Talk:Philippines/Archive 2011-2016

Add discussion
Active discussions

Currency updatesEdit

As someone said above, we should use P not PhP for pesos. Also, policy is to use local currency throughout, but currently the article generally gives US$ equivalents. I plan to fix these soon. Would anyone object? Pashley (talk)

Yes our current policy is indeed to use the ₱ symbol.
I would be grateful for the support of everyone interested in Filipino topics for my proposal at Wikivoyage_talk:Currency#Add_more_currency_symbols to add "at least the Philippines peso symbol: ₱..." to the quick access template below the editing window.
I would support the removal of the US$ equivalents if they are not going to be kept up to date. (Now the twelfth largest populace with a probable population of over 100 million and a substantial proportion of Filipinos travelling overseas - albeit for financial reasons, it's not like the Philippines is some obscure tiny state with difficult access on-line to current exchange rates...) -- Alice 22:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I did most of them. Left a few because it seemed better to leave a US$ number than replace it with a peso number that might be wrong. Pashley (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New bills (bank notes)Edit

This website provides useful information on the various changes and commemorative issues: [1]

Philippine peso bills bearing the old design will be demonetized by 2014 according to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): "Pag-dating ng end ng 2014, sa bangko mo nalang maiipapalit ‘yun, hindi mo na magagastos ‘yun,” said BSP deputy governor Diwa Guinigundo. According to BSP Manager, Grace Malic, 702 million new bills were printed by BSP in 2011, but the bills will be gradually issued. by the middle of this year, 75% of bills in circulation will be of the new design. There is also a plan to change the design of some coins this year and to adopt the polymer style of notes pioneered in Australia and New Zealand. -- Alice 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no plans yet to implement polymer notes, although the BSP has been toying with the idea for quite some time now. Also, though I don't question the wisdom of Diwa Guinigundo, I thought the old notes are supposed to be demonetized by the end of this year, since the current series was introduced in 2010? --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If you know the Philippines, you'll know that (a) times may slip (b) plans may also be accelerated with the right word in the right ear - watch this space. -- Alice 07:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Travel advisories?Edit

Alice just did an edit with the comment "Delete non-existent travel advisories" and in one sense, she was clearly right — no advisories were listed in what she deleted, so in a way they were non-existent.

On the other hand, a web search does turn up current advisories, e.g, from the US and Canada. I presume others, but I stopped on finding two. Should those be referenced here? Or, since they are local for Moslem Mindanao and the Sulu Islands, only in region articles?

More generally, what is our policy on these things? I am not sure we should link to them at all, as opposed to just using them for reference and putting in our own warning boxes as appropriate. See the early comments at Talk:War zone safety for reasons. Pashley (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You make, as usual, some very good points, Sandy.
The two clear advantages of transcluded templates are that they can eliminate screeds of HTML (which can be very intimidating to casual editors and very easy to mess up) and provide a quick and consistent way of changing what appears on hundreds of articles by just changing the template.
The latter is also one of their greatest weaknesses too. Until very recently, when the {{warningbox}} was transcluded it automatically inserted text about relevant Govt travel advisories if the editor was unwary. That's perfectly reasonable usually for country articles. In this case, though, I substituted (rather than transcluded it) and then edited out the (currently) irrelevant parts. Perhaps the best way to deal with this might be to have a Philippines/by_boat_warningbox as a subpage.
There was a recent conversation at the Pub where the consensus seemed to be that, generally. these Govt advisories were a "good idea", and I do think that there are appropriate linkages only for regional pages. We have to walk a tightrope here (especially since some advisories are subject to political influence and nanny-stateism) between our current xl policies and our common duty of humanity to warn the traveller where unexpected and severe dangers may exist. -- Alice 01:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Call center questionEdit

Our article on Teaching English does not currently mention the Philippines. The text on India is:

In India there are few jobs for foreigners to teach English; plenty of Indians already speak excellent English and some of those are trained teachers. There is, however, one fairly large exception. India (especially Bangalore) has many call centers for Western companies outsourcing customer support work. Those centers routinely hire fairly large numbers of people — mostly American/Canadian English speakers, but some for other accents or languages — as accent and cultural coaches for their phone workers. They prefer to hire people with ESL training and/or experience. The money is very good for India, but these tend to be fairly high-pressure jobs like anything in a call center. Also, the hours are often rather odd; you need to be on duty at whatever the peak times are in the clients' time zones. If the clients work 9-5 New York time, then your working day runs 7 pm to 3 am in Bangalore.

Would that be accurate for the Philippines as well? Do Filipino call centers have such jobs? Are there other jobs for travelling English teachers? Pashley (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen call centers in the Philippines routinely hiring foreigners as voice coaches. What's "jobagrs" ? BushelCandle (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The next paragraph in that article is now:

The job picture in the Philippines is similar to that for India — not many jobs for foreign ESL teachers but call centers do hire some.

Is that accurate? If so, where are the jobs? Pashley (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No - see my earlier answer above. BushelCandle (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Stuff that would be better discussed on a User Talk pageEdit

Is there a reason you inserted that "earlier answer" out of chronological order? You do know the original question is from 2013, right? And that it said "jobs" not "jobagrs" until today, right? Powers (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes. BushelCandle (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Since it's you that's asking, Ikan, I will amplify:
Yes, I answered the questions in the order that they appeared on the page because to do otherwise would have meant altering another's words on a talk page - and that is something that is frowned on in most wikis I've edited on. Indeed, it's written at Wikivoyage:Using talk pages#Etiquette: "Unlike everything else in Wikivoyage, it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar." I think we had enough of that nonsense at IBobi's version of Wikitravel didn't we?
Yes, I do NOW know that the original question from Pashley dates from 2013 - at the time I made the original edits I was careless and only read the diffs and overlooked the date stamp.
And, finally, Yes, I do indeed know now (after User:LtPowers has helpfully pointed it out) that it was a typo. If I hadn't been baffled originally, I would not have asked what was a genuine question at the time. And yes, I do resent the crass attempt to make me look ridiculous by altering another editor's words by "correcting" Pashley's spelling. If User:LtPowers wanted to be genuinely helpful he could have used strikethru markup such as "jobagrs". (It's also currently written at Wikivoyage:Using talk pages#Etiquette: "As an exception, it's impolite to remove a comment if someone has responded to it. It makes them look ridiculous.") BushelCandle (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. For the record, I noticed that "jobs" had been changed to "jobagrs" but didn't change it back because you had asked what that word meant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
One computer I use sometimes jumps the cursor to wherever the mouse is pointing while I'm typing so a few characters land in the wrong place. The "arg" inserted into the middle of "jobs" was an instance of that. Pashley (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That kind of thing happens to all of us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I sought to correct it. It's unfortunate that another user mentioned it before it had a chance to be corrected, but I don't believe that's a good reason to leave such an obviously mistaken alteration of a two-year-old comment to stand. Powers (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course that's completely sensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Philippine Map and Regions of the PhilippinesEdit

Current Philippine Map

Like other users, i've also noticed that the Philippine Map is so wrong. Palawan should be part of Luzon, not Visayas. Tawa-Tawa should be called Tawi-Tawi and Potillo should be called Polillo. I am also planning to create a new description for each region. As you see in the Regions section, there are only 3 major regions stated (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), and i think we should really show the complete and original regions of the Philippines which is composed of 18 regions. For example, it is stated that Luzon is "the northernmost island group, center of government, history, economy and home to the capital", what about the beaches, dive spots, rice terraces, volcanoes and other natural wonders there in Luzon?? And for example, in Mindanao, it is stated that it is "the southernmost island group, which showcases the Philippines’ indigenous and rich cultures", what about the hidden natural wonders there?? So i really think that we should showcase the complete regions of the country, it may be long but the descriptions are only short yet very meaningful. I have divided the 18 regions to their respective main geographical divisions. Here are the description that i created for each regions of the Philippines:


