Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Currently, it is "Member - Start - End - Congress - Party - Electoral history - Constituent LGUs". I'm proposing to change it to "Member - Start - End - Party - Electoral history - Congress - Constituent LGUs". Reasons:

• Party should be close to the name as possible
• Electoral history should be appear together with Congress.
• Another option: Start & end could appear together with electoral history and Congress; if this is the case, it's after the party, therefore, it'll be "Member - Party - Start - End - Electoral history - Congress - Constituent LGUs".
• Denoting vacancies is currently awkward in the current setup. Changing the order of columns will resolve that.

There are 200+ congressional districts currently, and around 50+ defunct ones, and I dunno if all articles are made by now. Since this will affect hundreds of articles, and that we have settled on the current setup, a discussion like this is warranted. Ultimately, this is also how other government position lists should be handled, but that's for another day. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just reverted an IP edit that removed what can be said to be historical media circuses and replaced them with completely recent events, but doesn't appear to have been a center of much hype and attached sources might not say so. Looks like this might benefit from sources that describe those events as such in the heading TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I will try finding sources stating such events are media circuses, and delete them from the list if no sources are available. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

After searching for reliable sources for the events listed there, I had difficulty finding sources stating such events are media circuses or sensationalized (unsurprising since the media probably might not want to place itself in a bad light). I was able to use two better sources (for Manila hostage crisis and Christine Dacera death). Maybe others can help in trimming that list or finding better sources. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I support this change. Assessing articles are quite the hassle especially if you're doing it for several wikiprojects. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it does sound good. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I note with some interest that some editors have begun adding "Sr." to the name of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., which is not wrong in itself, but to my knowledge does not yet have a standard style on Wikipedia based on consensus. Most of the time, he's still just called Ferdinand Marcos. I suggest we decide on a standard style here, before this gets confusing. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

When distinguishing from his son, and we're not using "Bongbong", most people suffix "Sr." (first choice), or use the middle name Edralin (second choice). I'd agree the father is "the Ferdinand Marcos", and the son is either "Bongbong Marcos" or "Ferdinand Marcos Jr." Howard the Duck (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that MOS:SR says, "Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.". However, MOS:SAMESURNAME says, "Individuals distinguished with a generational suffix can be written about in Forename Suffix style to disambiguate from other family members in the same article: William Sr., John Jnr, James III. No comma is used in these short constructions.". WP:IAR (a WP:POLICY says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". My take on that is that we should do what makes sense to avoid confusing general readers. For consistancy re the Marcoses, there should probably be some guidance on this in MOS:PH. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ferdinand Marcos" is the father. The son is never almost never referred to as "Ferdinand Marcos" (some foreign media may, though). I dunno how confusing can this be. If we are talking about these two people in the same article, it is best to distinguish the father as "Ferdinand Sr", "the father", "the elder Marcos", etc. It does get confusing if you'd have to discuss the entire Marcos family as several members are notable in their own right. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with having the suffixes when the two are discussed in an article together. Otherwise, stick with Ferdinand Marcos for articles that discusses the father. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist rebellion in the Philippines#Requested move 22 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

For context, that proposal is to help reduce confusion regarding the various Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines of which the New People's Army conflict is only one of several (the most notable of whom are now defunct, but is still at least one ongoing non-NPA conflict. All of the votes on the proposal thus far have suggested that the article is better moved to New People's Army "rebellion" rather than "conflict," and my understanding is that "NPA rebellion" is the new consensus currently being sought, in place of "NPA conflict." Comments would be very appreciated, since the present naming of the articles is confusing. Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of road articles using the PHLint template tend to have filled in data for the kilometers of certain intersections along the road. However, based on the DPWH Road and Bridge Inventory (direct link), it provides the location of kilometer markers but not the exact kilometers at any given point of the map.

Some examples of this can be found in the intersections tables of Aspiras–Palispis Highway and EDSA where there are kilometer numbers in decimals and for intersections not precisely located at kilometer markers. Does anyone know what's the basis of those and how would I be able to compute them? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians.

I figured that some members of WikiProject Philippines might want to help contribute to the proposed WikiProject.

Let me know if you are interested!

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I welcome improvements to this newly created entry for drag performer Xilhouete. More specifically, I'm hoping editors here might be able to add early life and education details. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asin–Nangalisan–San Pascual Road#Requested move 5 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I've opened a couple of discussions regarding including the Philippines on linguistic maps of Spanish, largely stemming from the work put into bringing back the article on Philippine Spanish. For those who would like to join in the discussion, you may do so in the following places:

• English: Talk:Spanish language#Adding the Philippines to isoglosses of Spanish
• español: Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Propuestas/Actual#Inclusión de Filipinas en las isoglosas del español

Input from interested Filipino editors would be deeply appreciated. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This may be a dumb question, but was the city of Manila ever part of a region (perhaps Southern Tagalog, since it was the closest) prior to the creation of the National Capital Region (NCR)? If so, when Metro Manila was carved out of the province of Rizal in 1975, was it still part of Southern Tagalog (since it has yet to be designated as the NCR)?

Another thing, a line from the Metro Manila article says On November 7, 1975, Metro Manila was formally established through Presidential Decree No. 824. The Metropolitan Manila Commission was also created to manage the region (take note that it says region); however, it wasn't until 1978 when Metro Manila became a region. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment on 2nd paragraph: "to manage the region" must be changed to "to manage the metropolitan area". Page xix of the 1975 Census says PD 824 created "Metropolitan Manila" as a "public corporation"; it also refers to Metropolitan Manila as a "metropolitan area" and not a "region".

—Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Interestingly, the map on page 4 (of the PDF) shows an uncarved province of Rizal. I'm not sure if the National Census and Statistics Office forgot to update the map or if Metro Manila was technically still part of Rizal (and Bulacan) until 1978. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Before PD 879 was signed in 1976, Metropolitan Manila had been under "Region No. 4" (Southern Tagalog) under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. When PD 879 divided Region No. 4 into two ("Region No. 4" and "Region No. 4-A") in 1976, Metropolitan Manila remained under "Region 4". Probably it remained under Region 4 until NCR was created under PD 1396 in 1978. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This explains why most of Metro Manila was still part of Rizal on the Philippine map in the 1975 census report. Besides that, a statement in the report says Except for Valenzuela in Bulacan, all 12 municipalities are within the provincial jurisdiction of Rizal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This obscure page somewhat caught my attention, but this appears to need much cleanup. Looks like more of some academic project (essay or thesis) than an article (the article is even in title case, so I moved it). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We could begin by deleting the outdated statistics tables. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work. The article's tone is uncyclopedic. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

For context, this and a number of adjacent articles were written by Ateneo de Manila students as part of their Economics classes. If you see that they need work, I would recommend that we work on them. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That explains the essay-like article. Should that be put somewhere in the talk page? You're welcome to work on it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: That being an academic project should have been disclosed in the first place. User who written the article (User:Sunshinestonight) should have done a similar disclosure. Would like to know why there's no talk page notice posted. Also the article looks like it's an orphan (not linked to most other articles).

TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know these articles date back from ~10 years ago. While academic projects don't pose an inherent conflict of interest as they were written for a grade (no money involved), and the students were supervised by an instructor who would be an expert in the article's subject matter, I don't expect them to be totally versed in Wikipedia policy. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

After her resignation from Lakas, should she be considered an independent politician? She is still a member of the HNP regional party. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 10:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If she is still a member of HNP she should be listed accordingly, as far as I'm concerned. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like perceptions is something missing with the article about Philippine English, especially common perceptions of it being a class symbol. The article is too much focused on vocab and pronunciation; the sociolinguistics of the language is also something worthy of discussion. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this something that has even been studied academically? Philippine Spanish has empirical data backing it up as being a class symbol; I presume it's been studied as well for Philippine English given that it's basically confirming what we already know to be true, but I wonder what has already been written about this that can be included in the article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In the case of perceptions missing in the article, I mean like the common perceptions about the language, especially speakers or its use (especially "straight"/acrolectal forms) being sometimes seen as sosyal. They may be found in academic sources, but these manifest a lot in pop culture.TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: Maybe that's a sociolinguistic aspect. Willing to work of that? We're missing info about how PH English is sometimes perceived, and its common association with formality and class. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

My current focus outside of my normal topic areas at the moment is improving our coverage of Spanish in the Philippines, since I find that to be sorely lacking and incomplete. It also doesn't help that we perpetuate this idea, inadvertently or deliberately, that the language is dead when it isn't, perhaps because we don't have access to sources – sources that now we have access to because I happen to be in a place where, obviously, it's studied extensively and because, as far as I know, I'm one of only a handful of Filipino Wikipedians who can speak the language. Updating that for me is far more pressing at the moment than working on our coverage of English in the Philippines, where sources are far more easily accessible. That said, here are a few journal articles which I found that address the topic if you want to take a crack at it:

