

Finally, the clarification.

CLARIFICATION Of THE COUNTEREXAMPLES TO FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM By E. E. Escultura

Although all issues related to the resolution of Fermat’s last theorem have been fully debated worldwide since 1997 and NOTHING had been conceded from my side I have seen at least one post showing some misunderstanding. Let me, therefore, make the following clarification:

1) The decimal integers N.99… , N = 0, 1, …, are well-defined nonterminating decimals among the new real numbers [8] and are isomorphic to the ordinary integers, i.e., integral parts of the decimals, under the mapping, d* -> 0, N+1 -> N.99… Therefore, the decimal integers are integers [3]. The kernel of this isomorphism is (d*,1) and its image is (0,0.99…). Therefore, (d*)^n = d* since 0^n = 0 and (0.99…)^n = 0.99… since 1^n = 1 for any integer n > 2.

2) From the definition of d* [8], N+1 – d* = N.99… so that N.99… + d* = N+1. Moreover, If N is an integer, then (0.99…)^n = 0.99… and it follows that ((0.99,..)10)^N = (9.99…)10^N, ((0.99,..)10)^N + d* = 10^N, N = 1, 2, … [8].

3) Then the exact solutions of Fermat’s equation are given by the triple (x,y,z) = ((0.99…)10^T,d*,10^T), T = 1, 2, …, that clearly satisfies Fermat’s equation, x^n + y^n = z^n, (F)

for n = NT > 2. The counterexamples are exact because the decimal integers and the dark number d* involved in the solution are well-defined and are not approximations.

4) Moreover, for k = 1, 2, …, the triple (kx,ky,kz) also satisfies Fermat’s equation. They are the countably infinite counterexamples to FLT that prove the conjecture false [8]. They are exact solutions, not approximation. One counterexample is, of course, sufficient to disprove a conjecture but I exhibit the rest to illustrate the power of the new methodology I have introduced in mathematics.

The following references include references used in the consolidated paper [8] plus [2] which applies [8]

References

[1] Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (1985) Philosophy of Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 52 - 61.[2] Brania, A., and Sambandham, M., Symbolic Dynamics of the Shift Map in R*, Proc. 5th International Conference on Dynamic Systems and Applications, 5 (2008), 68–72.[3] Corporate Mathematical Society of Japan , Kiyosi Itô, Encyclopedic dictionary of mathematics(2nd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993. [4] Escultura, E. E. (1997) Exact solutions of Fermat's equation (Definitive resolution of Fermat’s last theorem, Nonlinear Studies, 5(2), 227 –2254. [5] Escultura, E. E. (2002) The mathematics of the new physics, J. Applied Mathematics and computations, 130(1), 145 – 169. [6] Escultura, E. E. (2003) The new mathematics and physics, J. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(1), 127 – 149. [7] Escultura, E. E., The new real number system and discrete computation and calculus, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computing, 17 (2009), 59 – 84. [8] Escultura, E. E., Extending the reach of computation, Applied Mathematics Letters, Applied Mathematics Letters 21(10), 2007, 1074-1081. [9] Escultura, E. E., The mathematics of the grand unified theory, in press, Nonlinear Analysis, Series A: Theory, Methods and Applications; online at Science Direct website. [10]Escultura, E. E., The generalized integral as dual of Schwarz distribution, in press, Nonlinear Studies. [11]Escultura, E. E., Revisiting the hybrid real number system, Nonlinear Analysis, Series C: Hybrid Systems, 3(2) May 2009, 101-107. [12]Escultura, E. E., kshmikantham, V., and Leela, S., The Hybrid Grand Unified Theory, Atlantis (Elsevier Science, Ltd.), 2009, Paris.[13]Counterexamples to Fermat’s last theorem, http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/ [14]Kline, M., Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Cambridge University Press, 1985.

E. E. Escultura Research Professor V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies GVP College of Engineering, JNT University Madurawada, Vishakhapatnam, AP, India http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/

I welcome any questions and expect the smart guys at the UP Math Department to respond to these articles.

I don't know. I find a lot of dubious articles and reports concerning him. --seav 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, those dubious articles come from only one source of gossips and disinformation: the pcij blog of Alecks Pabico who does not know English and keeps distorting Rony Diaz's Manila Times 2005 article, UP prof proves Princeton man wrong. He also wanted to ride on the sensation of having exposed a famous mathematician for concocting a hoax (that's what he hoped). Instead, he lost his job as online journalist when no one visited his blog since 2007. For a few months in 2005 many were duped (69 in all) and posted on his blog. Then in 2006 he had only one visitor for the entire year who appeared to be a drunk mathematician. Since 2007 not a single soul got anywhere near his blog and his dream of becoming a journalist went down the drain. Jobless, he has gone around the blogs and websites advertising his pcij blog but no one buys it despite the colorful borloloy he had carefully crafted.