The northernmost island group

  • Ilocos Region - Filled with unique cultures, delicious cuisine, and a wide range of natural wonders.
  • Cagayan Valley - a province full of adventures and a place where history, culture and nature intersect.
  • Central Luzon - the central plains and the rice basket of the Philippines.
  • Calabarzon - a region with a diverse culture and topography.
  • Mimaropa - Home to lush forests, pristine beaches, thriving marine life, spectacular waterfalls, magnificent caves, and warm people.
  • Bicol - The region for adventurers, filled with volcanoes, beaches, caverns, coves, lakes, parks and other natural wonders.


Central island group

  • Western Visayas - a region full of color and excitement. Home to the best beach in the Philippines.
  • Central Visayas - a region that is known for its cultural heritage, rich history, and numerous natural attractions
  • Eastern Visayas - home to hidden natural attractions waiting to be discovered.


Southernmost island group

  • Davao Region - Offers diverse travel experiences — from islands with chilled-out beaches to highlands with refreshing cool climates.
  • SOCCSKSARGEN - a region waiting to be explored, home to refreshing lakes, rainforest sanctuaries, and undiscovered caves.
  • Caraga Region - home to the surfing capital of the Philippines and to the largest crocodile in the world.
  • ARMM - a Muslim region, which is considered to be the most dangerous and unsafe place for tourists.

We also need to create a new map so we could add these regions. I already planned to create a new Philippine map but the problem is, its so hard, so i hope that someone could really create a new map which shows that Palawan is part of Luzon and which shows all of the 18 regions of the Philippines. All comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcome!--Miguel raul (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right about both the Tawi-Tawi islands and Polillo Island, but you might like to take a look at 1liner when it comes to the rest of your proposals.
How well do you know Palawan? Which parts have you resided in, Miguel raul? Do you speak Cuyonon (or any other Bisayan language) - or only Tagalog? -- Alice 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok fine. But what about Tawi-Tawi and Pollilo, should we retain it that way?
Oh by the way, sorry i don't live in Palawan :p --Miguel raul (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
And yes, i speak Tagalog :), is there anything wrong with that? --Miguel raul (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with speaking Tagalog - it's just that you haven't answered my specific question: Do you also speak Cuyonon (or any other Bisayan language) in addition to English and Tagalog. (I'm trying to ascertain how much you actually know of the cultural and ethnic history of Palawan prior to when Tagalog language "imperialism" started to make real headway {at the expense of "world languages" such as Arabic, English and Spanish} about 30 years ago.)
Do you think anything needs to change in your suggestions above after reading 1liner? -- Alice 09:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No, not at all, i don't think anything needs to be changed on my proposals, and i am not even asking if i can change something on my proposals above, what i'am asking is if we will change (or not change) Tawa-Tawa and Potillo to their right names on the map. By the way i don't speak any Bisayan language, how about you? i guess you speak any Visayan language?-Miguel raul (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I already wrote that the map is wrong and that the Tawi-Tawi islands and Polillo Island is more correct. However, I can't draw maps and nor can you so we'll have to ask some volunteer with that skill to do that. You might try asking on a sister project: Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Kartenwünsche
I do speak and write a number of languages (English is not my mother tongue and, in case Peter the sockfinder general pops up, it's definitely not German or any other "world language", either) but I'm reluctant to elaborate since I value my anonymity, as do my employers. My relatives' ancestors hailed from a spot not a million miles from Brooke's Point so it's up to you if you wish to guess, but I'm afraid I won't play hot and cold. Thanks for your quick and unequivocal answers, Miguel raul. -- Alice 11:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Your always welcome Alice. I've got to admit it, i really enjoyed this conversation and discussion that i had with you, I've learned a bunch of useful things from you and I also want to say thank you for giving and teaching me profitable tips, I've appreciate it a lot. :) --Miguel raul (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Someone just moved the Palawan entry in the regions list from Visayas to Luzon. I think that is correct in terms of the country's administrative regions, but I reverted the edit because our map & breadcrumbs have it in the Visayas.

I suggest we make Palawan a separate region; it is not really part of either Luzon or the Visayas. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not favour of creating Palawan a separate region. Current three regions are perfect to a travellers point of view and yes, Palawan is actually associated island of Luzon so it should be listed under Luzon hierarchy. --Saqib (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Both the map & the text in the current article show it in the Visayas. Are you saying that should change to Luzon? I disagree vehemently.
In our Visayas article the text lists it as a separate region, not part of Western Visayas. I'm not sure what the map there is trying to show. There are four regions listed but twelve colours used; are those provinces?
In Western Visayas, the text has Palawan as a region and Puerto among the cities, but the map does not show Palawan as part of the W Visayas.
I'd say we definitely have a problem here and the right solution is to make Palawan a region of the Philippines, so the split there would then be Luzon-Visayas-Palawan-Mindanao. An alternative would be to make it one of four regions in the Visayas — Eastern, Central, Western, Palawan. That is probably less work; no change to this article or text in Visayas, just fix the map. Delete P from W Visayas.
I prefer the first solution, and do not think anything else — including leaving it all unchanged or moving P to Luzon — is worth considering. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm fine with creating Palawan a separate region under Philippines hierarchy. Yes, there're some 16 provinces in Visayas. --Saqib (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I think Alice is Filipina and she has certainly contributed to Philippine articles, I asked on her talk page if she had an opinion here. She replied by email, asking me to post this:

Since I don't wish to be permanently banned from Wikioyage, I've asked Pashley by e-mail to post my thoughts on which of our regions Palawan should fall within:
Although it is true that both Tagalog cultural imperialism (both overt and subtle) and Tagalog-speaking immigration has increased both in the Western Visayas in general and Palawan in particular, few would argue that, historically, all of the Palawan archipelago (including the Calamianes group of islands and the southern-most tip of western Mindoro) fall within the Bisayan linguistic and cultural sphere.
From the point of view of the traveller, I would oppose Palawan's inclusion in our Luzon region.
Since Palawan is culturally distinctive, as is the fauna and flora (most being related to that found in Borneo and other areas falling to the west of the Wallace-Huxley line, in contrast to Luzon), creation of a distinctive Palawan region might have some utility, but should wait until a new map has been drawn. Alice

We seem to have something close to a consensus (agreement from all three posters so far) that Palawan should be a separate region. Would anyone oppose that? Do we have a volunteer for the map changes? I can help with text, but not maps. Pashley (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the Wallace-Huxley line see w:Wallace_Line. Pashley (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This page is not in my watch-list so sorry for late response. Let me know when and I will do maps. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. The main change needed is giving Palawan its own colour on the Phillipines regions map, making it a 4th region. Exact borders may need some discussion first, though.
I think the Calamian Islands should be included with Palawan. They are administratively part of Palawan province and geographically close to Palawan island, and as Alice points out they are culturally close. We have no article for the Calamian group, but Busuanga Island and Coron are there. Likely the same applies to the Cuyo Islands, w:Cagayancillo, w:Kalayaan, Palawan, maybe others.
This may need more discussion, in particular comment from Filipinos. Pashley (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No source file is available of the map so took some time to make the changes. --Saqib (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Time formatEdit

In the Philippines, what format is most used, AM/PM or the 24-hour clock? This edit prompted my question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My personal experience says the 12-hour clock (AM/PM) is most dominant in Philippines. --Saqib (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Saqib is partly correct (lower case am and pm is more prevalent) but the 24 hour format is less ambiguous and most travellers understand it better. Apart from the stinking rich, the majority of Pinoy travellers that go overseas do so to work. Many of the men work as mariners where they need to be familiar with 24h format as part of their jobs and many women work as domestic workers in countries in the Middle East and Asia that predominantly use the 24h format and medical staff where again they need familiarity to do their jobs. -- 08:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning box?Edit