• "Philippine English and the attitudes and perceptions of college students", published by four PUP Manila students in the International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics
• "Inventing Postcolonial Elites: Race, Language, Mix, Excess" by Angela Reyes of CUNY, published in the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
• "Ontology of Fake: Discerning the Philippine Elite", also by Angela Reyes and published in Signs and Society (this one apparently discusses how people can tell "real" elites from "fake" ones, of which English usage is part of that from what I've gleaned so far)

I imagine there is more literature out there and while I can help with finding sources, you are more than welcome to touch it given where my current priorities are. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A new map from the LRTA has emerged, showing LRT-1 as green, LRT-2 as purple, MRT-3 as blue, and MRT-7 as red. I think we should update LRT 2 and MRT 3 to reflect these new colors. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 09:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since LRTA is an official source and the current owner and operator of the LRT-2, then I agree that this should signify that the LRT Line 2 article and any references to LRT-2 should be using the purple color. However, I'm not sure about applying this to the MRT Line 3 article and references to it since the same map is not being used on the MRT-3. Although, DOTr-MRT3 does primarily use blue on its branding and on socmed, with only limited references to its yellow color. So for me, that's a strong yes for LRT-2 and a weak yes for MRT-3. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I am very inclined to follow the LRTA's recommendations, but is there an active MRT-3 map available somewhere? (Also, what happened to the discussion we had over how to name lines; now I see "LRT Line 2" is the title for LRT-2 contrary to the discussion we had three years ago?!) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There is an included map on the brochure on the MRT-3's website, although I'm not certain when it was last updated. Not sure if there are more updated maps within MRT-3 stations. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 10:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The brochure makes mention of face masks but not face shields so it must have been released around 2020 or 2022 (considering face shields were mandatory for roughly the entirety of 2021). It's also interesting that the line colors are way more different; LRT-1 is yellow, LRT-2 is blue, and MRT-3 is...green?

To confirm, the About page where the brochure is posted at on the Wayback Machine shows many different brochure versions. In some of them, LRT-1 was red, LRT-2 was blue, and MRT-3 was green.

If we base it on the earliest crawl of About page that shows the brochure you posted, it was on February 8, 2023. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've suggested re-titleing the Battle of Balangiga article as Balangiga massacre. If you have an opinion on that, please discuss at Talk:Battle of Balangiga § Title of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the text related to school year for primary/secondary reflects what was then during COVID (August to May). Maybe someone should update COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines#Education as well. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

IP users have been insisting SCTEx exit 88 is NLEx exit (following toll matrix), not Mabiga Interchange (as used on the overpass at the exit itself), and this has been going on for months. Should consider pending changes for the article, so to deter such changes. Other solution is to list both names: NLEx/Mabiga Interchange. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been working on Draft:Hori7on for months, and I would like to ask for advice on how I can further improve the article to have it transferred to the article space sooner. EdrianJustine (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think now that the group is closer to their "official" debut it has matured to the point where it should make sense to have an article on them so I don't see any further reason why it would be declined again. You've already cited way more reliable sources than I can muster for some local indie rock groups. I can see you worked hard on this draft so good job and good luck!

BTW, seeing as you have 5000+ edits already with extended confirmed permissions, in the future you can probably just use the Move tool to publish the article to main space yourself if you feel it already passes the notability criteria. PritongKandule-✉️📝 09:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and the feedback; I greatly appreciate it. EdrianJustine (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Much like how we're missing the sociolinguistic aspects of PH English (such as perceptions of class and status), I think we should be adding a section about opposing viewpoints regarding Taglish (with sources of course). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this concerns Filipino more than it concerns Taglish, relating also to the basis of the de jure national language. Some quick searching turned up some possibly useful sources: [1], [2], [3]. There's probably a lot more out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell My primary inspiration to suggest adding a section about criticism or opposition for Taglish (mostly from language educators or regulators) are the articles for Bahasa Rojak (Malay-English code-switching/slang). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I wasn't clear on that. Offhand, it seems to me that Taglish is more similar to what is called Business Rojak there than to Bhasa Rojak. I'm neither Filipino nor Malay, though, and that's an offhand opinion based on not very much. In any case, I don't think I have anything else to say here that might be useful. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that the majority of Filipino celebrity articles specifically tend to overload/overstate their occupations in their lead sentences with every possible permutation of their job as a "celebrity", violating the guidelines stipulated on MOS:OPENPARABIO/MOS:ROLEBIO. For example, a lot of people wrote "singer" and "dancer" not because they've recorded an album or are known as a career dancer, but simply because they probably sang and danced in ASAP a few times. Another common one is "model", because they posed for a clothing line or magazine covers, and "endorser" because they appeared in commercials and billboards. I'd argue these are all pretty standard work for most celebrities in the Philippines.

Some are easy enough to edit out, but where do we draw the line for some roles? Can an actor really be considered a singer because Star Magic made them record a sappy love song or two with a loveteam partner? Does being contractually obligated to dance in a variety show counts as being a professional "dancer"? What sets apart a "model" from an attractive actor? Is being a vlogger a valid occupation for someone already famous for being an actor? Is "endorser" even a real job?

Thoughts on this? PritongKandule-✉️📝 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything situationally specific on this, but I notte that the nutshell summary of WP:LEAD says, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Looking at that from the other direction, it seems reasonable to say a claim not weighty enough to merit expansion in a body section does not belong in the lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking into it more, it just seems there isn't an easy way to go about it except to go on a case-by-case. But having at least some mention of a role in the article body seems like a good enough justification for whether or not an role is a valid inclusion in the lede. I'll go start cleaning up some ledes when I have the time but if anyone objects to this just ping me. PritongKandule-✉️📝 06:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article about censorship in the Philippines has extensive history coverage, but doesn't go deep with details such as with:

• blurring/pixelization/grayscaling of objectionable content (nudity, blood and gore, cadavers of real people, middle finger gesture). It's covered in the pixelization article, but should also be discussed in the main article.
• avoidance in mentioning major brands in most news reporting (and also blurring of most video footage showing major brands, unless main subject)
• film bans, especially those that shown maps displaying the nine-dash line.

TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Added further content already. Problem with with sources. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus#Requested move 27 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I would like to ask if I can overwrite the PNG logo of Bataraza here to an SVG version, which I created a while ago here.

This is the PNG version of the logo:

File:Bataraza_Palawan.png

I am asking since I am taken aback by the clauses in the logo, and I don't know what to do. Thanks in advance!

Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 07:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot actually overwrite a file with another file of a different file format. You can upload the SVG file and then replace uses of the PNG file with the SVG file. —seav (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend uploading the seal on Commons. We should deprecate the uploading of non-architectural Philippine government works locally in favor of Commons since the seals are freely usable anyway. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just created an article for the recently-deceased Mario Dumaual (the ABS-CBN showbiz writer). I'm still working on it, but please feel free to add more information that I may have missed. Thanks! --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This list has been incomplete and outdated for some time. I found a source online that has the data, but is really tedious to do. It would be much appreciated if anyone can help out. Thanks! JETH888 (message) 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jeth888: I'd be willing to help out. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

List of tourist attractions in the Philippines contains a section "Schools, colleges and universities". I don't know which are tourist attractions there; many are labeled as "Historical Sites" but this doesn't automatically mean these are tourist attractions or visited by tourists. Should we delete that entire section? Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is not appropriate to be included there. Most of them are not even freely accessible by the public making no sense why it is considered as a tourist attraction even though some are considered as a “Historical site”. JETH888 (message) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless they are verified as tourist spots, I think they should be removed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the section. Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, historical sites aren't automatically tourist sites. I doubt that Camp Crame for example allows tourists with no official business with the PNP in. Not sure if they have a museum, which is accessible to the public, inside the premise though. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is a perennial question, but when should we use Filipino or Tagalog? Just stumbled upon Filipino at a place like storey, where I'm inclined toward linking to Tagalog instead if we consider Filipino and Tagalog the same thing setting aside political designations. Maybe this should be formalized in MOS:PHIL. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand more than a few words in any Philippine language but I think that in articles not focused on the Philippines )i.e., the one exampled) this should be considered from a perspective outside of the Philippines -- a more neutral POV. The "we" whose POV is being catered to should not be just Filipinos, but should be WP's target users. The section at issue in the exampled article focuses on the Philippines. IMO, in such situations, the name of the designated national language should be used unless there is some overriding factors such as timeline considerations or the impact of disputes which need clarification. When such overriding factors are present -- specifically in the case of the Philippines -- this should not be presented considering only two alternative languages or language designations if more than two alternative languages see significant usage in the country (i.e., the designated regional languages or the very numerous other languages spoken in the Philippines). That's how it seems to me, anyhow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC).

