This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from (including jeepney and cyberlibel) other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

Is there a second Panay which is part of Catanduanes Province. I found something like this via Google. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the old name Panama island? I see this name in old latin maps of the Philippines--Jondel 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Different languages have different names for places (Espana v. Spain, Vienna v. Wien). Could this just be an example? I think that unless there is an English reference to "Panama" or perhaps Spanish we can safely exclude such a reference in this article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

From WP:RM:

• Panay Island → Panay — "Panay" most commonly applies to the island in the Western Visayas so it should be used there, as in the case of Philippine. —23prootie 06:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Incomplete (and that dablink is really long). Dekimasuよ! 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Panay (disambiguation) should be used on the disambiguation page instead of the name "Panay" only to specify it is a disambiguation page and the dablink can be shorthened since some of those links are found in the article.23prootie 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no need for a disambiguation page to have a title ending in " (disambiguation)". That is only necessary when the page without that ending is already occupied by another article. --Stemonitis 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but why should the disambiguation page be the one to use the name "Panay" instead of the island, when most of the articles there have names derived from the island's name. Also Panay is a major island in the Philippines, and therefore do not use the word "island" in their names unless there is an associated city, town or province (i.e. Luzon, Mindanao, Boracay, Corregidor, Cebu (island), Samar (island))--23prootie 07:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agree with 23prootie that the current Panay dab page should be moved to Panay (disambiguation) while the article Panay Island should occupy the unqualified title. --Polaron | Talk 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

After skimming over all the links currently at Panay, I'd tend to agree now (although I objected at Talk:Mactan): all the toponyms are on or around the island, and USS Panay is named after the island, and Panay incident is named after one of those ships. The island seems to be the first and primary use. Duja► 14:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lead seems to be seriously unbalanced, with far too much detailed history that should be elsewhere in the article.SovalValtos (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Archaeology2There is a large section with just one reference to a book (Coutts). Cits are needed. Is there a chance of copyright violation of the book? The caves section also seems out of proportion to that of the other sections. Might it be better as a stand alone article? SovalValtos (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed most of the mentions of the [Madja-as] and [Srivijaya] as these statements are considered original research WP:OR and dubious claims so that the article can better adhere better to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Please see the following talk pages for more discussions: Talk:Madja-as Talk:Visayans#The_Sri_Vijayan_nonsense Chicbicyclist (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why is the introductory photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay#/media/File:Panay.svg) of the article shows Estonian characters used on it? Seems unusual... :) Alcohkid (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Flagged for AI, info: This 2023 edit, possibly others by this user; note WP:AISIGNS e.g. undue emphasis on significance, promotionality, vocab distro typical of 2023-24 LLM text, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Removed. CMD (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply