Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the Philippines/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC).

List of Presidents of the Philippines

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey. Nominating this because this former featured list is no longer a former featured list (by standards). This complete list of presidents of the Philippines from 1899 up to the present has seen great improvements. (I'd like to thank of WP:GOCE for doing an excellent copy-edit.) I believe the issues that were brought to light in the removal discussion almost eight years ago have been addressed and resolved. I'm hoping this will be re-promoted and get its place in WP:FL back again. This is my third FL nomination, in case you're wondering. I'm really looking forward to your feedback (and support, hehe). Thanks in advance { &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The WP:LEDE section is much too cluttered. Sections of the article are still facing content disputes. It is too early for this to be a featured article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sections have the content disputes? I can't see anything tagged in the article at the moment, and there's nothing on the talk page that looks like a current dispute. For that part of your oppose to be actionable, we need to some some evidence of disputes that make the article unstable, per FL criterion 6, and I don't see proof of that here. Perhaps you could elaborate, for the benefit of the nominator and those of us who are FLC closers. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . The lead is as concise yet comprehensive as it could be. The sections are well-sourced and verifiable either, so I don't know where's the dispute. I'd like to hear more from you so that I'll know what else needs work. Cheers &mdash; Mediran   [talk]  06:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * I do not like the colour coding for party. For president it duplicates the party column, and for VP it forces you to go back to the list of parties to find out which one is the correct colour - which is not always easy for someone like me who is colour blind. It would be much better just to have the party under the name and dates of the president and VP.
 * The party or the party color under the names and dates?
 * The name of the party. I would get rid of the colour coding completely, although that is my personal preference, not a requirement. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Election or re-election to the presidency is barred if the person "has succeeded as [p]resident and has served as such for more than four years"." I do not understand what is meant by "succeeded" here. Every president (apart from the first) must have succeeded a previous one.
 * Yes. The "succeeded" there simply means what it means, but it may also mean "become" or any other word that describes the assumption of an office, which in this case is the presidency. I think what is leaving us confused here is the "has served as such for more than four years". The constitution states "The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time." A person who had been a president may run for the office again if he or she only served for less than four years. Joseph Estrada was able to run again in 2010 because his term, which began in 1998, was cut short 3 years later in 2001. It is like the same with his vice president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who was intended to serve out Estrada's remaining 3 years in office. Arroyo was allowed to run for the presidency in 2004 even if she had already served as such from 2001 to 2004 because she had only spent 3 years at the time. Generally, the constitution doesn't allow any re-election to the office. But it gives a special pass to those who were not able to finish their term (Estrada) and those whose first term's less than 4 years (Arroyo). I hope this made it clear to you.
 * So how about "Anyone who serves as president for more than four years is barred from standing in the next presidential election." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Better, but it's not necessarily "in the next presidential election". It could be any. &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * died "on an aircraft disaster". "in a plane crash" would be better.
 * Thanks!
 * This is a good list, but the structure of notes and sub-notes is over-complex. I would merge and shorten them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought of that too. Could you point specific notes that need shortening or merging? Thanks! &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would delete the sub-notes completely and merge them with the notes. I have never seen notes to notes before and I do not see the point of it. It is just confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because it's not used that much in our articles but I added the subnotes because they provide additional explanatory and informational details about the note. We're not required to always open and see it, it's just added info to have a clearer understanding. I'll try to shorten them and if possible merge them with their notes. &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What happened during the US occupation? Was there a governor equivlent to the presidential positions? Also, why not have a merged single table? Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the governor-general is actually the chief executive of the islands during that time before the Commonwealth was inaugurated. I'll add that in the lead, but it's also detailed in a subnote. The Philippines has many republics, and I thought it would be easier to follow the flow of the succession of the presidents if they're cut by republics. Some presidents overlap, which may confuse the readers because of unmatched dates, that's why I decided to split them. &mdash; Mediran  [talk]  03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

– Gavin (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.