I look at it like this:

• If it has an air of "officiality" to it (so the name of a piece of infrastructure, for example), use "Filipino".
• If we talk about the language people speak, this was how I treated this subject in Languages spoken by presidents of the Philippines: the term "Filipino" appears only for Corazon Aquino and beyond, since that's when Filipino became a thing. For all presidents before her, I used "Tagalog".
• There may be cases where "Tagalog/Filipino" might be appropriate. The Philippines section in the storey article seems like one of those cases but it may be a bit clunky.

Unfortunately, there's no hard-and-fast rule for where "Tagalog" ends and where "Filipino" begins, but if we need at least one boundary we could at least use "Filipino" for anything involving government and anything that has an air of officiality as I said earlier. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Since his IP address has been blocked, I decided to raise his concern here (I hope he doesn't mind). Quoting JWilz12345's now deleted message: [I]s the list article List of proposed cities in the Philippines merit inclusion on Wikipedia? It is the very first list article on "proposed cities" on English Wikipedia, and almost all of sources used are primary sources (House Bills' pdf from House of Representatives of the Philippines). Per WP:PRIMARY, reliable secondary sources should be used in most cases. HueMan1 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of somehow replacing this with a list of all local plebiscites instead (maybe an expanded version of Hariboneagle927's Draft:List of cityhood plebiscites in the Philippines that includes all types of local plebiscites, such as renaming and HUC conversion plebiscites). HueMan1 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That list misses out the biggest plebiscite of all, the Novaliches cityhood plebiscite. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Head's up! There's an ongoing discussion on WP:GEOLAND to remove or restrict the presumed notability of legally-recognized populated places/settlements. This could potentially solve our perennial problem that barangays are presumed notable leading to almost permanent stub articles on barangays. Discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Deriving a wording proposal. —seav (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The recent When does a place become legal and allowed an article? discussion on that same talk page appears also relevant. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Barangays aren't "administrative units" but are full fledged political units (probably legally recognized, and perhaps even more so than that) with elected executives and assemblies. Now, if such places in the Philippines automatically do have Wikipedia articles is a very complicated question indeed. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So I was creating Category:Chairpersons of the Commission on Audit (Philippines), then there's this Category:Commissioners of constitutional commissions of the Philippines, and I figured, why not a category of commissioners for each commission?

Until I realize that "Commissioner of the Commission on Elections" sounds awkward. However, category names are pluralized, so "Commissioners of the Commission on Elections" doesn't sound that awkward. Of course common parlance refers to these people as "COMELEC commissioners" (COA and CSC are much less mainstream than the COMELEC, so the terms "COA commissioner" and "CSC commissioner" may not be as popular); how should these commissioner categories be named? Ultimately, if we're saying "COMELEC commissioner", we might as well WP:RM Commission on Elections (Philippines) to COMELEC. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm...probably "Commissioner of the Commission of ___"? To keep it consistent with the naming for the categories of the chairpersons. I'm partial towards the complete name instead of the acronym because I'm assuming that outside the Philippines, other readers won't know what COMELEC, CSC or COA stands for. (The necessary disclaimer: my grandfather is a former Commissioner of a constitutional commission.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... off the top of my head, "Commissioner of Elections." I haven't looked into pros vs. cons of this at all, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at Supreme Court cases and the common way the commissioners themselves are addressed are "Commissioner of (position)", as evidenced in court cases involving the COA, the COMELEC, the CSC, the BI, the BOC and the BIR. That said, for the purpose of creating Wikipedia categories I would be fine with using "Commissioners of the (name of commission)" as the standard naming convention. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As a former National Government Agency employee, I have to say "[a/the ]Commissioner of the (name of commission)" is not actually that uncommon. "(Name of commission) commissioner" is common largely because of media coverage, where there's a premium on space. (Although of course the most common usage is "Commissioner NAME of the (name of commission)." - Batongmalake (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I've created Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Elections (Philippines) and Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (Philippines). I haven't created the CSC counterpart as we don't have articles for any of the commissioners. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I*n discussion here, I observed that articles related to the Philippine Revolution, the Philippine theater of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War seem to tend to flout instructions in the docs for template:infobox military conflict saying that the commander paramatrers are optional and, , "For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." Besides those linked articles, I also mentioned the OEF-P article. Perhaps this needs some project-level thought and guidance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Since most COVID-19 protocols and mandates have been relaxed or have been completely abolished, I noticed there are some articles where editors are removing all mentions of the COVID-19 protocols previously in place such as on the MRT-3 article and the Manila Light Rail Transit System article. Should these be retained in a shorter form or is it in agreement to remove all traces of it like that? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support trimming of articles. I think it's too detailed so maybe a mention. I would even suggest merging the info in Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic where it would make more sense for our readers. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the info still deserves a mention; maybe incorporate it under History sections, but summarized like what Lenticel said. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment I think that in most cases, some of this information will be important to preserve, if they are relevant to future emergencies and pandemics, or if they otherwise shape the way the subject is approached. For example, a quick mention of the protocols implemented on the LRT, or a summary of the pandemic response of the Pasig LGU, ought to be preserved. These are both historically significant and useful for decision makers and the general public. - Batongmalake (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On the main project page, the tab for requests for Philippine-related articles, media, or templates currently displays "Requested articles." This label might suggest that the tab is exclusively for article requests, while in reality, it covers all the previously mentioned types of requests. Is there a specific reasoning for that or can we change it to be more suited for its page?

Regarding the media request section, it could be beneficial to find a way to incorporate other requests for the same Philippine-related articles, such as those that are in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Philippines or Category:Wikipedia requested maps in the Philippines, to ensure they are also appropriately addressed. JETH888 (message) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we could make it as its own tab to better reflect this. Do you suggest the tab being called "Requests" or is there a better way or wording it? I was thinking of naming it simply as "Requests" but it sound ambiguous. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It might sound ambiguous, but it is more appropriate and less misleading because it serves as an umbrella term for different requests, not just articles. Since there are no other objections against it, I believe we have reached a consensus, and I will proceed with renaming the tab.

As for my other concern, do you have any thoughts or opinions about it? JETH888 (message) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I think it would be a good idea too. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in the Philippines needs massive cleanup and reorganizing. I was thinking of removing the columns Developer, Remarks, and Image, as it is just too much detail for a list article. We can also place the source(s) in a separate column like in a streamlined table format such as List of shopping malls in India. What are your thoughts on this proposal? How can we further improve the list? Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If we remove the columns stated above, for sections that will contain only the mall name, city/municipality, and province, we can emulate List of shopping malls in the United States to convert the affected table(s) into a simple list. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. It would also be useful for tracking the usage of Facebook and Twitter sources which we've often had to resort to due to a lot of official entities in the country preferring to post there rather than on official websites. I'll wait for others to comment but I so far support endorsement. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds neat --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tambayan, would you like to request access to this bot? I can put WP:PINOY there. Thanks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Would be great. Although it seems like we should ideally recommend a scope of article categories to focus on. What can we include? Maybe we could use the higher Importance class level articles for starters. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that article range. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I'd like to have three of the latest articles I created and assessed (Camp Nakar, Camp Capinpin and Jose Marco) to be reviewed so that it could appear to more users on Wiki. I made them roughly the same time as Camp dela Cruz (which was the only one which passed the review that day). Thanks so much! Borgenland (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies it turns out I was supposed to mean Page Curation. Borgenland (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the National Democracy (Philippines)? So far I've de-buzzed several Philippine articles save this one. I really don't want to be embroilled in political stuff but you might be interested in taking a stab on it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• It appears to be tagbombed, to be honest. There are several links to Leninism, yet it is listed under Maoism/China politics, which doesn't make sense. There isn't that much original material, I'm thinking it would be better to just redirect it to Communist Party of the Philippines, which covers the topic better than this article does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fine with a redirect. Actually I want to WP:BLOWITUP if a redirect is out of the question. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At a quick look, the article seems fine. It outlines well the article subject. None of the tags are explained on the talk page, so I'd say it would be best to just remove them. --Soman (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The tags aren't very helpful, but neither is the article at this point. For the most part, it gives a WP:DICDEF of National Democracy, then just copies what is in the CPP article. It's more of a bad fork. And that doesn't change the fact that it appears to be incorrectly linked to Maoism, which is a weaker association than Leninism. Maybe a good article could be written, but this isn't it. It just isn't as useful as the parent article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Philippine musical instruments#Requested move 22 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 00:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

maybe someone can look into adding the updated official designation of Maharlika Highway onto our Route 1 article. DPWH just had a recent order that have redefined it to Route 1 down from Lal-lo to Guiguinto, and Calamba to Zamboanga. previously, Maharlika Highway (or Daang Maharlika) was just for the route down from Lal-lo to Guiguinto and Muntinlupa to Davao (including those also named Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway, Cagayan Valley Road or Manila South Road). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Every city and municipality article has an "Economy" section, which is almost exclusively a graph of how poverty-stricken the area is. As much as possible, these should be reformatted as tables and we should stop using graphs moving forward, as that functionality is broken. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I have no idea how to fix those graphs but I agree that tables would be much nicer moving forward. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  These are on every municipality and some city articles. There more 1,000 articles such as this. Can a bot do this for us? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I hope so, or at least a bot that is able to tag the articles with this issue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, though not to remove graphs since it is likely to be fixed in the near future. It's good practice anyway to have the data shown in graphs also displayed on a table, as graphs can make the exact values harder to read and having tables provides a different way of viewing the data.

