Talk:Boracay

Late 2007 edits

pumping up

Many small items have been inserted using terms not appropriate for this page. They are, however, appropriate for the WikiTravel page. "Blindingly white sand" is not even close to accurate, as of today it is still a light beige. That is travel brochure material.

Transportation=

The entire transportation tag has been 'commented out and left in the page. The About the Island note has been renamed Transportation.

The transportation tag did not elxplain about transportation on Boracay; it was a 'how to get there' read that listed cities on other continents and their flights to a neighboring island and how to use the maritime highway/which connections/etc... That is WikiTravel info.

20:16, 29 August 2006 reversions

In these reversions, I reverted three recent edits

The reverted edits had deleted two important maps and replaced them with a photo, added a commercial link, and added a link to a few external Boracay photos.

Let's discuss the appropriateness of at least the first two of these before it is done, please.

GUYS, PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS WITH FOUR TILDES, lIKE THIS: ~~~~ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Revised Weather & Climate section, added References

I added a lot more information here, most of it anecdotal. I am sure that what I have done here can be improved upon. -- Boracay Bill 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've gone a little overboard with the weather discussion here. Isn't it suffice to say that Boracay has its favorable and less-than-favorable times of the year to visit, and then name the respective months? jkaufman101 20:45, 21 July 2006 (PST)

But the seasonal-change dates are not cast in stone and can vary by a month or more either way. I have lived on Boracay for ten years and can say with assurance (1) Boracay's main (only?) focus is tourism; (2) many prospective Boracay visitors are first-timers and use references like Wikipedia to find info about Boracay; (3) the question of how weather might impact a Boracay visit is an item of concern to prospective visitors; (4) Boracay has very pronounced seasonality of weather -- much more pronounced than other Philippine tourism destinations -- and the seasonal weather impacts visitors (it's a real disappointment to fly halfway around the world expecting a tropical paradise, arrive in the middle of Habagat season, and spend your Boracay vacation being unexpectedly rained on and having beach sand blown into your face by a 30kt wind). I could be wrong about the usefulness/appropriateness of placing the Boracay weather/climate info on the Boracay page, or perhaps what needs to be said could be said better than I have said it. -- Boracay Bill 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, as an alternative to shortening this paragraph, would you consider re-writing it so it doesn't seem so convoluted or overwritten? I appreciate your work on this, though after reading it I am somehow left wondering exactly what it is that I just read. Thanks. jkaufman101, 1 August 2006, 19:36 (PST)

Feel free to rewrite it yourself; I'm not wedded to the words I have written, and I am just as likely to make a stylistic hash of it the second time around as I was the first time. Cheers. Boracay Bill 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph in By Plane section

The paragraph I removed contained visitor advice related to avoiding being hassled by touts, etc. prior to check-in to Boracay accommodations. This info is just as applicable to persons arriving by sea or by road as it is to persons arriving by plane, and is probably generally applicable to visitors arriving in most tourism destinations. Removing this paragraph was a judgement call, and some may disagree. My feeling was that the removed material did not fit the section where it was placed, and also that the removed material was more appropriate to a travel brochure than to an encyclopedia article. -- Boracay Bill 06:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversed an edit in Around The Island section

The following had been added to the end of this section: "Upon arriving on the Boracay Islands, the main island has three stations as an entrance for tourists and citizens of Boracay. Most people find that Station two is known for its night life and scenery." Perhaps this page does need info about the boat stations but, if so, the English needs to be better than this. I am not sure that the addition of this info would be a plus, so I have not provided alternative verbage. Also, Boracay passenger arrivals are currently done during Amihan season via boat stations 1-3, during the Habagat season via Tambisaan boat station on the southeast side of the island, and passenger departures are currently done via Cagban Jetty Port on the south end of the island. All of this is subject to change, as there is pressure to do all entries and departures via the Cagban Jetty Port. --Wtmitchell 07:15 Friday, 30 June (UTC)

Oops (Oops-plex -- I have edited this Oops). In the comment on my edit 10:53, 30 June 2006, I flubbed the URLs. Should be http://ops.gov.ph/records/memo_order_no214.htm and http://ops.gov.ph/records/eo_no377.htm. I don't know how to fix this. --Wtmitchell 03:05 Friday, 30 June (UTC)

Anyone who can upload lots of more pics? White beaches? famous resorts/hotels, etc. --Noypi380 09:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry though it looks like part of the article comes from http://boracayisland.org/traveltips.shtml

You've got it backwards, that page got its content from Wikipedia. Coffee 17:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not fair. That site should at least mention that its source is wikipedia. Sites like Reference.com admits this for example. --Noypi380 06:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Boracay is possibly one of the last best-kept secrets for international travellers and vacationers. In fact, it is possibly one of the last best-kept secrets of paradise!

I'm removing that description. It sounds too n00bish and characteristically un-wikipedia-like.

Starting with It has consistently been on numerous top ten best beaches lists for decades sounds alot better. --Chicbicyclist 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. If you make this absurd statement, you need to source it. Otherwise it gets deleted. No more Philippines boosting here! This is not a travel brochure.

I wasnt actually trying to "philippine boost" here. I did not add anything, merely deleted some stuff that actually made it sound more "boosted". Check the history. Chicbicyclist 09:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article collaboration

How about adding the Municipality infobox and the municipalities in Aklan template at the bottom and a locator map? Circa 1900 11:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't work, Boracay isn't a municipality itself, it's part of Malay, Aklan. A locator map would be good though... Coffee 17:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Since Boracay isn't a municipality, the maps would be good. Circa 1900 13:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

added a locator map. Magalhães 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good Circa 1900 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the Copyright info for the image lists User:Www.boracaytrip.com (a nonexistant wiki user) as the file's creator. Perhaps this can be changed to User:Magalhães (??) -- Boracay Bill 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just spoke with someone who is using a slightly different version of

Removal of Boracay map

(also see related discussion in preceeding section)
this map (mentioned above) on his website. When I remarked that his map was derived from the public-domain map on Wikipedia's Boracay page, his response was along the lines of "It most certainly is not!!! I drew this map myself some years ago!!!" I think that the public-domain status of this map is now in question. I note that the image page for this map (improperly?) gives a commercial website URL rather than the name of an individual as the creator of the image. I don't see a mechanism for challenging the wiki-usability of an image -- does anyone know how to go about that? In the meantime, barring objection, I plan to remove reference to this image from this Boracay article. Comments? Objections? -- Boracay Bill 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the map. Due to its questionable PD status, I will be submitting the image for deletion. -- Boracay Bill 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

Where did Boracay get its name? When was it "discovered" by tourists? Perhaps we should add that. Circa 1900 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bora" + cay = Boracay --Howard the Duck 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Borocay (??) - intent to delete

This is a statement of intent to remove the recent change by User:Tmusgrove which added (sometimes spelled "Borocay") to the intro. I don't think that this belongs on the page unless it can be shown to be a proper alternative spelling. I did Google Borocay, though, and was amazed at the huge number of hits. Apparently, this is a pretty common mis-spelling. I tried the wiki page for Borocay, and found that it redirects to this Boracay page (that redirect having been added by Tmusgrove also). If Borocay is no more than a common mis-spelling of Boracay, that redirect ought to be enough, IMHO, and we ought to have a consensus to add the info that this is a common mis-spelling to the page text. Barring a consensus to the contrary, I intend to remove this. Differing opinions? -- Boracay Bill 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

made the deletion. -- Boracay Bill 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Facilities section and its Golf Course entry

I have reverted the recent deletion of the facilities section and the entry therein mentioning Boracay's golf course. The edit summary on the deletion edit said: rm "facilities" commercial plug for golf course. There are many other facilities on Boracay as well, but they are not mentioned. Why only this? The golf course mentioned is the only one on Boracay (or, probably, for 100km around Boracay) -- this is not a selective commercial plug as, for example, showcasing a particular Boracay resort would be. I think the information that there is a golf course on Boracay, and that it is a good one, adds value to the article. I note that the article on Augusta, Georgia mentions the Augusta National Golf Club. I note that the article on Pebble Beach, California lists all of its seven golf courses. I note that the article on La Jolla, San Diego, California lists the Torrey Pines Golf Course. I note that the article on Rancho Mirage, California goes on and on about its 12 golf courses, mentioning several of them by name. I could go on to provide numerous other examples of articles about a location which mention a nearby golf course. As mentioned in the edit summary for the reverted edit, the Facilities section of this page does need to be be expanded by the addition of information about other Boracay facilities. -- Boracay Bill 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Boracay

Geography
Location	South East Asia
Archipelago	Visayas
Administration
Philippines

I question the recently-added infobox, which I duplicate here in its current state. The purpose of this appears to be to tie the Boracay article together with a larger group of related articles all sporting infoboxes similar to this one. I note that the infobox mentions Panay, which sports a similar infobox, and Samar, which does not. The infobox, in my mind, detracts and distracts from this article more than it adds to it. Questions raised in my mind by specific entries visible in this infobox include:

• location = South East Asia - Seems too broad. "Western Visayas, Philippines, Southeast Asia" would be more informative, IMO
• archipelago = Visayas -- I don't think that Visayas is, strictly speaking, an archipelago. The Visayas page calls it an island grouping, which seems right to me. I think of the Visayas as a group of islands located in the central part of the Philippine archipelago.
• major islands = Bohol, Cebu, Leyte, Masbate, Negros, Panay, Samar - The Visayas article lists the following as major islands: Panay, Negros, Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar. Masbate is a part of the Bicol Region (Region V), right? Anyhow, what does this have to do with Boracay? If it has little to do with Boracay, does it belong in the Boracay article?

Template entries which don't show as visible items in the infobox but which are questionable IMO include:

• ethnic groups = Bisaya (Aklanon, Ati), Americans, Europeans

I am not sure what to propose here. Is the insertion of infoboxes similar to this part of a wide-ranging ongoing effort of which I am unaware? Is the insertion of this infobox a plus or a minus for this Boracay article? Comments? -- Boracay Bill 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At first, I don't see how the infobox adds value, too. But if mountains can have infoboxes I suppose islands can also. --seav 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

Boracay

Geography
Location	South East Asia
Coordinates	11°58′N 121°55′E
Archipelago	Philippines
Administration
Philippines
Demographics
Population	census unavailable

Here is a suggested alternative.

The Region/Province/Mucipality stuff is a bit of a hack which could be broken by future changes in the template. I specified population=census unavailable in order to force display of the Demographics section. Barring objections, I will substitute this for the current template. If there are objections or comments, please speak up. -- Boracay Bill 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Made the change -- Boracay Bill 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I Give Up

Boracay Bill is so possessive of his copy that he is loathe to hear criticism or make changes -- even changes that are rightfully suggested. This is what happens when a local resident takes ownership of a topic and exerts autocratic control. This is not what makes Wikipedia an asset, and unfortunately Boracay Bill can be expected to continue his domination of this page.

