Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

I am writing this message to alert other editors of the situation at the article Commission on Human Rights (Philippines). This article is quickly turning into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, with editors warring over the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and how it relates to the CHR, whether the legislature has to approve the CHR, if President Duterte can simply legally overturn Corey Aquino's Executive Order...already User:Vladskivel has failed to WP:AGF and marked an IP's (User:203.87.133.142) edit as "vandalism", when it clearly was not. However, I also did not restore the IP's edit, because it did not mesh well into the article at all, as § Legal Questions stated just prior the opposite opinion the IP's edit espoused. On Talk:Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), another editor, User:Augur13, is also against the text as it stands. I actually think that the text is correct, and Pres. Duterte can just remove the CHR by EO due to how it has no RA backing it -- but that's not the point, and I am requesting a more experienced editor to step in and restore WP:NPOV to this article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST> Yes, I edited the article on CHR and added a section entitled "Legal questions". From the section title itself, one can understand that this is not to encourage debate or to argue whether the CHR was legally constituted as a Constitutional Commission or not. The section was added with the intention to inform the public that such legal questions exist and that it is not up for debate amongst editors. This morning, I was surprised that a certain editor with no username (i.p. 203.87.133.142 ) inserted some texts that tries to discredited the section that I just added by providing arguments against it. Well, this should not be the case and this is, in my opinion unethical and defeats the purpose of information sharing. From the looks of it, the editor with no username tries to defend the CHR as a Constitutional Commission in the same section that I added. In doing so, the editor with no username has committed "information manipulation" as explained by Steven A. McCornack in his 'Information Manipulation Theory".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladskivel (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vladskivel: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, I reject your idea that the User:203.87.133.142's intention was to manipulate information. As editors, we are required to assume good faith. Please read that page fully. It is improper to accuse an editor of only making an edit for a negative reason without evidence. Editing from an IP is also not a crime. The section of the article is indeed "Legal questions", which assumes that there is another side of the story, otherwise there would not be a question - it would just be a "legal status". In order to present a WP:NPOV, we must present both sides. That means that in order to get the {{POV section}} tag removed, the section must be rewritten so as to present both mainstream opinions. The encyclopedia cannot arbitrarily adjudicate a legal dispute. Also, going forwards, please WP:SIGN your posts. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto, Thank you for welcoming me. What a way to welcome. Anyway, you assume that it was not the intention of the other editor to 'manipulate information' yet that edito tried to discredit the section that I just created. Evidence I already mentioned that the said editor vandalized the section with information that does not belong there. Clearly, to me that's vandalism. He hijacked the article by discrediting a section that presents the other side of the story by providing one sided information that favors one party. It is also improper for you to accused me of not acting in good faith when I edited that article. Can you not assume that both of us (yes, that includes me) were acting in good faith when we edited the article? Why you singled me out? That is not legal status. This issue has not yet been elevated to court (or Supreme Court in that matter) to assume the legal status of the current Commission of Human Righst. That is why it remains a legal questions. And since it's a legal questions section, you can only present legal interdiction concerning CHR and you do not attempt to defend it by responding to the question in the same section. --Vladskivel (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

One problem I see with some of the statements as presented is that the strength of the statement is not commensurate to their accuracy. For example: "Since it was an executive order only, a sitting President of the Republic can abolish it through issuance of another EO abolishing the current CHR" is presented as a fact when this has not yet been tested; to me these seem like an unverified claim (maybe add "It is claimed that..." or "Makabenta claims that..."). The same is true for the next statement. The section entitled What the Constitution says should be integrated into a preceding section on the CHR mandate. Two sections can be merged: CHR not a Constitutional Commission but a constitutional body, and then I think the text can be whittled so that only relevant statements are included.Augur13 (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of Gawad Mabini, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion/listification. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Philippine Defense Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to put the naming issue of articles on our national teams to bed. For example, a quick glance of the [Philippine national football team's talk page] reveals that there has been a sort of tug-of-war between Filipino Wikipedians and Wikipedians of other countries regarding the title. Filipinos insist that the article be renamed to "Philippine national football team" while foreigners insist on keeping the article's current name, explaining that doing so is in line with the naming convention for national teams set forth by Wikipedia.

Some of the concerned articles are:

• Philippines men's national basketball team
• Philippines women's national basketball team
• Philippines national football team
• Philippines women's national football team
• Philippines national dragon boat team
• Philippines national rugby union team

"A national sports team is usually written in the form '[Country] national [sport] team', for instance Canada national bandy team for the national team representing Canada in the sport of bandy. When disambiguation is needed, a 'men's' or 'women's' can be added before the word 'national'." (Bold supplied)

The use of the word "usually" instead of "shall" implies that the naming convention is directory and not mandatory. This means that there CAN BE EXCEPTIONS. Indeed, Wikipedia's [Manual of Style for PHILIPPINE RELATED ARTICLES] for 1) Inanimate nouns (e.g. Philippine Senate) 2) people or organizations representing the Philippine nation (e.g. Philippine goalkeeper). Considering that the MoS on national teams admits of exceptions and the MoS on Philippine-related articles does not admit of any exception under which this article could fall in, it is obvious that the Philippine MoS should be adopted.

The use of the adjective "Philippine" is also the convention used by the official websites of these national teams. This means that the use of "Philippine" is official and therefore should be accorded great weight. Here are some examples:

• The official website of the Philippine Football Federation
• The official website of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas (SBP)
• The website of the Philippine Rugby Union Federation

Finally, I move to rename articles that use the assailed convention on the grounds of naturalness and strong natural ties.

[WP:Article titles] lists naturalness as one of Wikipedia's goals:

"Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."

The fact that many Filipino readers and editors have tried to rename articles on Philippine teams speaks of how unnatural the current convention is. Also consider how the use of "Philippines" as opposed to "Philippine" as an adjective clashes with how many of the governing bodies of Philippine sports are named. (See: Philippine Sports Commission, Philippine Olympic Committee and Philippine Football Federation)

The fact that these teams represent the Philippines at the highest levels of their respective sports indicates strong national ties. According to the [Manual of Style]:

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."

Therefore, these articles should follow Philippine English and should use the adjective "Philippine", which is preferred in that national variety of English.

This naming guideline is enforced throughout all national team articles by some kind of consensus. This also applies to Western nations (e.g. Netherlands national football team instead of Dutch national football team) I think it would be better to discuss this at WP:WikiProject Sports talkpage and try to gain new consensus. In my opinion, the current naming format was agreed upon for easier navigability especially if a reader isn't that aware of a country's denonynm. (A reader can search Madagascar national football team to go to the article of the Malagasy national football team. But the we could use redirects instead to compensate for this in my opinion (e.g. "Madagascar national football team" redirects the user to the article named "Malagasy national football team" for example).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've sourced it as best I could; there may be a language barrier. Perhaps we can source and move to main space. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a proposal on meta to close the Cebuano Wikipedia and move it to the Incubator. The proposal can be found here. --Jojit (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm an admin (very much inactive) in cebwp. Of course I oppose KATMAKROFAN (talk) closure proposal in the strongest terms. This is not the right move or action of a "concerned Wikipedian" who doesn't even understand the language. He didn't bother discussing this in our village pump or the embassy. I understand that the bot-inflated-article-count issue has a long history of discussions but I have never encountered one on nuking a wikipedia for using bots. Inasmuch as I'm historically neutral on the issue of bot-created articles, I have already proposed mass-deletion of Lsjbot-created articles last month. For those who understand Cebuano here's my post there ceb:Wikipedia:Tubaan#Pagtangtang sa mga artikulong nahimo ni Lsjbot. It's time for Cebuano speakers here to care and contribute to our wikipedia. Jordz (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should express your opposition to close the Cebuano Wikipedia at the proposal page on meta. --Jojit (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving Cebuano Wikipedia into incubator would be too much. What Cebuano Wikipedia needs is massive deletion of bot-generated articles and further dissemination what Cebuano Wikipedia is to the people in Cebuano-speaking world. The problem on Cebuano Wikipedia lies on lack of standardization of Cebuano language and lack of utilization in the academe (Cebuano has had not been taught in schools until 2012) that's why most Cebuano-speaking people like me cannot comprehend written Cebuano and rather prefer to read articles in English. In conclusion, massive clean-up not moving into incubator is the solution of Cebuano Wikipedia's problem.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to edit the template named "India-related topics in Philippines" on the Maharadia Lawana page because I wanted to correct some things there. But I can't seem to view or edit the template. I can't tell why not. Perhaps someone can help? The template needs review. (Context: I moved the template from Singkil to Maharadia Lawana since a review of the sources of the page revealed that a previous editor had conflated the Darangen epic with the Maharadia Lawana. As User:Stricnina was first to point out, the basis for calling Singkil an "India related topic" was therefore disproven, and I took the initiative to remove that template from the Singkil wiki.) - Alternativity (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Try this link --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternatively (hehe), you can go directly go to Template:India-related_topics_in_Philippines and click the "Edit" button rather than the template's little "E" button --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Gathering opinions. I've noticed an article that cites a now-defunct website called [Almanac]. I found that the page in question had been archived, and that I could thus rescue the site. And my first impression of the page is that it's mostly sound, although it probably doesn't adhere to academic standards, since, as the archived About page says, "The PhilippineAlmanac.com is made possible by the LGH online services personnel." If it's to be considered RS, I'm sure it'll only barely pass muster. On the OTHER hand, I've not encountered an assertion from the site yet that I have problems with (although I've only read a page worth of content, so don't press me on that). So I'm hesitating to tag it unreliable. Do you guys think it's worth the effort to rescue the source? Or should I just tag the link as dead and let the other folks editing Japanese_settlement_in_the_Philippines that the source is dead and should be replaced with a better, more scholarly citation? - Alternativity (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Tambayan_Philippines