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been broken for months and I don't think a fix is in sight? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone around congressional categorization, and I've found some questions that have to be discussed first before doing something:

1. Our basic categorization for the Senate is via senatorial districts of the Philippines. I am thinking of having all senators elected at-large As Category:Members of the Senate of the Philippines elected at-large, but I'm asking you guys if that's a good idea.
2. Our basic categorization for the House of Representatives is via city and province for members elected via congressional districts, and per party for party-list members; we don't do via districts (except for above). From EDSA to around the turn of the millennium, we have representation via adjacent then-municipalities, for example, Legislative district of San Juan–Mandaluyong (these should really be moved to San Juan–Mandaluyong's at-large congressional district, but that's for another day). The sole remaining example is Legislative district of Taguig–Pateros. How should congressmen be categorized then? Should Ronaldo Zamora be categorized as a congressman both from Mandaluyong and San Juan? What shall we do with Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Pateros–Taguig and Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Taguig?
3. I have already cleared out Category:Members of the Senate of the Philippines, so all senators will be categorized either by district or per legislative term. Should we do the same for congressmen? I've looked at the US Congress example and they don't do this. Is categorization by province and city good enough?
4. How are members of the Philippine Assembly, National Assembly (Philippines) and Batasang Pambansa be treated? Should Philippine Assembly members that were not elected in the House of Representatives be included in for example, Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Ilocos Norte, or shall we create a separate Category:Members of the Philippine Assembly from Ilocos Norte, Category:Members of the National Assembly of the Philippines from Ilocos Norte and Category:Members of the Batasang Pambansa of the Philippines from Ilocos Norte? How about the Interim Batasang Pambansa, where representation was per region?

Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay with Items 1 and 2. For Item 3, probably not since precedent isn't there. Okay with Item 4. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be sure:

1. Okay with creating a category for senators elected at-large
2. Okay with Ronaldo Zamora being both as Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Mandaluyong and Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from San Juan.
3. Not okay with categorizing congressmen per legislative term.
4. Okay Creating separate Members of <legislature> from <place>.

Howard the Duck (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Sounds about right. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. We need other people stating their thoughts on this as categorization is a drawn out process, and renaming/recategorization is a chore. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been noticing a lot of edit-warring over flags in articles about historical revolutionary organizations in post-1896 Philippine history represented in their WP articles as sovereign countries (one example here). Besides wondering about WP:V in relation to this, I wonder whether it is appropriate for this project to adopt some standards relating to this.

In looking at the template docs, I noticed that the template docs describe some France-specific parameters. If there is a need (I don't think there is), perhaps representatives of this project should add a Usage re the Philippines clarification the template docs.

Note: without thinking about it much, I have changed {{infobox country}} to {{infobox former country}} in the exampled article.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Usually, the only "countries" pre-First Philippine Republic are its direct predecessors, with the Aguinaldo dictatorial government being the last one. Now, you can argue the Katipunan was the government, but where do you draw the line? Tejeros Convention? How about the The Republic of Kakarong de Sili? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not offhand -- it's something I've noticed in looking at articles showing activity on my watchlist; I think I've seen some back&forth changes in flags in infoboxes but I don't think those changes are identifiable in article histories except by version-by-version review. I'll keep this in mind and may raise it again here; it may be a false impression on my part but perhaps this mention will get more eyes out for it. Thanks for the response. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a question for those who are familiar with the 80's stars. Is the actress on the left Charito Solis? I'm familiar with Maricel Soriano since she's recognizable even with a more youthful face. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is Charito Solis. Loibird90 (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am currently writing a draft for an article entitled "Traffic law in the Philippines" which can be found on my sandbox. The article is somewhat patterned after the Traffic law in the United States and Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China articles and mainly intends to be an encompassing article on important aspects of land transportation and traffic laws in the Philippines.

So far I intend to add the following content:

• Brief sections and list of standard rules, including right-hand traffic, speed limits, seatbelt law, etc.
• Brief sections on the regulation of specific vehicles (motorcycles, trucks, PUVs, bicycles, etc.)
• Defining which vehicles and road users are covered under said laws
• Other aspects of road traffic law not already covered or those that are not suited to be in the Transportation in the Philippines, Transportation in Metro Manila, Anti-Distracted Driving Act, No Contact Apprehension Policy, and Driving license in the Philippines articles
• Laws related to Road signs in the Philippines and Cycling in the Philippines

Let me know if Tambayan has any suggestions on the scope and content of the article. Thank you! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A link to Number coding in Metro Manila would also be nice. Would have done it myself but I'm just not sure where's the best place to put it in that draft. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a section for number coding as somewhat of an excerpt for that article. I also expanded all the other sections further so I'm feeling ready to move it to article space. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the article to mainspace at Traffic law in the Philippines. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malolos Cathedral, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The article has recently been WP:TNT'd due to potential copypaste and poor citation. Editors with knowledge of Tagalog are requested to help with sourcing. Thank you! Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

99.9% of WP:RS about topics from the Philippines are in English. You won't find good enough Tagalog language sources that will pass WP:RS.

I suppose we should add this somewhere as foreigners insist on finding "local language" sources when us Filipinos that's much harder thing to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a list similar to WP:KO/RS and place a note somewhere on that page. HueMan1 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I previously raised this concern on the our discussion page. I'm interested in streamlining the organization of media requests. As a photographer, I'm keen to contribute images to articles lacking images. However, identifying such articles can be overwhelming. While categories like Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Philippines and Category:Wikipedia requested maps in the Philippines exist, they might not be easily navigable or discoverable for newcomers.

Even within Tambayan Philippines, our dedicated media request page features different requests. I propose exploring a more centralized approach to facilitate the discovery of articles in need of media content. This could benefit and attract more contributors interested in improving Wikipedia's visual content. JETH888 (message) 06:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This user seems to be in a conflict of interest. Please refer to Talk:Night Owl: Nationbuilder's Manual#COI tag (November 2023) for more details. Thanks. HueMan1 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see a unified Metrolink page. Despite the various sub-operators like NAIA, Malanday, Baclaran, Alabang, and Taguig, they are still controlled by one main company, and all wear a highlighter-green/yellow livery. PowerCarsAreJustLocomotives (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The translated 2023 Movement Charter drafts are found here.

  Buszmail (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm still really short of time, and the last few weeks have been busy, but this article really needs some updating with the latest. The last new entry was Feb 23 of this year, and we've obviously had a half dozen or more just in the last month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• [4] might be a worthwhile source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • You can also find the info at List of earthquakes in 2023. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Today I made some edits to the Philippines article, in the 1898 area of the Spanish and American colonial rule (1565–1946) section. After that, I took a look at the History of the Philippines article around the start of the Spanish and American colonial rule (1565–1946) section and at the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article around the start of the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) section. It stuck me that the summary-style transitions there are less than perfectly smooth and that the edits I had just done, though I think they were sensible in the context where I made them, didn't improve that. This is something that has been mothering me for quite a long time; it no doubt has a lot do do with the ad-hoc way WP articles are put together. I don't have the time or energy to take on improving that situation, and that would be more than a one-man job in any case. I don't have a vision for improving things in that regard, but thought I would mention this here in case others are interested. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(added) The substance of the edits I mentioned above that I added to the Philippines article probably ought to be in the Philippine–American War article, and I see that it is not mentioned there at all (should have read it more slowly. Actually, I probably added that at some point.). As I have time, I'll probably add it there and then start working backwards from there up the hierarchy of articles I mentioned above, working to pull relevant content downwards in Summary style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(added) I've begun work on this; see this edit. More eyes on this would be a good idea. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(added) I have not been able to get beyond that. I'm not really sure of the path to take from this point and I don't have the time available to devote to trying to figure that out. I've abandoned the effort. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice a lot in LGU articles that the "City/Municipality of X" is a common feature in LGU infoboxes. However as per the Template:Infobox settlement usage guidelines, the "official_name" field says "Avoid using official_name if it leads to redundancy with name and settlement_type."