You know what to do to have the correct information about these issues: search the internet using the phrase: e. e. escultura or escultura with any of these words or phrases: mathematics, fermat's last theorem, physics, cosmology, astronomy, galaxy, asteroid, comet, planetoid, black hole, philosophy, superstring, supernova quantum gravity, quantum physics, etc., etc., and you'll find the enormosus amount of discussion about these issues. You might notice Alecks and Chioco squeaking behind them. Recently, I brought these issues and my work to the math faculties of the top 12 universities in the US including the cream of the crop - Harvard, Berkeley and Princeton - and a number of them are now engaged in direct debate with me by email. 210.212.209.114 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) E. E. Escultura

There is a funny twist to this matter. The Nobel Prize never officially announces the nominees, only the winners! :) --Noypi380 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as part of tradition the nominators leak information to the media to announce the nomination with a big splash so that it can be picked up by appropriate websites. In my case the Manila Times announcement was picked up by a French website, among others, set up by the principal nominator. The nominators get in touch with the nominee to ask for the appropriate article as basis for the nomination and update him/her on the developments in the selection process. In all of these, the nominators use pseudonyms to avoid exposing real personalities involved in the selection proces in accordance with the secrecy rule of the Nobel Foundation. The funny thing here is that Alecks Pabico tried very hard to prove that the pseudonyms were not listed in the membership roll of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences and used this information as basis for declaring to the whole world that my nomination was a hoax. He also advertised his pcij blog with this declaration on the blogs and websites across the internet. Clearly, this was no longer a case of ignorance of English but a quirk in mental processing because he claims he knows the secrecy rule of the Nobel Foundation. The reason Alecks is quite prominent here is that he is the only source of all the information used by Wikepedia, WikiPinas and Wiki Tambayan despite enormous sources in the blogs, websites and archives across the internet. This trio was like the early bloggers of pcij who were duped by his gimmick in 2005.

Other websites that confirm my nomination or my disproof of FLT are these:

www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Dec132005/snt1734020051212.asp - 43k -

http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/93_back/aaargh

210.212.209.114 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) E. E. Escultura

Sayang! (I wonder if there will be Filipino Nobel prize winner in this century..... or millenium!)--Jondel 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in physics unless there is no Jewish nominee there which is next to impossible because that institution is controlled by the Jews. The best one can hope for in physics is a nomination. E. E. Escultura

What an eerie quiet here! Where are you guys? How about the smart guys from the UP Math Department, where are they? May be they have nothing to do but fight for the crumbs; that's what idle people do, the reason for the split of that Department two years ago. Let me be clear: I have nothing against the vast majority of the faculty of the Math Department; they are good people and I like them. My criticism is directed at a very small minority that carry on the dark traditions and legacy of the past leadership. 210.212.209.114 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) E. E. Escultura

Doctor Frankie Arcellana, son of national artist Francisco Arcellana, was a member of the governing board of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985... Carlos P. Romulo were nominated by the African countries in the 1950's and I'm not sure about this, former President Corazon Aquino... --peads 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the same manner, it may be possible that there may be a Pinoy in the IAEA (Nobel Peace Prize, 2005) or in the United Nations (Nobel Peace Prize, 2001). Amnesty International, too, is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and we know that AI has its own Philippine chapter. However, in those cases, the award goes to the institution as a whole, and does not necessarily extend to the individual members of the institution. I have yet to hear of a Pinoy AI member who claimed that he or she is a Nobel Prize winner just because AI had won a Nobel in 1977. However, it may interest you to know that there was a time when our very own F. Sionil Jose was considered a Literature nominee (I think I saw this mentioned on a blurb in one of his books).

Otherwise, we'll have to wait for 50 years before we may know if and when a Filipino was nominated for any of the categories. That is, if we're still alive by then :) --- Tito Pao 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chavacano wiki

The Chavacano wiki is running.--Jondel 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the Pangasinan and Chavacano Wikipedias are up. This is great! --Sky Harbor 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OO nga! Nakakatuwa :) Just few months ago, dream lang yun. Tapos medyo alanganin pa kasi kokonti o wala pa rin akong nakikitang contributors. But if the purpose were good, I'm sure it would bear fruits in the future! TY sa support nyo sa Chavacano Wiki! Sa translation ok lang at kaya ko kahit pa konti-konti at mabagal. Wanted na rin ng kung sinong gustong mag admin/sysop sa Chavacano Wikipedia at help na rin sa technical stuff (eg. wiki tags/borders/tables etc...May WYSIWYG software/program ba for wikis?). Di kasi ako gaanong marunong sa mga ganon. Leave a message na lang sa userpage ko. --Weekeejames 00:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WYSIWYG programs I'm unaware of, but I can probably help in design. As of the moment, I'm aware that you have to request sysop status (albeit temporarily) for the Chavacano Wikipedia; you can do that in Meta:Requests for permissions. The interface also needs to be translated from English to Chavacano. But anyway, good luck. --Sky Harbor 09:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just added myself to the sysop request page. Yup, I do really need some help sa design. I will translate the interface as soon as I'll be granted sysop permissions. --Weekeejames 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help with the technical stuff.--Jondel 20:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with the interface? I was trying to translate the interface and I read the HOW-TOs:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia#Translate_the_interface