How is rebuilding after the big typhoon going? Should we remove the warning at the top of this article? Are there similar warnings in lower-level articles and, if so, should they go? Pashley (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Was about to ask the same thing. Can this be removed yet? Texugo (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No answer still. I assume it is probably ok now. If not, the message at the very least needs to be updated. I have removed it from the article. Texugo (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?Edit

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the current one with eye-catching land formations to this one. This one could replace the one in Palawan though, they're both beach photos and this one is slightly less anonymous. Jjtkk (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I prefer this new one because I like the composition better (more different things to move my eye around), although I agree that the formations in the current banner are quite interesting and more unusual than a beach. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Eh, it's a beach. Last thing we need is another beach photo. Powers (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is that, true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mezus360 inserted this one and was reverted, asked to discuss first. I like that image better than either of the previous suggestions, but do not think we should use it here since it is already used at Boracay. Pashley (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the current one because it is a uniquely and recognizably Filipino destination, while the beach ones could be pretty much anywhere in the tropics. Texugo (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Unindent] The banner was just changed without discussion, so I tentatively reverted the change. Do you prefer the current banner or the new one?

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Marcos as controversialEdit

In light of these edits, are we really going to treat facts about Marcos' rule as a corrupt dictator as too controversial to include among the recognized history of the Philippines? I would say that if we give veto power to anyone who wants to whitewash or ignore Marcos, we might as well also give up and join the Japanese versions of Holocaust-deniers, who claim that Japanese aggression during WWII was really liberating Asians from the Europeans and that the "comfort women" were volunteers, rather than slaves who were continually raped, etc. Do we really need these kinds of controversies here, or can we not just accept historical facts and refuse to be sidetracked by politically-motivated deniers thereof or people who'd rather ignore them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The objection I had was not regarding the part about Marcos being corrupt. In fact, that has already been mentioned in a later paragraph and I did not remove that. However, the phrase "to continue to advance their great power objectives" makes it seem like anti-American rhetoric in my opinion. While I understand that the presence of US forces overseas is controversial, and people debate on what the real reason is, I think this is a sensitive political issue that we should avoid on Wikivoyage. The dog2 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your last sentence. It's obvious that military bases of a great power exist to advance its objectives, and for example, they were used during the American war in Indochina. If you object to the phrase "great power," that can be deleted without any loss of meaning. Are you referring to the "Pre-Modern Era" subsection as the later paragraph that deals (but very briefly) with Marcos? If you feel like the rest of the remarks about Marcos should be moved there, feel free, but it makes some sense to associate him with the involuntary presence of US military bases during a time of dictatorship (a de facto continuation of the US occupation, in many senses), when the popular will could not carry the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, and the fact that the presence US military bases overseas is primarily to advance US interests is of course an open secret. But I was just wondering if perhaps mentioning it outright in the way it is mentioned is somewhat politically incorrect, and could potentially offend someone. The dog2 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Almost anything could offend someone. That's not the test on this site. The test is be fair. Calling a great power a great power and mentioning that it maintained huge military bases in the Philippines after finally granting it independence is certainly fair, and the fact that Marcos was a corrupt dictator is part of the general knowledge about the Philippines that a traveler who isn't just an "Accidental Tourist" would want to know. That's my take on things, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What, this sentence? "In 1946, the Philippines was notionally granted full independence by the US, becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to gain independence, although the US maintained a significant military presence, especially in the Subic Naval Base in Zambales and Clark Air Base in Angeles City, and from 1965 onwards relied on the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos to continue to advance their great power objectives." First and foremost, it's a horrible run-on sentence. But beyond that, the phrase "to continue to advance their great power objectives" sounds highly political. What is a "great power objective" anyway? Powers (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "military objectives." Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the new sentence. I don't think it's a run-on, but if you have a better version, please edit:
In 1946, the Philippines was granted independence by the US, becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to gain independence from a colonial power, although the US maintained a significant military presence, especially in the Subic Naval Base in Zambales and Clark Air Base in Angeles City, and from 1965 onwards relied on the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos to continue to advance their military objectives. 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would think that saying that the US "relied on the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos to continue to advance their military objectives" sounds kind of political. Sure, I'm not disputing the consensus that Marcos was a corrupt dictator, but the phrasing of this does make it seem like a political statement in my opinion. That's why I think that we should just state the the US continued to maintain a military presence in the Philippines after independence. I have no issue calling Marcos a corrupt dictator, and I think we can move that description to the next paragraph. The dog2 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

American and Japanese occupation
Filipinos declared independence on 12 June 1898 and resisted the American occupation and colonization for seven long, brutal years until surrender completed the colonization of the Philippines. The American presence remained until World War II when, in turn, Japan invaded the Philippines. The Japanese occupation lasted from 1941 to 1945 when General Douglas McArthur fulfilled his promise and "liberated" the country from the Japanese. In 1946, the Philippines was granted independence by the US, becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to gain independence from a colonial power, although the US maintained a significant military presence, especially in the Subic Naval Base in Zambales and Clark Air Base in Angeles City. It was not until many years later in the early 1990's that the US bases were returned to the Philippines.

Pre-Modern Era
Up until the 1960s, the Philippines was widely considered to be the second most developed country in Asia after Japan. Several decades of misrule by the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos then plunged the country into deep debt. Poverty became widespread and infrastructure for development was severely lacking. In 1986, the People Power uprising finally overthrew the Marcos government. (This was called the EDSA Revolution since the majority of the demonstrations took place on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue.) He was replaced by Corazon Aquino, widow of murdered opposition leader, Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr.

How about the above paragraphs now? Now it mentions explicitly that Ferdinand Marcos was a corrupt dictator. The dog2 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks totally fine to me. I say, let's go with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Understand/People sectionEdit

This section seems rife with stereotypes, and I'm not sure what to do about them. For an example:

The genuine and pure expression of hospitality is an inherent trait in Filipinos, especially those who reside in the countryside who may appear very shy at first, but have a generous spirit, as seen in their smiles. Hospitality, a trait displayed by every Filipino, makes these people legendary in South-east Asia.

The geographical and cultural grouping of Filipinos is defined by region, where each group has a set of distinct traits and dialects - the sturdy and frugal Ilocanos of the north, the industrious Tagalogs of the central plains, the loving and sweet Visayans from the central islands, and the colorful tribesmen and religious Muslims of Mindanao.

How can we make these remarks less stereotypical? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Visa extension processing timeEdit

I recently (Dec 22) went for a visa extension at the Dumaguete office and was told I could pick up my passport Jan 15; that seems rather a long time. As it happens, it is not a problem for me but I imagine it might be for others. Last time I did this (Puerto Princesa, early 2012), it took only a day.

Is this an effect of the season? Of the Dumaguete office being overloaded with too many tourists? Would it be faster in Cebu? Or where? Where else is it slow? In general, is there some advice we can provide for travellers who want or need to avoid such delays? Pashley (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pay a bribe? (Cebu is usually slower and the bribes correspondingly larger) -- 08:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No-one asked for a bribe, or even hinted. Another foreigner in the line who has lived here for years said Cebu was faster & Manila much faster.
They open at 08:00. Today I arrived about 07:10 and was 2nd in line. There were about 10 by opening time & one clerk. I think the 2nd clerk (there are only chairs for two) was coming in as I left about 08:10. Pashley (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You'll very rarely get blatantly asked for a bribe in the Philippines - but what you pay and who you know may still count for a lot. Did you make any progress? -- 02:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I added text about this at Dumaguete#Cope. Pashley (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This problem seems largely solved; this year the office has more staff & a visa extension can usually be picked up the next day. Pashley (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

See sectionEdit

I've changed the "see" section because i think that section really need some improvements. Feel free to suggest & state your opinion. Thanks -Miguel raul (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2015 (PST)

Province or island articlesEdit

There is currently a vfd nomination for Lanao del Norte at Votes_for_deletion#Lanao_del_Norte, but the problem is far more general than that one article. Mindanao#Regions, for example, has red links for many province articles & some links to stubs. Southern Leyte and Capiz are only stubs but are linked from higher-level articles, Mindoro has one article with a redirect for one of its provinces, Occidental Mindoro but none for Oriental Mindoro. And so on.

