Talk:Malolos Congress

message: This article mentions the declaration of War against the United States. Does anyone know where a copy of that can be found, or know of a source which quotes the text? I haven't been able to locate it online, though I did find this. -- Boracay Bill 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of War against the United States 

message: I've reverted two recent edits by Rizalninoynapoleon as follows, for the reasons explained.
*this edit to the Major Legislation section — my main reason for reverting this is the change to "Ratification of ...", while the supporting sourced don't ratify anything but are insteat the item spurported to have been ratified.
*this edit changed Pedro Paterno's title from "President of Congress" to "President of Assembly of Representatives".  As I understand it, the Assembly of representatives did not exist prior to the passage of the Malolos constitution by the Malolos Congress. Note here that Pedro Paterno signed the Malos Constitution using the title "President of Congress. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent reversion of changes by Rizalninoynapoleon 

message: Does anyone have a list of all of the delegates? We could perhaps add those too in the legislative district articles. –HTD 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brilliant! Although for provinces that were simply renamed, i suggest adding them under their current provinces like Quezon for Tayabas. And Ambos Camarines can simply be added to both Norte and Sur. Manila is a tough one though cos there is no Legislative districts of Metro Manila which is what Manila province is today :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have Legislative districts of Ambos Camarines. The renamed provinces would be under the names that they are called now. The Manila delegation would still go to Legislative districts of Manila. Just like U.S. districts which have been renumbered through the centuries we'd rely on names "Place-number" instead of adding names on the current legislative districts on where these people have represented. A local version would be the Legislative districts of Cebu which were originally numbered counter-clockwise from Cebu City, but is now numbered clockwise. The Legislative district of Mountain Province also does the same thing. –HTD 04:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Any chance of creating individual articles for each district the way you did Dasmariñas and Biñan? Like for Cavite: Cavite I, Cavite II, Cavite III, Cavite IV, Cavite V, Cavite VI and Cavite VII instead?--RioHondo (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the plan. Currently though I'm contended with the districts lumped into one article. These articles have been in existence for the longest time already, the next step is having separate articles per each district, if someone's up to it. –HTD 08:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roster 

message: It's time to restore the Malolos Congress article, to the tune of how local legislature articles look like. This has gone for too long. The 1st legislature of the Philippines deserves its first article and doesn't have to be relegated as an afterthought to two articles. The fact that we can't even link on Malolos Congress on articles is a major travesty. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to illustrate how silly this was, in New Generation Currency Series, the Malolos Congress was featured on the 200-peso bill, with the actual article saying "Opening of the Malolos Congress" but once you clicked "Malolos Congress", it went to another article altogether, and it was NOT what the article was talking about. We'd have to undo all of this. What a waste of time! Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Undo all the links or undo the restoration of the article? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

text: May i suggest next time to take these matters to the WT:TAMBAY page before carrying out anything drastic like merging articles or replacing them with disambiguation links? Anything that concerns Philippine history especially topics that are well established like this one. A discussion was not even pursued, and although a notice was served, it was carried out unilaterally in less than a week as i just learned from the preceding section with no public consultation whatsoever. I didnt even realize the article ive been linking to in those series of articles i made recently was already gone until robots or other editors were changing the target of those links. ;) So to our foreign partners, please use the WP PH project talk page or the WP PH History task force page at least and give people time to address your skepticism on any of the history related articles. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Opening a discussion at WT:TAMBAY about this three years ago or mentioning there the discussion I opened here might have been helpful. Looking back, I see that I did not do that in this case. I have tried that in other cases, though, without much success. On this case, you'll see above that I stated my concerns here and called for discussion on 9 April 2018, waited a week and, when no discussion had ensued after a week, I stated my intention to make the change  to a disambiguation page on 16 April, then made the change on 17 April.  As far as unilateral action after calling for discussion with no results goes, quoting from WP:SILENCE#Rationale: "You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." My change from what I took to be implied consensus stood for three years. It has now been revised after discussion here which would have been benificial three years ago. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I thought there was consensus discussion about this, because after all, this was Top-rated in importance before it was turned into a dab page. That's why I didn't raise a stink until I found out there was no discussion, even consensus, of doing this. The non-discussion didn't even last a full week. It's actually hard to fix up the links here because you'd have to read the context: maybe the prose was indeed referring to the Revolutionary Government instead of the Malolos Congress. It's not as easy as changing "Line 2" to "LRT Line 2" which are identical (even that is not finished and it's almost a year!). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Call to action

message: Was this a typo in the book The development of Philippine politics or a former name of Antique? It's kinda weird because the Spanish source uses "Antique" (English word for antiguo) while one of the English sources uses "Antigua" (Spanish for ancient or antique). Antique's name was derived from hamtik, right? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to List of Philippine provincial name etymologies, "Antique" did come from "Hamtic", but was formally rendered as "Antique" in the Spanish language. Pedro Paterno's official list though uses "Antique". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know where Antigua came from? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Antigua is Spanish for "old". There was a mix-up in here somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''Antigua''"