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:MediaWiki_namespace

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_localization

But it's too technical to me; I could hardly understand it. :( --Weekeejames 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Milenyo (Xangsane)

Hello, just popping in here from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I hope all of you are fine and didn't get affected too badly by Typhoon Xangsane (Milenyo). As you may already have noticed, the TC project still doesn't have an article for Xangsane/Milenyo. We're working on it in userspace (User:Coredesat/Typhoon Xangsane (2006)), but one big problem we're facing is the lack of information on preparations in the Philippines (we have sufficient information on impact and aftermath). If anyone could help with adding preparation info (properly sourced as per WP policy, and no OR), or finding preparation info, it would be appreciated. – Chacor 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for one the weather bureau grossly underestimated the wind strength/gust/whatever geeks call it. (Saw it on TV. I have no link) --Howard the Duck 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Once it appears on TV, the data will be posted online shortly. - Emir214 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Milenyo article has been moved to mainspace. It's now at Typhoon Xangsane (2006). --Coredesat (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Guimaras oil Spill

Hi! I know it was a long time ago but I think this article also needs help, so could anyone give any?23prootie 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Front page feature

Well, according to October's featured article archive for October, the article on the history of the Philippines has been slated for October 20. This would be nice. --Sky Harbor 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guide or guideline to when and when not to and where and where not to do clickable links to articles? For example, on the article history of the Philippines, the words "Homonhon Island," "Samar," "Cebu" and "16 March 1521" on the first paragraph aren't clickable links.

Though some of these words and numbers are clickable below further within other paragraphs. Cebu and Samar, for example are only clickable on the 7th paragraph (2.1 Early Spanish expeditions). March 16, 1521 is a very significant date in Philippine History, but it is not even clickable where it is stated - on the first paragraph. --Weekeejames 02:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, those should be wikilinked. Relevant terms should typically be linked in the lead section, and at their first appearance in the article. By the way, for a preview of how the article will look on the main page, see here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2006. :) Coffee 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of linking to Cebu, "Cebu" should link to Cebu Island, and remove "full" from "Full independence was only granted to the Philippines in July 1946."? --Howard the Duck 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and give the article more polish before the featured article published date. Paki edit na rin ang first independent clause of the first sentence in the first paragraph. The History of...begins, while the first recorded...was scripted. Grammar rule: Harmony of Tenses. The tenses of the clauses should match each other. Ex. Pepe sings, while Pilar dances. And not Pepe sings, while Pilar danced. Ayoko lang galawin ang article; I was never involved in it. Congrats for another featured article! --Weekeejames 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Blank Philippines map

Hey, I made this blank Philippine map with provincial borders, just like Image:BlankMap-World.png. It has only two colors (gray land, white water) so you can easily color it with a simple program like MS Paint. I've also removed the tiny islands so you coloring those... all the land in this image can be colored in with just about 180 clicks. Hopefully you guys can make use of this.

A warning though, it's pretty big at full size. Also, I must have saved it as a monochrome png, so currently when you try to color it, it will just turn out as dark gray. But here's a way to get around that problem... just open MS Paint first, then open the Image:BlankMap-Philippines.png in your browser. Copy and paste it from browser to MS Paint, and then you can color it properly (but don't forget to save it as PNG!) . Umm... if any of you have access to Photoshop right now (which I don't), maybe you could reupload the image as a non-monochrome png for me. :p Coffee 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TheCoffee, can you edit that Wikipedia that shows a globe graphics file on the upper-left side of a page and have the text as "Wikipedia El Libre Enciclopedia". This is for the main page of cbk-zam.wikipedia.org. Di kasi ako marunong mag edit ng graphics file. Thanks! --Weekeejames 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing after making the logo though is that you must have a developer switch the logo from the English one to the Chavacano one. You can go to Meta:Requests for logos for that. --Sky Harbor 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a place on META where you can get the names of the languages changed? I am talking about the sidebar of a particular article, which has the interwiki links to Wikipedias in other languages. Pampangan should be Kapampangan and Samar-Leyte Visayan should be Waray-Waray. --Chris S. 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, but there's a link to the bugzilla for the Wikimedia projects there. --Sky Harbor 07:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Completion of Legislative districts

I am pleased to announce the completion of the Legislative districts of the Philippines, which lists all representative districts of the country's cities and provinces and their representatives to the legislature from 1907 to present. It also includes in the Defunct legislative districts of the Philippines the old representative districts of the Philippines and their respective representatives to the legislature. I still need to update it though with the list of representatives during the Second Republic National Assembly, I only have a list of the representatives, but doesn't show which province or city they were from, I still need to obtain a copy of the representatives per province/city which I had already seen in the House Congressional Library. Ü — Scorpion prinz 14:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)