Er... Sorry, User:jkaufman101, I didn't realize that I was stepping one anyone's toes. I expressed my concerns on the talk page, announced my proposed change there, waited a while (admittedly a short while), and then without objection implemented the change which I had proposed and had put up for discussion. I would have appreciated dissenting comments prior to implementation of the change. If you have problems with the change, can you please let me know what your problems are? -- Boracay Bill 11:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Map

The map on the infobox doesn't give you an idea where Boracay is. As a standard operating procedure, infobox maps should be locator maps. --Howard the Duck 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how standard that operating procedure is. The Parameters info at Template:Infobox_Islands seems to indicate that it is optional, and the example at Template_talk:Infobox_Islands doesn't provide much location info on the map (though the infobox image currently on the Sumatra page provides better location info on the map). I previewed the page with each of the three maps in the infobox, and would comment:

• RPmap+Boracay.gif looks OK to me and gives good location info
• Ph locator aklan boracay.png looks OK to me but gives location info relative to Aklan province, which many viewers of the page won't recognize.
• Boracay sketch map.gif looks OK to me but gives no location info on the map.

My guess is that the RPmap+Boracay.gif image is best for the infobox, but I don't think that it matters much which map appears in the infobox as long as the other two maps are available in the Geography section. -- Boracay Bill 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'll ask me, Ph locator aklan boracay.png should be the way to go. The current map doesn't give a clue where in the world Bora is. This was also the problem at the Zamboanga City article, FYI. --Howard the Duck 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Additionally, I added the population data, which was based on the combined populations of the three barangays, last June. Thanks for adding a footnote.)203.87.201.5 08:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Expected Image:RPmap%2BBoracay.gif at the top of the article. Jidanni 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Facilities

I find it highly improbable that Boracay has "in excess of 350 beach resorts." Was wondering whether someone could source this out and if unsubstantiated, delete it? I think this number was included in one of the early versions of the Boracay section that was focused on fluff rather than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaufman101 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on your definition of "beach resort". If the definition is something like "a high-class establishment with an entrance on White Beach", there's probably on the order of zero to 20, depending on your definition of "high-class". If your definition is "an establishment located within reasonable walking distance of a Boracay beach with rooms available for rent on a daily basis", there may well be 350+, depending on your definition of "reasonable walking distance". -- Boracay Bill 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to keep an open mind about it, let's say that we can reasonably consider Boracay an international destination. After all, there are many who vacation there from around Asia -- even Europe, Australia and the U.S. So, as an international destination, I would have to go with the definition of "beach resort" as being something you might compare with an international facility in Asia Minor -- perhaps we should stick to the same geographical area -- such as Phuket, Bali or Palau. Certainly there is nothing like a Four Seasons, Hilton or Banyon Tree in Boracay, or anything close to it. And if someone disagrees and says, "Oh, but Friday's is a beach resort," the logical answer would be, "well maybe, but in any case there aren't 350 of them."

I propose we change the wording to read, "hundreds of motels and small, informal resorts" or some such, since we don't know the exact number. -- Jkaufman101 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Martial law

Now under PTA: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced on June 2, 2008 the implementation of an "unrepealed Martial Law Proclamation” declaring Boracay a tourist zone and national park, placing its resources under the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)."gmanews.tv, Arroyo to impose ‘Martial Law’ proclamation on Boracay --Florentino floro (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Webcams

I added the section Boracay Beach Camera under the topic Tourism. I felt that this is an excellent tool to promote tourism in the Philippines. I listed 3 working Boracay Cams - I would like to link it to the live feeds but external links is not allowed without permission. Looks like BoracayBill is the man here so I am asking Boracay Bill and others - what do you think? What better way to discuss Boracay than an actual live feed of the beach or island. To not have this section , I think it would be criminal. The page has a link to Boracay Videos in Google - Why not live camera feeds? I understand that the live feeds are located in commercial sites but you have to pet the cow sometimes to drink the milk. The purpose of the page is to show everything about Boracay in a encyclopedic kind of way but the page is actually a big "BROCHURE" which cant be helped when you discuss a popular place in the Philippines. I dont know, I just thought is was cool and links to actually see the feed I thought would be cooler. If accepted (links) just type in Google titles and you can easily find the links. Please add links to my article if you think it is note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysim (talk • contribs) 17:15, December 24, 2010

I couldn't find any webcam-specific policies. I see that some other WP articles do contain links to webcams, e.g.

• Oregon State University has an inline external link to a webcam (seemingly contrary to guidance in WP:EL).
• Newburgh, Aberdeenshire#External links has a webcam link
• Aston Down#External links has a webcam link
• Katowice#External links has a dead-link webcam link (quite a few articles have dead-link webcam links}

External videos
Webcam at Red Coconut
Webcam at Bamboo Bungalows
Webcam at Boracay Beach Club

I've also seen some articles with webcam links in image captions, and the {{External media}} template could be used for webcam links (as at the right here).