I think we need a country-wide policy here. I suggest it should include a suggestion that all provinces, since they are likely search terms, should have some sort of article. It might well be a redirect, e.g. I recently created redirects at Sulu and Tawi Tawi and consensus seems to be that Lanao del Norte will be redirected. Or it might be a stub, e.g. the article I created for Maguindanao.

Other opinions? Can anyone suggest good criteria for the stub vs, redirect choice? I'm almost never certain, go with stub if I have anything to say about the place, otherwise redirect. Pashley (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Visayas#Radical_change_proposal for some changes along these lines. Pashley (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Landing fees?Edit

I have been told by an expat here (former employee of a European airline) that the local airports, unlike most in other countries, charge airlines a landing fee that varies by the distance covered. Hence European & American airlines generally do not want to do direct flights here; a flight from, say, Amsterdam or Chicago would get hit with large fees.

Is this accurate? If so, does it affect any advice we might give on reaching the Philippines? Pashley (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cities & MapEdit

I would replace Tagbilaran in the cities list with Dumaguete, in the same region, larger & I think more important. The map does not currently show either Tagbilaran or Dumaguete; I think D should be added, and also Boracay, which is a major resort destination.

We could also consider adding other places like General Santos or Coron. Currently the map shows no cities in Leyte or Samar. Add one?

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much hierarchy?Edit

The Leyte Provincial Capitol
More detailed image of the left mural, the first Christian Mass in the Philippines, held at Limasawa, Southern Leyte province

Is it possible that too much heirachy is being applied to the Philippines? For example the city of Tacloban is 5 deep under the country article:

Asia > Southeast Asia > Philippines > Visayas > Eastern Visayas > Leyte Island > Leyte > Tacloban

Is this desirable, and if not is there a way we could flatten this better? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

See also #Province_or_island_articles above.
Leyte and Samar each currently have an article for the island plus one for each province on it, & some province articles like Southern Leyte are just stubs. I think that is too many articles.
One alternative would be to handle these like Mindoro — island has an in-hierarchy article, provinces are redirects. Alternately, handle them like Panay or Negros; island is an extra-hierarchical region & provinces have details. Either of these approaches shortens the breadcrumb trail by one entry. I don't know the region & am not sure which is preferable here. Pashley (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that the provinces skip from the Samar and Leyte Islands hierarchy and go directly under the Eastern Visayas region. Samar Island itself is a natural park. I do not know if we have to rename it as Samar Island Natural Park or leave it as is (to denote that it is more than a natural park). Leyte Island can be handled like Panay, Negros or Mindoro, probable more like Panay or Negros. Some of the highlights of Leyte Island are the events depicted on the walls of the Leyte Provincial Capitol. The left mural depicts the First Christian Mass in the Philippines (related to Ferdinand Magellan's voyage to the Philiippines) which was held in Limasawa, Southern Leyte Province while the right side mural shows MacArthur Landing (which led to the liberation of the Philippines from Japanese occupation during World War II) which happened within the Leyte Province. Leyte Island also has both the longest bridge (San Juanico Bridge) and the tallest bridge (Agas-Agas Bridge, Sogod, Southern Leyte) in the Philippines. Southern Leyte is positioning itself as the "playground of Eastern Visayas" so while it may be a stub article for now, with its potentials, it can grow into a descent article in the future. --JinJian (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the two island articles as extra-hierarchical regions (like Panay & Negros), and changed the breadcrumb tags in the province articles to point to Eastern Visayas. Other changes are likely needed, but I am unlikely to tackle those. Pashley (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Davao blast? Martial law?Edit

A bomb, or perhaps a propane tank, has exploded in a busy market in Davao; details are not at all clear yet.