Under this guideline:

• Manila would not have "City of Manila" again under the City field in the blue bar. (which I applied).
• "City of X", "Municipality of X", etc would most of the time redundant.
• Not sure if there is a situation that official_name would still be appropriate except for cities with adjectives (ie. Islamic City of Marawi)

Should we go ahead and remove all of the "Municipality/City of X"s. Should we still mention it in the lead if yes. (Manila, officially the City of Manila)

An international example would be "New York City" which is mentioned as "City of New York" on its official website (on official documents as well I presume) but City of New York is nowhere to be found on the New York City article.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, also on the use of adjectives, so we'd only be keeping the likes of "Island Garden City of Samal." Howard the Duck (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Only a handful of cities would merit having this parameter filled in, like Science City of Muñoz and Island Garden City of Samal. —seav (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A proposal that shall form the nucleus of a Philippine-specific reliable sources list is online and can be viewed in my sandbox. @HueMan1 and other interested contributors, you may want to check it out and provide relevant feedback in this thread. -Ian Lopez @ 17:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work! Although I'm leaning towards emulating Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources more, this is a good start. I would also suggest using sentence case in section headers since that is the standard. HueMan1 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added some university student publications and some regional media outlets to your proposal. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear as to what this page is for, exactly. There isn't an explanation on the page. Does it eventually seek to be a whitelist, and if so, what happens to pages that aren't in it, or aren't in it yet? And who decides what goes in and what does not? I fear that this will make the creation of new pages difficult, with sources rejected outright by overzealous new page patrollers who will inevitably argue that source credibility is questionable if the source is "not on the list." I note, for example, that bulatlat.com and verafiles are not on the list yet. Neither are, as far as I can tell, any NGO pages such as the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Bantayog ng mga Bayani, or Action for Economic Reforms, or Ibon Foundation. I fear a list with lots of inclusions, because inevitably it creates potential for a lot of exclusions. But perhaps this can be clarified by the proponent? Thanks. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Its overall goal is to collate and classify sources often used in articles linked to the Philippines and Filipinos similar to what other WikiProjects have done. I wouldn't call it a whiltelist but more of a recommendatory guide. As for Philippine- and Filipino-focused media outlets that aren't on that list, it would fall under "No consensus" (not yet classified as reliable or unreliable by the community) and I would add that clarification for certain new page patrollers who'd object to the inclusion of URLs coming from yet-to-be classified media entities. For Bulatlat, I would objectively classify it as an online-only national media outlet while Vera Files and some entities like the CMFR will be classified under niche outlets covering the media. Even though the initial scope of the proposal is mostly limited to publications based in the Philippines and/or have a focus on the country and its people, it does not limit the collation and classification of NGOs, advocacy groups, think tanks, pollsters and other websites in the said list though under different categories; I've also made some changes to the proposal in response to the points raised. -Ian Lopez @ 09:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Other notable student publications that IMHO should be included:

• The Philippine Collegian (UP Diliman)
• The Varsitarian (UST)
• The Guidon (ADMU)

--- Tito Pao (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that they were included under the "student publications" section on November 19. Speaking of student publications, I'll be adding more of them along with other media outlets in the coming days and weeks and hopefully move the content to a dedicated page (tentatively as Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Sources) by early January 2024. -Ian Lopez @ 15:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Finally, we need something like this. I'm too tired of having to respond to AfDs that look for Western/non-Filipino sources to justify a deletion.

By the way, I was thinking of something like this with regard to awards. I'll probably make one on my sandbox soon. It's time to put the small-time awards in their proper place (lol). I'll ping you about this soon. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as a second-generation Chinoy myself with some ability to communicate in Lahnang-oe, I've created Babel userboxes for Philippine Hokkien / Lahnang-oe. I hope this might be of interest to any Filipino-Chinese members of our community or those who are able to communicate with it!

The templates are available at the Userboxes list and the Babel list.

I did the translations with a friend while also using some dictionaries and papers I found, so hopefully I got the translations right. If there's any better choice of wording, just feel free and update them as needed!

Sources used:

• English-Hokkien Dictionary
• "Truly a Language of Our Own" A Corpus-Based, Experimental, and Variationist Account of Lánnang-uè in Manila
• English and Chinese Dictionary of the Amoy Dialect
• Chinese-English dictionary of the vernacular or spoken language of Amoy

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone may want to help add sources and info for the Philippines section of the Christmas music article, which I added a week ago. I don't have the energy to find sources and I'm hardly active here, but I have added skeletal info nonetheless as the article in its current state was largely dominated by Western music. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I can try. However, I'll be busy this weekend, so expect the sources if not by the 23rd, then definitely after Christmas. D-Flo27 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I created the new articles for Cedrick Juan (MMFF Best Actor for Gomburza) and Ronwaldo Martin (Coco's yougner brother and an award-winning actor in his own right) which are both stubs. But there's so much I can do on my own. Would appreciate some help adding more info and references to these two articles. Thanks in advance :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I am attempting to port the article Gaddang people to the tl.Wikipedia (Tagalog-language version). I am not strong speaker of the national version (Filipino), as I am likely to use Gaddang or Ilokano (or even Bahasa Indonesia) vocabulary. There are also issues to be resolved with links to articles in the much-smaller Tagalog site; as well as some features which are different. I have brought in a couple of Tagalog speakers who have experience editing and writing for print media, but could use an introduction to somebody who has both the language and Wikipedia experience. Ethnic laundry (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dom Justo Takayama#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Heart of Asia Channel original programming#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Felip (singer)#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vilma Santos-Recto#Requested move 14 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous move on procedural grounds. Can somebody close this discussion? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There are at least two sources that I assume reliable for a passage regarding the controversial first logo of Tahanang Pinakamasaya to be included in the article: from Bandera Inquirer and from Abante. Unfortunately, there is no coverage by media on what I considered as "silent" logo change to alleviate the controversy surrounding it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a minimum number of deaths necessary for a non-article disaster to be included? I added a landslide in 2024 in the Philippines that left 11 people dead. Personally, I usually consider an incident with at least 10 dead as notable. Borgenland (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: When reviewing, we usually use the golden rule: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This is the abridged version of the general notability guidelines. Philippine-related articles don't have a specific notability guideline, so the best guideline that applies here is the notability guideline for events. Usually, this means the event must have had a lasting impact and received widespread and lasting coverage. There's no minimum number of deaths for an event to be notable — we have articles on storms which killed no one and don't have articles on storms which killed a few. What matters is whether or not the event had a lasting impact or had widespread coverage. Chlod (say hi!) 03:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll leave it then to other editors whether the event should be retained or not. Borgenland (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: My bad, I completely misread and realized this was for a non-article entry. Yes, it's notable enough for inclusion as long as it's sourced correctly. WP:SOURCELIST has the proper information. Sorry for the confusion. Chlod (say hi!) 03:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Two rock solid sources are best, and it is always best if one of the sources is NOT local to the event, demonstrating the event has a long lasting reach beyond the province in which it took place. Not required, but if you have one local and one from another country, you are pretty much guaranteed the listing will last in the article as you have clearly proven it was noticed beyond the local borders. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABS-CBN News Channel#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Philippine political crisis#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, in light of the recent news that CNN Philippines is closing down due to serious financial losses, should we anticipate that the CNN Philippines website could be shut down as well?

Perhaps until there is confirmation and in with the likelihood of it happening with the closure on Wednesday, January 31, we should make sure that all or most articles using CNN Philippines as a source have Wayback Machine archives linked to their citations. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/01/29/24/cnn-philippines-announces-shutdown-amid-financial-woes

"It is with deep regret that the management of Nine Media Corporation (NMC) announces the discontinuation of its news and production operations on all media platforms, branded as CNN Philippines (CNNPH), effective 31 January 2024," it said.

The website might shut down on Wednesday :-/ All platforms daw.

Start archiving citations!

-Object404 (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the search box, we can try to get an estimate of how many articles/references are affected. As of writing, there are:

• 2,280 results for cnnphilippines.com, where 2,099 results do not have archive links.
• 113 results for cnn.ph, where 97 results do not have archive links.

Does anyone know if there might be a tool to archive citation links based on a specific source or keyword? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A bot can handle automatically placing archive links on citations. Requests for this is done at WP:URLREQ. Checking all links to cnnphilippines.com with the Internet Archive, there's around 80 links that still haven't been archived. Not sure if the bot can trigger archives on its own, but I can run those pages through Internet Archive tonight (in a few hours) for archiving if required. Chlod (say hi!) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do, if you can do it! Thank you! -Object404 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Following an email, I've been informed by the Archive Team that a crawl and archive was made a few days ago on the 27th, which should cover most of their articles. Status on the job can be found here, and the data is already on the Internet Archive for viewing.