WP:ELNO guidance about links to cources containing advertising, site promotion, etc. might apply to commercial webcam links such as the ones at the right. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

webcams

I don't see your point --- MIGHT - COULD BE? What do you think the college webcams are? It is commercial! How? By showing the college it is advertising the campus for new students to come and join that college. You already know from what I wrote on your talk board that I am extremely irritated at you. Why don't you come up with a solution instead of just erasing someones article that has been contributed. What I wrote is very pertinent! If you want it re-worded or something - That is different, But we don't erase - We RE-WORD! The information without links IS USEFUL!! HOW? When people read the article they can now know that there is a Boracay Beach camera in EXISTENCE. They then --- if there is no link ---search on Google and find it based on the camera titles-------SIMPLE.

Example: Airlines - YOUR Boracay article could list all the airlines that fly to Boracay. In your mind and as I can see they are not in this article thought it was NOT USEFUL without the link to the airline -- so it seems --You erased all names of domestic airlines. To me, this is very stupid! The article should list all airline carriers that fly to Kalibo Airport and Caticlan Airport. hell, you name the airports than why not the carriers. Then the article is useful, because now people who want to visit Boracay can copy the carrier names and search them in Google making your article useful. Your article is so GENERAL that it misses the point and helps NOBODY!!!!!

hell - you have links to Boracay radio stations - How does that help anyone? How does that not seem commercial? If you list radio station (WHICH YOU CAN ONLY LISTEN TO ON BORACAY)What is the usefulness? It serves no purpose? BUT WAIT!!!! It helps those that are interested in radio and that is why it should be there just like the article I wrote HELPS THOSE interested in Beach Web cams or seeing Boracay Live.

Anything that helps ----IS GOOD! Don't make your article so general that it says nothing and helps nobody! Like I said, there is a lot of rubbish on this article that says nothing. Just sit back in your chair and just look at it. You have more references than article material. Hell, that many reference for such little information on the topic Boracay. Are you kidding me? I am sure that I am not the only one who has seen this! Mr. Bill - by the way - I have actually met you! I know everyone in Boracay - I know everything about Boracay - I know the secrets of Boracay - I know all the Chesmis. I am a true expert. I have stayed in almost every resort - seen ever room - been to every location. I know the past and the present.

Anyways - let's make some compromises or something - Bring some life to the article --sorry my tone - you pissed me off by erasing my article, my talk ---basically you erased everything but my profile which is probably next on your list hahahaah

FYI

It's not a external videos as you have in your little box. It's live camera footage NOT recorded - Not a Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysim (talk • contribs) 07:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop shouting. See Avoid excessive emphasis under WP:TPG#EXHAUST—part of the Wikipedia behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please calm down. Please engage in rational discussion in a calm and reasoned manner.

It's not my "little box", as you characterize it. Please see the discussion I've opened up at Template_talk:External_media#Webcams?.

Let's go about this in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Waiting For Answer

Ok, The right way. I am sorry that you felt your feelings were hurt. Express to me why? I am just reporting to you a situation which seems you are more concerned with Wikipedia:Civility? Are we talking about your feelings or the article? I am sorry if your feelings are delicate, but I am just a straight to the point kind of person. If you feel damaged than that was not my intentions but rather to discover why my article was erased and considered not useful. I wish you could have taken a more tactful approach to the article than just erasing it. If I were you and someone wrote something , I would not erase but rather have a discussion first why it should be erased and give them the chance to explain why it should not be erased OR come up with a solution to keep article addition. I would never just blatantly erase someone else's work which definitely breaks Wikipedia:Civility. That would be SOOOOOO uncool - like what you did. Each page here is for the world to add to NOT just you. You made a comment that I only made a few additions so does that mean automatic erase. How many changes I have accomplished should NOT even be in your vocabulary. Everyone has to start somewhere. In your comment, how many changes do I have to do then to have an article printed? 10-20-50-100? Your an editor, -----GREAT! You had to start at zero once a long time ago.

Anyways, stick to topic and lets not concern ourselves with Wikipedia:Civility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysim (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been traveling for the past few days and will be on the road for the next week or two. While on the road, I don't follow Wikipedia as closely as I do when at home.

My feelings weren't hurt. However, please note that WP:Civility is an English Wikipedia policy. Flouting it can bring you problems. You also might want to look at WP:Five pillars, WP:Talk page guidelines, WP:Editing policy just to start.

Re each page here being for the world to add to, that is generally well understood—see WP:Article ownership. That said, there are long-established standards for article content, style, layout, etc. It would be good to become familiar with some of these. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I like this: A few thoughts: The WP:EL guideline says "... they should not normally be used in the body of an article ..." in two places. It doesn't forbid external links within an article's body, it just strongly discourages them. Also, see Wikipedia:Embedded citations and Help:Citations quick reference, which discourage plain embedded links, but note that they're far better than nothing.

This makes sense which I suggested: What you call an "embedded link", also called an unnamed link, is a link without text.[1] They are permitted to be used as references. A named link, also called a text-link or text-anchored link, isn't permitted in the article body, even if used as a reference. The template creates and promotes a named link. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have an array of reference links which looks like way to many for the amount of article you have for Boracay, I dont see the harm of a none text anchored link to all 3 web cams? Then in the future as more cams come on line they can be added. I think this would bring more relevance. I agree that it does not show Boracay in its full beauty, BUT at least it shows something. Better than nothing. With out a live cam is like an article with no pictures----just does not cut it which I would agree is not useful.

You decide - get back to me - I am already tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysim (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A few top-of-the-head points....

I see that you now recognize that WP:EL strongly discourages embedding external links into the body of an article. Inline external links may be better than nothing, as you say, but they are not necessarily better than stylistic alternatives which are generally better accepted in Wikipedia articles.

Re how webcam links might best be presented -- AFAICT, there is presently no consensus on that. The {{External media}} template looks to me like it might be a reasonable approach, and I've sandboxed a change to that which would add specific webcam support -- see Template talk:External media#Webcams?.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel destination promotion site. See e.g., Bali, Bora Bora, Tahiti, etc. Compare with Wikitravel:Boracay, Wikitravel:Bali, Wikitravel:Bora Bora, Wikitravel:Tahiti, etc. (note that I have not been able to look at those wikitravel pages myself -- I've been having page load failures due apparently to bandwidth problems all day. I have looked at the Boracay page there -- and I think I did some edits there several years ago.)

One of the things you suggested earlier was that the Boracay article could list all the airlines that fly to Boracay. That's been tried before — several times, I think. It tends to lead to a maintenance nightmare as airlines change their schedules with the article ending up presenting inaccurate information, as article updates fall behind schedule changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently added images

This edit added some images. This image does not match its caption; the part of the island shown is the northern part of White Beach and the southern part of Diniwid beach -- pretty far from Yapak, Ilig-iligan, Fairways and Blue Waters and/or Shangri-la. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have reassessed this article; there is absolutely no way that it can be considered a B class, top importance piece. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As a major tourist destination in the Philippines, I am re-assessing the importance of the article to at least "high". --Bluemask (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict between islanders & developers

There was a published article discussing the conflict of the native islanders and developers. It seems quite serious and deserves some mention. This article seems to promote tourism and is not balanced.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/02/boracay-islanders-philippine-tourist-trade

• • • I agree 100% because it is very obvious the bias direct links to travel agencies, like lonely planet, boracayisland.org and many , many links that go against policy. I have been trying for years to get even a unnamed link to my Boracay Camera that streams boracay Beach 24 hours a day with streaming sound too. However, the editor of this page is Bias of the camera and the company TravelOnline. You can easily see how he adds links to buddies on the beach. (locals) There should be a new editor that respects all aspects of this page and list pertinent information WITHOUT bias. IF YOU ALLOW ONE _ YOU MUST ALLOW ALL! I would like to know who is the higher authority of the editor of this page so I can have a meaningfully conversation about this page.

Can someone give me information on reporting an editor, Glade22 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014

References

Live Webcams in Boracay

Discussion: I would like to have added information to the Boracay Page and or a link to boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ . This is a live camera that streams "LIVE" video and sound of Boracay Beach 24 hours a day. The camera will soon have the capability/availability to see live day shots at night time. The camera is owned and operated by TravelOnline and is positioned infront of Red Coconut Boracay Resort. I have interesting history about the live camera BUT I think for the page being informational that this would provide special interest information along with visual association not to mention weather report. I can see many outgoing external links that are existing on the Boracay Page. Maybe this can be added to the section at the bottom called External links or in the information section. I have noticed that there is 3 links there (External Links) (outgoing) :
1. Boracay travel guide from Wikivoyage this is a good informational link and it does allow Boracay Live Camera section.
2. Boracay Official Tourism Website - This is nothing more than a travel agency selling rooms and advertisement. (boracayisland.org) This site is NOT the Official Boracay Tourism website. This is an Association of hotels marketing their rooms and advertising. It is not even close to being any OFFICIAL Boracay Travel Tourism Website. [Comparison] That would be like me saying Boracay Official Tourism Website and linking to TravelOnline.ph Now, if that is acceptable, then I would like to have a similar link going to TravelOnline in the external links. This is the official Boracay Tourism Website by DOT : itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/
3. Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)- This is to lonelyplanet.com/philippines/the-visayas/boracay - which is basically lonelyplanet.com which sells rooms, travel and advertsises on it.
Now with that said: Can I put under external links with the words "Boracay Beach Live Camera (TravelOnline)" going to boracaylive.com or directly to the live camera page: boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ thus being exact structure of Lonely Planet --- Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)-----There not a Travel Information and Travel Guide of Boracay --- They are a travel agency selling rooms, cars, packages, activities and so on. The real Boracay information site OFFICIAL is the DOT site - itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/ I would like permission from the administrator or editor incharge or discuss how we can put this in print. This camera has been in place running for many years. It has become a landmark. The facebook of this camera is 540,000 fans and growing every day.

Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade22 —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Is there any status on my request? Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade221/7/2014 —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • Due to still no response by editor, I made the link under external links and after 24 hours --- It was removed. However, I received no reason why or an answer to my questions about meaningful external links and adding the live camera link to the page. Can anyone give me information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too? I wish to discuss the total disregard of Boracay information to only editors taste/feelings and the allowing of external links that violate policy. There must be a higher power here than a dictatorship of ones Obvious personal bias feelings. Glade22 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014

I've moved this recently added section here from the top of the talk page. See WP:TPG. Without making a judgement about your attempted addition, I'll suggest that you read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Personally, I think that links to live webcams would be a useful addition to this article, but I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about that. Re your request for "information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too[sic]", I presume that you're referring to me (and I'm not sure why), but that's not how WP works; see the info I've added to User talk:Glade22. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

***Discussion: I have read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. And understand both. I created a link under “External Links” which was Boracay Beach Live TravelOnline Camera This action is completely legal under WP:ELNO and WP:COI. WP:ELNO says: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. It also goes on to say: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. THE KEY PHRASE: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. The link that I have suggested provides unique resources beyond what the article contains, does not mislead the reader, 100% accurate, contains NO Malware or viruses, does not require payment, no copyright or infringements, NOT a social website, No Redirects, and already featured on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Boracay.