Last score I saw had 14 dead & another 15 in critical condition plus 60-odd wounded. President Duterte (former Davao mayor) is talking of a form of martial law for the entire country. Different news stories have the jihadist Abu Sayyaf group both denying and claiming responsibility.

What warnings do we need here or in Davao article? Mindanao and ARMM already have some; should those change? Pashley (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I updated the "How dangerous is Mindanao?" infobox in the Mindanao article. Pashley (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
State of emergency, close to martial law, has been declared. Pashley (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

President DuterteEdit

I just had another look at "Understand/History", which seems to cut off in 2010. I think that prospective visitors to the Philippines would like to know that the current president had thousands of alleged drug dealers summarily killed in Davao when he was Mayor there, has had thousands more summarily killed since he was elected President of the Philippines, doesn't shrink from publicly cursing out the leaders of important trading partners, has threatened his opponents to shut up or else, basically, and yesterday, stated that he wanted to emulate Hitler by conducting a holocaust of 3,000,000 drug users (no, I'm not exaggerating, he really said that). The relevance to travelers is that there's at least some slight risk that such a violent and unpredictable leader could make their trip unpleasant or worse, and his undiplomatic language (which is putting it mildly) could really tank the economy. I'd also note that for now, his popularity is 90%, but if his rule ends up being disastrous, I wouldn't count on his leaving office voluntarily after free elections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters story on a recent Duterte speech in which he talked of killing 3 million addicts.
The country does have a serious problem with shabu (the local term for methamphetamine), which is certainly a remarkably nasty drug. Stern measures may be called for, but the last report I saw estimated about 1000 extra-judicial killings a month by police or vigilantes since Duterte became president, which is certainly overdoing it. Pashley (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you like to update the "History" section, including some remarks on Duterte that you think fairly represent the situation as it is and the potential for more trouble, as you see it from your position in the country? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really. I am not currently in the country & do not feel I know enough to do it fairly. I spent the last two winters there & would like to go again in a month or so, but am wondering if that would be wise. Pashley (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think some kind of update is important, though. Is there anyone else reading who'd like to tackle it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I added a paragraph under Philippines#Modern_era, but am not at all sure I got it right. Pashley (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I added another sentence about his Hitler-emulating speech. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Why is this still tagged as Outline? It is a rather long article & looks more-or-less complete (if far from perfect) to me. Pashley (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikivoyage:Country guide status, places linked in Cities and Other destinations have to be at least usable, but there are still some Other destinations at outline status. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Philippines editsEdit

Swept in from the pub

Some relatively new users have been adding a lot of content to articles about places in the Philippines, and of course that's good. But there are problems with the format and sometimes content of these edits, and I would like you to all know that because my edits tend to get overwritten by them, I've pretty much given up patrolling these articles. The problems include:

(1) The use of bullets throughout the articles, including in the middle of a sentence in "Get in", when it wraps to the next line

(2) The use of lowercase letters at the beginnings of such bullets

(3) The listing of numerous supermarkets and other stores and such purely by name, with no or little other information

(4) A refusal to use the ₱ symbol for costs

(5) The arbitrary use of capital letters in the middles of sentences

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Irregular subheadings, too. See here and here for typical examples of some of the problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Another example. Did you know "Fan" and "Private" were proper nouns? On the other hand, "tv" is lowercase... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've been fixing some of those problems & have dropped some comments on user talk pages, apparently unheeded. Ikan & others have been too. This is getting downright tiresome, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Pashley (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
And regarding lists of supermarkets and other stores, yes, they must be rewritten to provide more info about each store, and updated to reflect recent changes. On convenience store chains, I updated them with adding Alfamart and Lawson, but I am looking at a possible model regarding writing about such chains in the Philippines. I have been working to cover other travel topics that has not been mentioned or improve existing ones in the Philippines article, but less frequent. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk)
Return to "Philippines/Archive 2011-2016" page.