It seems there's gaps though, which is expected. I'm in the process of archiving an additional 96 pages that are linked to on Wikipedia. Full list of the URLs being archived can be found here. It should be done in about 25 minutes. With both of these, we should be able to add archive links to all CNN Philippines links on the wiki. Chlod (say hi!) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like most of these have actually already been archived a long time ago. Odd that they showed up as having no archives. Good for us, though! Chlod (say hi!) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And just like that, CNN Philippines is gone :-( -Object404 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Terrible day for journalism; they were one of my favorite sources when writing. I've made a request at WP:URLREQ to mark the domain as dead so a bot can started adding archive links. So long, CNN PH. Chlod (say hi!) 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find a guide for defining congressional representatives? I have noticed that officeholders in congressional districts are sometimes marked vacant even if there are caretaker reps appointed to those districts. Likewise same with infoboxes of former reps. Borgenland (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Congressional vacancies should be treated as vacancies. Caretakers may be added in footnotes in congressional district articles, and by a brief mention in the prose of the vacating legislator, but should never be listed as a predecessor and successor in infoboxes, unless the caretaker wins an election.

There's a good Rappler reference on this in the Cavite special election article. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Timeline of the Philippine Revolution § Claim of being the first republic in asia. Please discuss there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to be a bearer of bad news, but I think we should start preparing notes for a possible article on the landslide. Appreciate also with help in expanding coverage on domestic mining companies. Borgenland (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ateneo de Manila was founded in 1859 but its history in the article only starts in 1969. I would like to make the expansion but I am unsure whether being an alumnus of said school counts as a COI, apart from making a few grammatical edits. Borgenland (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's a minor COI and won't preclude you from editing it, however, if others revert some of your edits for things like "puffery" or being promotional, I would strongly suggest you don't revert back in and use the talk page instead. Accept outside perspectives on these things, as it is sometimes difficult to be objective when we have an affinity for a topic. We all have COI with something or another, the key is how we manage it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I know y'all are busy doing your thing here, but I would like to invite y'all to join this background drive. In this drive, you just have to add at least one inline citation of a reliable source to any article tagged as lacking sources.

As of this week, according to Bambot's WikiProject Cleanup Listings, there are 460 Tambayan Philippines articles that don't cite any sources. That's a lot! I've added some sources to some articles, but there's a lot of work to be done. So I'm hoping to see that number go down.

Also, you get a badge when you add a source to at least one article. So that's cool. If you want to register, just click the link above and go to the Participants section. Thanks. D-Flo27 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

New barnstars/ badges are always nice. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

basically semi-retired here in WP, I'm thinking about the many missing articles about Filipino singers and music groups (esp. 80s and 90s). I'm also looking if we can form a dedicated subproject (aka task force) of Tambayan for Filipino music. Looking into having more articles about other popular Filipino singers and musical groups we are currently missing. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Some few singers and bands we are missing out, by decade:

• 70s: Mimi Baylon, Coritha
• 80s: Jam Morales, Odette Quesada
• 90s: Jerome Abalos, Jeremiah, Men Oppose, Gino Padilla, Rockstar, Lloyd Umali
• 2010s: Jireh Lim, Mark Carpio, Bugoy Drilon, Janine Teñoso

(please help with adding other candidate)

Hope someone can create articles for those sometime

Also hoping to have a task force for anything music-related, but then, I'll leave that to those interested in Filipino music and musicians. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Titopao, @Sanglahi86 maybe you can help with missing Filipino singer and band articles and setting up Pinoy music task force? I'm puzzled and disappointed with the lack of articles for those. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Already listed the missing artist and band articles to WP:Tambayan Philippines/Requests. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Any others editing PH music article? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Just created skeletal page for PH music task force at WP:Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine Music. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Will have a look at this from time to time :) Just wanted to now, we will definitely need a disambig between Mark Carpio (the pop singer) and Mark Anthony Carpio (the conductor of the Philippine Madrigal Singers). (Full disclaimer: I created the latter, and at the time I created it Mark Carpio the pop singer wasn't known yet.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Titopao I think missing articles about 70s, 80s and 90s pop artists and bands may be priorized. I'm not gen X, batang 80s/90s (maybe you are), but it's bad we don't have articles about them yet. Continuing to add further artists and bands we're missing.

Just to give an idea of why they deserve entries, here's a short list (with their most known songs):

• Jerome Abalos – "Pangako Sa'yo"
• Jeremiah – "Nanghihinayang"
• Jam Morales – "A Smile in Your Heart", "Even If"
• Men Oppose – "Kasalanan Ba", "Pag-ibig Ko sa Iyo'y Di Magbabago"
• Gino Padilla – "Closer You and I", "Gusto Kita"
• Rockstar - "Ika'y Mahal Pa Rin", "Sumpa"

TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, why we still don't have articles for such? i'm baffled. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at some of the pages, the others seems to have been deleted for a number of reasons (lack of sources, notability issues, very short stub articles, etc.), but I think we just need better research for those (maybe find reliable sources for older artists and bands). Sometimes the deletions smells of bias for me. For the recent ones, source is easy to find, but need ones that demonstrate notability. Hope the music task force can find reliable sources esp. for older artists and works. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound like rambling, but the lack of articles for a few notable Filipino musical acts (whether they rose to prominence before or since the Internet) acts sounds like we have an under-representation problem here. Coverage of acts from the Internet age is fine by me (except some gaps I mentioned, either uncreated or deleted), but pre-Internet ones are badly represented. Also it's reflective of a gap we have for coverage for music in the Global South. There are lots of articles for music and musicians from the West than of ours. We might had a lot more articles for acts we consider notable in PH in the past, but we saw a lot of them getting deleted or redirected. Maybe those deleted or redirected articles lack sources, have their notability questioned due to the lack of reliable sources (esp. true with acts from before the Internet age), or are hardly salvageable, but we should have the vigor to rewrite them better, with reliably-sourced information and encyclopedic tone.

I think we should have an initiative to improve our coverage in regard to PH music (particularly musicians). The beginning of a music task force is a good start, but there's a long way to go. This is not only with the creation of missing articles and recreation of previously ones with reliably-sourced content, we should also deal with stub expansion, adding sources and improving tone. You can thank me for setting up a task force for our music coverage, but I'll leave the work to the rest of you who are interested in the topic. I'll be still watching, more as a reader than an editor here. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I recently discovered a page titled Electoral process in the Philippines and saw that it needs improving. However,I am not sure if there is truly a need for it. May I ask for recommendations as to the next course of action? Regards, MistahPeemayer (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It should have been merged to Elections in the Philippines long ago. Trying to find where the merge proposal template is right now. Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Formally opened a merger discussion. Borgenland (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Voted. Thank you. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I just went BOLD and redirected it there. You can merge anything from the history. The article was completely unsourced, so there shouldn't be any controversy with redirecting it. Being a foreigner living in PH, I will probably avoid actually editing the article, as I avoid anything political as it relates to PH ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I blanked the history of Munai, Lanao del Norte because it was written in atrocious English and without a source, especially claiming that its residents are rebel supporters. Feel free to restore if anyone finds sources and is a good writer. Borgenland (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good call IMO. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone thinking of missing PH articles or PH articles needing attention to add under the Asia 10,000 Challenge? I would think of some of the many articles we currently have in the requests subpage, as well as my latest request for missing articles about musicians and bands. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Haven't been able to get back to the 10k challenge because of the unreferenced articles drive I'm on currently (and I'm happy to see its 20 articles away from reaching the 7k milestone). But if you're looking to add to the 10k, I recommend attempting to destub the many stubs associated with the Tambayan (or even start-class articles). If we could get improve them to at least C-class, they would be great additions to the 10k. D-Flo27 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you can start with these, and also add them to the music task force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filipino_musician_stubs D-Flo27 (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can contribute to Supreme Court Justices. Though a lot of them will be admittedly based on CVs from the SC website. Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the missing musical act articles, creating/recreating their articles should stop make me think about the apparent gap we have in coverage of PH pop culture (not just music) before the Internet age. Some of the acts that have no article yet such as of the likes of Castelo, Flippers, Rockstar and Men Oppose, etc., seem to have become "forgotten" acts for me because of lack of WP coverage. Maybe we have editors interested in creating articles for them, but they just don't have the effort or courage to create them. Well, reliable sources for PH pre-Internet pop culture are hard to come by unless you dig deeper into library collections, newspaper archive or whatever. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the missing music coverage, I think we should also get articles for some of the larger retailer chains that still don't have article. These may have Wikidata already due to the name suggestion index project for OSM, but it's also makes wonders why they aren't at WP yet. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to get some advice on this. I was thinking of writing in the ongoing issue of the photo of UST CISC students at a 7-11 branch that got censored by the UST admin into the University of Santo Tomas article. Problem is, I can't seem to find a suitable section to put it into, or if there is an article more suited for it.

