Template talk:Philippine elections

message: I'd recommend to remove the 1897 ones; they weren't really elections; they were conventions or Congresses. --Howard the Duck 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather not have them here too, since it was limited only to an organization, and did not target a nationwide constituency. — scorpion prinz 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the March 1897 one - this template is only for votes held on a national level (though it would include limited franchise votes, e.g. before women were enfranchised, or  apartheid-era elections in South Africa). I don't know enough about the November 1897 one - was there a nationwide election to elect the Supreme Council? If so, it should remain. If not, it should go. Number 57 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both 1897 elections, were Revolutionary council elections. I doubt if they both deserve to be here. I would rather have Aguinaldo's election as president by the Malolos Congress, at least that targeted a nationwide constituency, indirect though, through the representatives in Congress. — scorpion prinz 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no more objections I guess, I'm removing them from the list. — scorpion prinz 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finished editing the elections of 1922 to 1931 base on new information i have found and i was able to find the dates of the elections based on clues given by the Jones Law of 1916.— rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree what Howard the Duck said on the elections of the Tejeros Convention and the Biyak-na-Bato Elections, i have researched and have concluded that the elections in Tejeros and Biyak-na-Bato were ratified b the Malolos Congress and was done on its first session of Congress and we can consider that it is an Constituent Assembly Election and I propose that we should add this to the template and make a page named as Philippine presidential elections, 1898. — rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not elections, period and shouldn't be renamed in any other way. --Howard the Duck 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be in favour of going back to splitting the template between presidential and legislative elections (as it was here, but with Senate and Parliament in the same section), and when they coincide (as a general election), they are included in both rows (see Template:Argentine elections as an example) - this is what has been done as standard on these templates. Number 57 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be better solution, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that general elections were synchronized (presidential or midterm) after an amendment made to 1987 Constitution. And I was contacted by the Head of Archives of the Commission on Elections and has said that the Philippine Supreme Council elections, 1897 and the Tejeros Convention were validated by the Supreme Court, National Historical Institute and the Philippine Centennial Commission and has said they are the first and second presidential elections signed on January 30, 1999 in the centennial of the birth of the republic. So do consider putting it back or else who might arrested in denying history in the Philippine History conservation Act of 1999— rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get a citation on that, that'll be great, but without citation, that's original research. --Howard the Duck 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a problem that they are synchronised - they can appear on both rows without causing any disruption. Number 57 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What elections to include

message: Should it be listed? --Howard the Duck 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were they elected by the public, or from amongst themselves? Number 57 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I know about this because i found it a historical book made by Reader's Digest Philippines featuring the history of the philippines. To explain why the government held elections from June 23 to September 10 because each town that they liberate election are held immediately. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you telling as stories again? Can you give us the ISBN number, publisher, author, book title, etc.? --Howard the Duck 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Philippines: A Unique Nation  Rizalninoynapoleon 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this is through, it'll have to go through consensus first. --Howard the Duck 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philippine Malolos Congress election, 1898]] 

message: I have uncover in the book of Dr Sonia M. Zaide (Source: The Philippines: A Unique Nation ) that there was an another IBP election for sectoral representatives on April 27, 1978 this is original and published evidence Take That Howard Rizalninoynapoleon 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? --Howard the Duck 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the article, why should it be separate from the main Philippine parliamentary election, 1978? --Howard the Duck 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two IBP elections one for the regional and the other was the sectoral. I will am asking to separate the articles. Besides this is verified by the COMELEC (See:The Philippines: A Unique Nation ) What the COMELEC verified is valid enough Rizalninoynapoleon 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We only separate the articles if the file size is too big. As of now it's not that big. Heck even Philippine general elections, 2007 doesn't have separate articles for each level (Senatorial, House and local). --Howard the Duck 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBP Regional and Sectoral 

message: I am thinking of separating the articles in this sectioning: Presidential, Senate, House, Parliamentary and Constitutional Convention Delegates Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in the template as well. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't mess up and fix up the linking it should be fine for me. Dunno about the Elections WikiProject though. --Howard the Duck 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Manolo Quezon has a list of all of the House elections. I'm considering creating separate articles for them, then rename the "general election" article to "senate election" ones. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  We must separate the articles 

message: Opting for clarity among ignorant readers, I changed "upper house" to "senate."  Why come to Wikipedia if you are not ignorant and want to learn?  I suspect that many may only be in the 7th or 8th grade, or not received schooling beyond the 7th or 8th grade, and may not know that "upper house" means "senate".  Since each and every election linked to has "senate" in the article's title, I changed "upper house" to the more commonly used word "senate".  I think that this is more in keep with WP:CommonName.  I left lower house because it has "house" in there and since ignorant does not mean stupid that might be a clue that it relates to the House.  Further, that body's name has changed and so the articles' titles use different names (e.g. assembly, parliamentary, house of reps.), though I would be open to dropping the "lower" modifier. --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I used "Upper house" for consistency, as according what you've said, the lower house has had a variety of names. It looks funky with Senate+Lower house but I'm not objecting to it. –HTD 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look funky and that I think is a benefit.  Hopefully people will wonder "why?" and do some more clicking and reading. History is messy and complicated, not rational, logical, scientific.  We human beings look at things and see patterns and create boxes as a way of learning lessons from the past but we must be careful not to try too hard to force things into neat little non-funky boxes. Neatening up history too much can obscure as much as it can elucidate. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was even thinking of separating it into "legislative eras" (see List of Senators of the Philippines for these "eras".) subgroups, or even a new group for parliamentary elections. I settled on Upper House and Lower House as the former isn't done elsewhere (subgroups), and the latter is a waste as there are only two (or three) elections to be include there. If anything I can be talked into renaming it into "House of Representatives." –HTD 11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For clarity, changed "upper house" to "senate"