Now, as for WP:COI: There is no conflict of interest with my link added. I do however see conflict of interest as far as not allowing my camera link but rather adding other links on the page. About 5-6 years ago I tried to add the LIVE CAMERA LINK but was shot down and in a ridicule manner. Long ago, when it was shot down there was NO EXTERNAL LINKS ALOUD – PERIOD! I thought it was very foolish not to have a link to a live camera that streams live so people could actually see Boracay and get a weather report or just see their friends on the beach. BoracayBill was so adamant about it that he would not even write in the article of its existence even without a link. At that time, I gave him even 2 other camera references that where running on sites I did not even own. I GAVE UP! NOW, if we are talking POLICY: There is many “External Links” on the Boracay Page TODAY that are just purely advertising. They are totally going against the guidelines BUT in the end it is always up to the editor. (SUPERSIDES POLICY) Let’s take a look at the links in the “External Links” Section ONLY: Link 1: Boracay travel guide from Wikivoyage – this link is understandable since I believe it’s owned by Wikipedia. Link 2: Boracay Official Tourism Website – This link goes to boracayisland.org which is owned by a PRIVATE person (Filipino) who lives on Boracay island. He made this site for a small Hotel/Resorts Association for the sole purpose of making money. He gets a commission of all sales from the site. Basically, a kick back from all hotels listed. Those hotels have to pay him to be listed and join the ASSOCIATION of hotels. This site is nowhere close to being the Boracay Official Tourism Website. It’s not even DOT certified. The official and ONLY official site is the DOT (Department of Tourism) site itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/‎ I know this for FACT because TravelOnline use to host boracayisland.org on our server. TravelOnline even use to receive all BORACAY inquires from that site. The owner has now gone solo. He is using .org site for commercial reasons. Why is this link even there. The site is NOT OFFICIAL but is rather a made up term by the owner and it provides nothing to the article but Travel Services that can be found on 100’s of sites. Link 3: Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet) – This link goes to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/philippines/the-visayas/boracay the corporation involved here is © 2014 Lonely Planet. All rights. Lonely planet is a travel agency/blogger site. You can buy room nights, tours in boracay , read stories, all sorts of stuff. This breaks ALL policies of external links because it adds NOTHING to the article but a travel agency/site advertisement. I at least provide a live camera streaming the Beach. I provide something that NO SITE can provide. Lonely planet provides nothing that 100 different sites could not provide. The Link 1 provides more than Lonely Planet. There even so bold as to put their name in the text to boot for name recognition. My Proposal: I propose the link in the “External Links” Section Boracay Beach Live TravelOnline Camera Or Boracay Beach Live Camera – TravelOnline

I also propose that it should be considered to have a webcam section under “MEDIA” below Local Radio Stations and Local Channel because this is a form of MEDIA and it is local. Honestly, what makes a radio station more special than a live camera? Media is Media! I provide something that is pertinent to the article that no other source in the world can provide. The other links in the External Links provide NOTHING that you could not find in any travel agency site. Think about it? If that is there than why can’t I have a page linking to TravelOnline as a Boracay Travel Reference? Makes no sense? I should be able to have my link there just based on the above and advertising sites already existing. What’s good for some – Must be good for all! Glade22 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014

TravelOnline Facebook with about 550,000 Fans. The Live camera I have been promoting and paying for since 2002. The camera cost about $15,000 dollars not to mention Bandwidth, router, fiber optic adaptors and I have a fiber optic internet line to the camera straight from Kalibo Cable. Popularity of the camera climbs every year and just recently EarthCam announced that my camera is the most popular camera in the world. The link, it's not really that important. I already own the number 1 spot for boracay camera or anything related to that in ALL search engines. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO SEE BORACAY! I spent so much to promote Boracay. I took this project and paid for it because the DOT could not afford. YES, I proposed this to the DOT and they loved it and had NO BUDGET. I PAID FOR EVERYTHING! Now, the reason for the link. I like Wikipedia!!!! It is in the number 1 position for the key word "BORACAY". This means people open it first and maybe they will find my camera on that page causing more viewers and more interest in Boracay. The whole purpose!!! More interest means more clients which means MORE Philippines Tourism. Thus, the camera will get people excited about Boracay then they will search the web for Boracay Packages and hopefully find me. (THIS GOES FOR ALL TOPICS on the Boracay page = read = excitement = they want to go there! I am number 1 in ALL search engines for the key word "Boracay Packages". Anyways, the goal of DOT and I was to get people to the Philippines and your link or special NOTATIONS or its own section would be helpful in that matter. This is Truly a notable addition to your page!!! This is better than a thousand pictures on a encyclopedia page. This is real time action! Real time weather! Real time sound! I will even be installing a memory disk in the camera soon that will allow people to watch day time action at night when its dark so that USA and other countries can enjoy the view of the beach too. Please put some thought into this! Thank You (Glade22 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC))Glade22

:As I said at Talk:Boracay#Live Webcams in Boracay, I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about this. Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

***Ok, you do not wish to discuss this WHY? Let us examine your exact words: Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. NOW, if that is the case, then why are you promoting many travel agencies on the page? MANY! Going against policy of wikipedia using the exact policy references you gave me. The live camera at its bare minimum is considered MEDIA. However, you choose not to even mention its existence at all even without a link. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.

Can you please give me the name or email of who you report too for further unbiased discussions. It is clearly obvious that there is favoritism on this Boracay page as you being a local at Boracay and editor. I can name many boracay travel agencies that you are linking to on this page that are Island based. I too have been here for 20 years and know everyone and every company in Boracay. I am sure I even know you. I definitely know I can find you to discuss this in person if you like. I dont mind having a coffee there at DMall or Starbucks to understand your views. I dont understand why you hate the camera and are so against it. Like I said, it does not make sense. Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22

****Does anyone know how to contact a higher authority than Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill or how I can report misconduct of an editor? I have opened a discussion on the topic "Boracay Live WebCams" and he refuses to discuss this infront of everyone and says, "Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site". However, it is clear to see in the Boracay Page that he is contradicting himself because there are so many links to travel agencies up and down the page. It seems that it is not OK to have a camera under say MEDIA with a link to the camera that actually shows boracay beach live and with live sound but ok to have links to travel agencies, radio station and TV stations. This to me is inconceivable? He says one thing and does another! What kind of editor is he?

• What does Lonely planet (Travel Agency) have to do with Boracay. Its a travel agency! What does Lonely Planet sales and room packages have to do with encyclopedia? (there are more than 2 links to that)I found another 35. ^ "Philippines : Weather". Lonely Planet (travel guidebook). There is 2 links here Philippines : Weather link going to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/philippines/weather where their selling rooms and airfare. The link next to it "Lonely Planet" link too https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lonely_Planet which links back to Lonely Planet which again is selling rooms and airfare. They have many links on this page which would lead people to see a connection/association with the editor.
  • Boracayisland.org link claiming to be the OFFICIAL Boracay Tourism Site. say what? The only official Boracay Tourism site is DOT Department of Tourism. Boracayisland.org is an association of Resorts and Hotels with one goal on the site----sell rooms/advertise Rooms----Now what does advertising rooms have to do with encyclopedia?

---another Boracayisland link slipped onto the page slick like 26. History & Geography | Boracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism SiteBoracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism Site -- going to who else: http://www.boracayisland.org/?page_id=18 What does a travel agency have to do with encyclopedia? Boracayisland.org is hiding many links on the page. Why? well, He is a island local and Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill is an island local. (in cahoots I would think)

• • • http://www.exploreiloilo.com/guide/boracay-philippines/ there is a anchor link "Boracay Philippines" that goes to a ililo travel agency website selling rooms and packages for Boracay. What does that have to do with encyclopedia?

Anyway, just a few contradictions - there is more.

I propose Live Cameras be added under MEDIA with radio stations and cable providers. They dont even have Kalibo cable there as a huge cable provider on the island. THE VERY LEAST - "External Links" Yes, TravelOnline is a Travel Agency (just like the other links on the Boracay Page) TravelOnline provides first hand LIVE viewing of Boracay Beach with sound. The other travel agency pages just provide rooms and airfare on their links from this Boracay page------atleast I offer MEDIA of Boracay. (ACTUAL)I say to the editor of this page - what is more encyclopedia than actual live footage. This page is about BORACaY!!! What is more Boracay than a joint effort between DOT and TravelOnline creating a LIVE Camera to increase tourism and awareness of BORACAY! Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill has always been a attacker of TravelOnline and is a hater who is bias which has been reflected many times in the past in his Trip Advisory post where he always attacked TravelOnline. Just my observation and personal view. I am in no way mad or in anyway trying to hurt Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill. I just think that if you are going to be a editor/journalist than be even and fair without contradictions and favoritism. That is why I suggest that there be a LIVE Camera section under media (TravelOnline Camera not being the only one) or remove ALL External links leaving wikipedia Boracay Page to be 100% fair to all and follow policy without question. I dont think an editor should allow some links and not others. It should be 1 way or another ---links or no links! (By the ways, links are allowed under policy but at the discretion of the editor. However, it needs to be fair! The editor is telling me no travel promotion then allowing travel promotion????? (Need Higher Authority) Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22

*** FYI - as the editor you should look at this because your breaking its policies - Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and even Wikipedia:Edit warring - You wont discuss or even consider any way but your own thus breaking the above mentioned policies. You can read in this talk page how people consider you like a tyrant of the page. When someone makes a change you immediately erase it and revert it back to your style and no other style or additions but your own. I have seen you run this page for many years and your style makes this page unappealing with stale information.

• • Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. You opposed my change so you must provide educational reasoning. The Boracay Page must be FREE of contradictions to prove your point/reasoning.

Is this the proper venue to report an issue/Editor? Edit war/3RR noticeboard Glade22 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22

• I don't think the link should be included, mainly per WP:ELNO#5. There is an obscene ammount of advertising on that page. While I have no opinion on the camera itself, linking to that level of promotion is a disservice to our readers. Ishdarian 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boracay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060902183323/http://www.census.gov.ph//census2000/p060400.html to http://www.census.gov.ph/census2000/p060400.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External Link/ Reference Population

Link has been replaced but where can I find there the population data of Baracay? There is no entry for Baracay in the link!? --Clever Clog (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Endangered species

I've just reverted this edit, which had an edit summary (ES) saying "The island is more famous for its critically endangered hawksbill turtle nesting sites than for being just another white sand beach." The edit had added unsupported content saying that Boracay is one of the Philippines few nesting sites for the Indo-Pacific hawksbill sea turtle, a critically endangered sea turtle in the Indo-Pacific Oceans and the Atlantic Ocean. The ES of that reverted edit overstated the relative notability, I think, but perhaps that content might be added to the article in a section focused on Boracay and endangered species. A quick search for sources turned up

• This 2013 WSJ article which mentions hawksbill turtles and fruit bats in relation to Boracay tourism.
• Numerous other sources mention boracay and endangered turtles.
• This 2012 PDI article says, "Boracay Island’s endangered fruit bats, the flying foxes, are in danger of completely disappearing as their numbers are rapidly declining because of several factors, among them the construction frenzy on the world famous resort island, according to a conservation group."
• Numerous other sources mention Boracay and endangered bats.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boracay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010190715/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net:80/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20081008-165365/SC-affirms-Proclamation-1064-on-Boracay to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20081008-165365/SC-affirms-Proclamation-1064-on-Boracay
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060800/http://www.tourism.gov.ph/Pages/20130504Boracayestablishmentsheedthecallforvoluntaryredevelopment.aspx/ to http://www.tourism.gov.ph/Pages/20130504Boracayestablishmentsheedthecallforvoluntaryredevelopment.aspx/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.grahammarshgolfdesign.com/project-details.php?id_pro=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601034840/http://proteus-sports.com:80/products_awt.html to http://www.proteus-sports.com/products_awt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100121155512/http://www.cnngo.com:80/explorations/none/boracay-funboard-52-weekends-231035 to http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/boracay-funboard-52-weekends-231035

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boracay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011082522/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/167707.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/167707.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817100812/http://www.grahammarshgolfdesign.com/ to http://www.grahammarshgolfdesign.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Relative likelihood of typhoons in Amihan vs Habagat

This edit caught my eye. The edit changed an assertion saying that typhoons are more likely during Amihan to say that they are more likely during Habagat. The supporting source citation was not changed. The cited supporting source is a depiction of typhoon tracks grouped by month covering the years from 1951 to some unspecified later year. To my eye, it shows the likely typhoon months as July through October (this Lonely Planet source supports that, though the article does not cite it). The article asserts separately that the Habagat season begins sometime in October. To my mind, this suggests that typhoons are more likely in Amihan (3.somethng months of risk vs. 0.something months). This is pretty sketchy, though, and requires lots of interpretation either way.

Yves Boquet (2017), The Philippine Archipelago, Springer, pp. 47, ISBN 978-3-319-51926-5 says, "... Amihan patterns usually prevent typhoons from reaching north to Luzon, that is why if there are typhoons during this time, they occur mostly in the southern islands and usually the typhoon tracks westward in a straight line, hitting Vietnam after crossing though the Philippines, while in time of Habagat, many typhoons tend to veer towards Japan, following the general movement of air masses." That seems to favor Amihan for typhoon likelihood for Boracay, though it doesn't seem to agree with the typhoon tracks depicted in the source which the article currently cites.

This seems to need rewording and/or better support for whatever assertion the article makes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Closed for six months?

Reports have the whole island being closed by the national government for six months starting April 26th, to clean up horrendous pollution problems.

See voy:Talk:Boracay#Sewage_&_other_problems for discussion & links. Pashley (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

See Boracay# 2018 closure and 2018 Boracay closure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Contributed at the discussion at WikivoyageHariboneagle927 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Intro reads like a tourism add

awards, top this, top that... ShadessKB (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Time to move the closure paragraph out of the lead

I think it's time to move the closure paragraph out of the lead; while it was a major disruption in the life of the island at the time, it is now essentially a footnote in the island's history. The subheading covering it ought to be enough - no need to keep it in the lead. It's probably much more important to discuss indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation on the island. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. The closure is just history now. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Oct 2023 unsupported POV changes undone

Here, I've WP:BOLDly done a mass reversion of a series of edits because they appear to include a number of unsupported (but possibly supportable) bits of political POV assertions -- including one recent less bold edit of mine that had reverted one such previous edit. Some of the reverted material does not contain such apparent political POV assertions and probably ought to be given a second look. I question whether the focus on these political matters, whether supportable or not, is particularly relevant to the topic of this article or appropriate here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Lots of fake sources and bad information

This page needs a thorough review. Some information on etymology needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Also someone also referred to Willie Revillame as the president, presumably as a joke. 24.90.3.141 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It was childish vandalism. See [1]. Children will be children. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of the name "Bora" locally

At the beginning of the article it is said that Local refer to the island as "Bora" as a form of shorthand or slang. Having spent most of my life living locally, Malay and for some time on the island itself. Bora is not something locals typically call it, infact it appears to have originated a "Tourist Slang". In a recent visit to the island I held a lengthy discussion with a local who had a sign at their store front saying "Respect our heritage, it doesn't cost you anything to call it Boracay, not Bora." (Paraphrased) I intend on removing the segment that claims "Bora" is a "Local term". It is neither Local, or accepted Locally, not by the Visayans, or the Native population of Ati who previously owned the island and still hold rights to it. Smores007 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thankfully I was able to find sources about these and along the way educated myself on this. Its a name more common among outsiders. The question is should we include it in the lead since it is still a common nickname for the island. Although I changed it to exonym to reflect the situation better.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I found a news article that it might be useful to mention and cite in the article:

• "Aquino goofs, calls Boracay by nickname hated by locals". Philippine Daily Inquirer. June 25, 2011..

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, though its already included in etymology section or is there a better place to mention the "Bora" issue? Though I'm not keen to create a separate "Controversy" section as per WP:CSECTION as much as possible Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)