I feel certain that the issue isn't significant enough to be its own article, which is why I intend on inserting it into an existing one instead. But the main UST article is quite long and comprehensive, and the recentism and weight of the issue (WP:BALASP) makes me question if it is suitable for inclusion into that article. For me, I think its sort of significant to UST history as there is online outrage, hundreds of students and alumni in protest, and a lot of news coverage (though hopefully not treading into media circus territory) since the issue is part of a wider problem (daw) of the UST admin censoring or oppressing their student organizations for years.

I'd just like a second opinion if the rules I cited are indeed applying to the issue and if there is a suitable place for it to be covered. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, it only deserves to be in a section. If you're up to it, try compiling a list of controversies involving the school (and hopefully inspire others to make respective articles on other major schools). Borgenland (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's substantial history of the UST admin oppressing student orgs (hopefully with additional examples and cases in past years), it'd probably be worth a subsection in History of the University of Santo Tomas § Modern history. I would hold off on placing it in the main UST article for now, while it's still a developing situation. Chlod (say hi!) 12:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks @Borgenland and @Chlod for the suggestions. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So, to my shock, I had no shortage of material to go through. The content is now live at History of the University_of Santo Tomas#Modern history as suggested. Let me know if the wording and POV are sound, or feel free to make edits as needed. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

(passing comment) This is outside of my topical interest areas, but it caught my eye. I took a look at this, and the introductory phrase, "In recent years" lept off the page at me. Please see WP:DATED, MOS:RELTIME, and WP:Recentism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the introductory phrase. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion about the section's introduction in the article's talk page, looking forward to the inputs and comments there. -Ian Lopez @ 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Need help finding reputable sources for when he died. An anonymous IP is currently imposing some random website that claims he died at 112 years, which would have made him older than Helena Benitez, officially the oldest ever senator at 102 years. Borgenland (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hard to find. I did find a court filing by him in 1910, showing he was still alive then. [5] from the Gazette. The only thing I saw showing he was 112 was an ancestry website, which it self is NOT WP:RS, although if you dig in, you may find docs that are RS (rare). I will poke around. Google Books is probably the best source, but the books all seem to cover the battle with the Americans, not his life afterwards. Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! One of the inline citations hint at him reaching World War II. And of course, there is his political career after 1910. Borgenland (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still a bit new to living in PH and learning the culture and history, but I'm discovering that most of the literature in this world focuses on the west, and it is hard to source a lot of things. I think the west was first to digitize stuff as well, so there is probably lots of information that is still tied up in book form and we aren't able to access via the web. It's tough. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Try the University of Michigan web library. It's one of the biggest depositories of data during the US occupation. Sending a sample in a short while. Borgenland (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Home page:

  • https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/

  Sample:

  • https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/akd7849.0001.001/95?q1=Singzon&view=image&size=100

  Borgenland (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

According to this editorial from the Manila Standard, there is a "well-research book" titled "The Local Historical Sources of Northern Mindanao" by Fr. Francisco Demetrio that recounts the "exploits of General Capistrano". It was published in 1995 and Google Books has a digitized copy but it isn't accessible. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The article appears to have been mostly recycled in a recent Standard article I cited. I'll try to find a physical copy of the book in school. Thanks for the tip! Borgenland (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't really help on knowing when he died, but Capistrano was still alive in early 1937 as per La Revolucion. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm letting this WikiProject know that there is currently a proposal to merge the Spanish East Indies article into the Captaincy General of the Philippines article at its talk page. Your participation in the discussion would be very appreciated. Thank you! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been death notices for the artist from the official social media accounts of the National Museum, NCCA and Ayala Museum since more than 12 hours ago. Any web source that could confirm this so that the proper changes could be made? Borgenland (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You can cite those social media accounts if he has really died, given that those institutions are government institutions and should be seen as fairly reliable. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Closure of ABS-CBN TV network#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

49.145.4.62 (sock of User:Yaysmay15), is wreaking havoc again now that their ban has expired. Need urgent help and action to prevent them from spoiling the credibility of Philippines-based users. Borgenland (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You can file it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I filed one last night. Lately I also reported two socks but were dismissed for being inactive. Borgenland (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "media circus" sock, since they're very fond of indiscriminately mass-tagging articles as media circus content lol Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Same IP is at it again, mass-tagging articles as media circus content Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That SPI case I filed is now taking too long. Any way they could be blocked on a long-term basis? Borgenland (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You might want to go to WP:ANI if the issue really persists but do note that that place is quite stressful sometimes. Same strategy as Sockpuppet investigations. You need to provide context, diffs and what you want done. There are similar cases there so I think they have a better idea on how to deal with these socks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the protocol for incidents involving OFWs? I am considering whether to add the deaths of seafarers in yesterday's Houthi attack in 2024 in the Philippines since they had the tragedy of being the first known maritime fatalities of the Houthi campaign but unsure if this qualifies outside Philippine territory. Borgenland (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated @TagaSanPedroAko's map of Metro Manila roads to include new roads and expressways since the map was last updated in 2016.

Changes:

• Organized borders and roads into folders and layers
• Splitted some roads and created distinct folders for segments belonging to the radial and circumferential roads
• Added the NLEX Connector, NLEX Harbor Link, Skyway Stage 3, and NAIA Expressway
• Added the C-5 South Extension
• Tweaks to background and outline colors

Also, based on @Howard the Duck's suggestion to include other major roads for the updated Radial and Circumferential Roads map, I will be using that map as the template for it, which is somewhat more accurate than my work lol.

Since the template map was updated, if anyone is willing, it would be a good idea for deriviative maps (I think there are some on Commons and others on Wikipedia) to be updated to use the new version of the map. Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have three photos of the infamous sidewalk in Ortigas station#Sidewalk issues I took today (unfortunately the one with the slightly wider barriers). Need help on how to upload directly here in Wikipedia. Borgenland (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you upload them to Commons? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to other editors as to which of these will be inserted for the article. Borgenland (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I also made a description but for some reason I couldn't find it. Borgenland (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, you can upload them using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the Sidewalk issues secthion, see Wikipedia:Recentism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a long standing request on this project though and has been a constant problem with the station from the very beginning. Borgenland (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The Philippines doesn't have freedom of panorama, and similar photos of sidewalks such as those found in Eastwood City has been deleted at Commons. Are these photos similar to that? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Was that the ones inside Eastwood City itself? I am assuming that these are different cases since Eastwood is a private development not a public throroughfare like this one. Also, is there a similar case in other stations? Borgenland (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just like BGC, everyone can freely go inside Eastwood City; it's not as if there are tickets for you to get in, and where it states "you can't take photos". (Several stadiums in the US have such terms and conditions but I presume federal law trumps that, IANAL and all.) It's a public place, and whether or not it's a private development should not matter. FWIW, I had photos of the Eastwood City Walk of Fame (the Philippines' most famous sidewalk, I suppose) deleted due to FOP.

Now, train stations may be different as there are tickets, and I remember reading at a discussion here decades ago that the guards discourage people from taking photos. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This was outside. The guards only work upstairs at the end of the horrendous staircase. Anyways, it would also be also good to ask for advice from other editors, especially those with knowledge on copyright Borgenland (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, there are newer photos of the Eastwood sidewalk that are on its article right now; let's see if that, and these Ortigas sidewalk ones, gets to be deleted as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland@Howard the Duck I think you are all confused on FoP matter. The lack of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippine copyright law (R.A. 8293) means that images depicting newer artworks, including works of architecture, whose architects or sculptors are not yet dead for more than 50 years cannot be commercially-licensed and are not fine to be published on Wikimedia Commons. Does not matter of a work is in public grounds, all LRT and MRT stations are considered under building designers' copyrights. While we have pending bills on Congress to address that (House Bills 799, 2672, and 3838 as well as Senate Bill 2326), the Congress seems too preoccupied at Charter change matters (facepalm expression). Also, the Committee on Trade and Industry only approved House Bill 7600, which does not have FoP provision and is more focused on combating online piracy (it is a frustrating thing that there are few interested stakeholders supporting four bills that have FoP provision, most of the supporting stakeholders support House Bill 7600).

The English Wikipedia allows images of unfree works of architecture of no-FoP countries, because it only respects U.S. copyright law (on the reason that it is hosted in the United States and U.S. law only matters). The United States does provide architectural FoP, but not FoP for monuments. Images of newer Philippine monuments like the People Power Monument have been deleted from this site several years ago (like File:Edsa People Power monument.jpg, speedily deleted as a derivative work, yet I suspect it was speedily deleted because of being a modern monument). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Some pahabol: actually images of copyrighted monuments from no-FoP countries can be hosted here, provided they be downgraded to low-quality resolutuons in compliance with English Wikipedia's fair use policy. That means those images should be usable in articles on the monuments themselves within a week; if a week has passed and the images remain unused, they are going to be deleted even if having proper wording on fair use rationale. Uses of such images on list articles or on articles about the persons or events honored by the monuments fail fair use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Another pahabol, if the images does not show any contemporary Philippine artwork or building as main subjects, or if the copyrighted works are incidental (de minimis), then the image is OK at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(reset indent) Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid but shouldn't the people and the plate numbers in the photos need to be blurred for anonymyty/privacy? --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you try? I’m not proficient in photoshop. Borgenland (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You can do it via paint. Use the select tool, select the eyes or plate, drag one of the corner of the selection tool inwards then pull it back to it back to the original selection size. That should lose enough of the details. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise against this, and would recommend just shrinking the resolution to thumbnail size. AFAIK Wikipedia doesn't censor this way and if you would not want faces and license plates, why not take a photo at nighttime? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I just happened to be there for a hotel stay. Also it's a bit sketchy at dark, but then again that's probably me being my paranoid provincial self again. Borgenland (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lenticel@Borgenland@Howard the Duck any privacy concerns are not immediate reasons for deletion. Same with museum house rules and security rules. It is the Wikipedians' own risk if they desire to take photos of military or nuclear sites, but Wikimedia Commons does not consider security/privacy rules as valid points for deletion (see c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). Any images of identifiable persons can be slapped with c:Template:Personality rights. Only images of public landmarks of 100+ countries with no complete Freedom of Panorama can be nominated for deletion. Again, does not matter if government or public-owned, if the artists behind the works are not yet dead for many years.

It is very lucky for us that we still follow 50 years posthumous term, assuming FoP introduction attempts here fail due to Congress' heavy focus on charter change. But that 50-year term is already long enough for many longtime Wikipedians here. The author of LRT stations from Monumento to Baclaran, Francisco Mañosa, died in 2019, so his public landmarks won't be free from his copyright until January 1, 2070, the 50th anniversary of his death. Unsure if who among us will still be alive by 2070 to witness the undeletions/restorations of deleted images of 18 LRT stations, assuming FoP fails to be introduced here in due time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Privacy concerns: I advised against censoring photos because of "privacy" concerns. This is a public space and people do not expect privacy in regards to being photographed on EDSA. As for places that have restricted access, TBH, I'm more afraid of lawsuits, and I dunno how Commons deals with that. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck Commons does not typically grant deletion requests to images that show sensitive or private sites. A deletion request to a Swedish nuclear power plant was denied and closed as kept, even if Sweden has strict laws on security that prohibits distributions of images of sensitive sites of military significance. Security laws are not related to copyright. Another example is this, typical concerns by private owners are not granted unless the owners desire a better image of their properties. Still, any infractions to any rules not related to copyright are at the burden of the uploaders themselves. See also c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, and I'm saying this for the second time, I'm more concerned about lawsuits re: privacy, which doesn't always, and may not, correlate with copyright. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck such concerns are not of concern for Commons admins. Privacy things are not related to copyright, and so there is no point of censoring plate numbers or blurring faces of people. Too much blurred faces may result to a censored image being nominated for deletion as out of scope (reduced educational use due to over-censorship). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, and I'm saying this for a third time, I advised censoring photos because of "privacy" concerns; there are many ways to go around it. Now as for lawsuits, like I said, for a second time, it doesn't always, and may not correlate with copyright, but yes, lawsuits are not fun. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck and I'm saying again, for the nth time, that privacy concerns are not valid reasons to delete images on Wikimedia Commons. And again, too much censorship reduces educational use, and those heavily-censored images may be nominated for deletion as out of scope (c:Commons:EDUSE), if there is no realistic purpose to use images with heavily-censored faces. Commons does not need to comply with security, privacy, and museum laws/rules of all countries, only copyright laws and copyrights of artists who designed public landmarks of 100+ no-FoP countries. Do not confuse privacy and architectural or sculptural copyrights here (since FoP is mentioned above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OMG!!! Where did I mention about deleting images? I'm against censorship. Lawsuits are different matter as you can go to jail lol. Your photo may still be at Commons but if you came by a particularly litiguous person, you may not be able to see it for sometime unless you are friends with some senators lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck you mentioned about FoP and Eastwood Walk of Fame images that were deleted, and you might have claimed above that the deletion request was about property privacy. I assume the deletion request targeting your images of Eastwood Walk of Fame was not about privacy, but about problematic artistic copyright issue on the plaques and stars themselves, considering the current version of our copyright law not providing any legal waiver (FoP) to permit free exploitations of public landmarks of the Philippines without permissions from sculptors or architects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Eastwood Walk of Fame photos were most probably deleted due to FOP maybe because of the logos involved. It was you that nominated those for deletion. Eastwood City is a public place and sidewalks are the most public of places. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck hey I didn't nominate those for deletion! 😒 Be careful with your accusations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the nomination page, the images were nominated by a different user. So do not accuse me of being the user who nominated those images. 😒 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it does seem not to be you, but you may have been involved in its discussion. It's moot now as there are newer and better photos of it, but it remains to be seen if those new ones won't be deleted just like the old ones. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck I did not made comments in that particular discussion, though I did made some comments in a few other Philippine DRs like one involving Malacañan Palace and one involving a building in Iloilo City. Due to heavy exposure on thousands of deletion requests targeting numerous contemporary landmarks of 100+ no-FoP countries (especially French, Ukrainian, Korean, U.S., Greek, U.A.E., and Italian ones), it is normal for me to comment on FoP-related things, such as this thread where FoP is mentioned. I made nominations though, but majority targeting public monuments of Ukraine and France (both do not permit commercial FoP). Again, do not accuse me of being the one behind the deletion request of your images of Eastwood Walk of Fame. You should read the DR first to know who nominated your images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use File:Philippine Eagle with nest.jpg twice in the article, even if the file description does not give clues as to where the image was taken, ala-stock photo on the article? None of the archived copies on Wayback Machine (for example, this and this) provide clues on location description or location tags. Note the image is no longer existing on Commons, making the hunt to know where the image is taken more difficult.

While it may seem appealing to add "stock-type photos" on geography articles, these may give wrong impression to some readers that the images were indeed from the places being discussed by those articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Twice is definitely a no-no. Borgenland (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland I removed both instances of the same image. It is not realistic to use that image on the said article as we cannot verify if the Flickr import and the eagle were indeed in Apayao. I presume the editors who added thought it is OK for some images to act as stock photos of some contents of some articles (similar to stock images used in news websites' articles), but this may only give false impressions or meanings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We were at 460 last February and now we are at 411. I guess ~11% improvement is nice. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your help!! And yes, plenty more work to be done. D-Flo27 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted an unexplained mass removal of cleanup and legitimately sourced content by a user whose only activities appear to be editing the page in question. Need advice as to what further actions can possibly be taken. I am already raising suspicions on them as a COI. Borgenland (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Also need help finding a proper COI warning template. Borgenland (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Would this help? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally warned them. Their last straw was this [[6]] misleading edit summary. But I am considering whether to file an ANI against them per [[7]]. Borgenland (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Asenso Abrenio has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § Asenso Abrenio until a consensus is reached. This discussion will benefit from the input of people familiar with Filipino politicians/political parties. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we the only wikiproject with a penchant for marking crosses next to the names of deceased cast members? I was wondering whether these could be removed since all of them will go someday. Borgenland (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What articles are examples of this? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mula sa Puso, MTB (TV program) for one, and other tv shows and films. I have been removing so many of these things for as long as I can remember since I started on Wiki. Even characters get marked with crosses, such as in 100 Days to Heaven. Borgenland (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And now with Jaclyn Jose deceased, there may be a surge of crosses in her filmography. Borgenland (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, this does seem like a very specific practice not present in other media articles. It also seems like its being done by random users that might be assuming it is standard practice to put crosses on deceased cast members, such as this one.

Frankly I'm for leaving it alone, but it might mislead editors into thinking that every single article with a link to them would need to have crosses. So maybe it's better not to allow it? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I am for tidying it up to conform with the rest of international standards for film in this wiki. Tho scouring for them isn’t necessarily a priority for me personally. Borgenland (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, we have WP:NOTOBITUARY, and adding crosses next to names of deceased actors would be of undue weight anyway. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This also happened politicians and athlete lists; for some reason, 7th Congress of the Philippines had it (but not the previous ones since probably everyone were dead) some years ago. I have removed it, but I do see these pop up in places such as Crispa Redmanizers, etc. Daggers like this "†" should only be used for military people killed in action, or for other purposes like using similar symbols like *, ^, etc. (Ideally, those are now replaced by {{efn}}.) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)