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost every article that I have seen about the provinces in the Philippines has a map like this [1]. If you couldn't notice the problem, it concerns with the province of Palawan, it is shaded implying that it is not a part of Luzon.

You could also check your own province if it also has a map with a similar error. --JethRoad the FactBoy 07:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a case of inaccurate maps but rather a case of outdated maps. These maps were created during the time when Pres. GMA put Palawan under Western Visayas. I could probably correct these maps but I'd rather recreate them in SVG. But it's not really high on my priority list. —seav (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing things out and for correcting it. Sorry for the confusion. --JethRoad the FactBoy 15:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Republic of Biak-na-Bato#New "Background" section and Infobox content re Preceded / Succeeded. Discussion there would be appreciated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion here, taking a wider view than above, I have made the following (possibly incomplete) list of Philippine revolutionary polities during Spanish and American colonial rule:

• British Government in Manila November 2, 1762 - April 1764
• Katipunan Revolutionary Government August 1896 - March 22, 1897
• Tejeros Revolutionary Government March 22, 1897 - November 1, 1897
  • Tejeros Convention
• Republic of Biak-na-Bato November 1, 1897 - December 14, 1897
  • Pact of Biak-na-Bato
• Central Executive Committee (Philippines) April 17, 1898 - shortly after May 19, 1898
• Dictatorial Government of the Philippines May 19/June 18, 1898 - June 23, 1898
  • Philippine Declaration of Independence
• Revolutionary Government of the Philippines June 23, 1898 - November 22, 1899
• Tagalog Republic#Bonifacio August 1898
• Cantonal Republic of Negros November 27, 1898 - July 22, 1899
• Republic of Zamboanga May 1899 - March 1903
• Republic of Negros July 22, 1899 - April 30, 1901
• First Philippine Republic January 22, 1899 - ?? ??, 1901
  • Malolos Congress
  • Malolos Constitution
• Tagalog Republic#Sakay April 1904 - ?? 1906
• 1986 Provisional Government of the Philippines March 25, 1986 - February 2, 1987

list updated 23:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks in the above list suggest articles which perhaps ought to exist. Indents in the above list indicate articles associated with the polity named in the preceding outdented polity. Some dates in the above list are approximate or only approximately understood by me from info in the linked articles.

It seems to me that the articles ought to be categorized, perhaps as Category:Philippine polities during Spanish colonial rule and Category:Philippine polities during American colonial rule. Also, I wonder whether perhaps the titles of the articles listed could be regularized a bit.

Also, perhaps an article titled something like List of insurgent Philippine polities during Spanish and American colonial rule ought to be created, containing a list similar to the above and linked from the See also sections of the listed articles.

Discussion is invited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles listed here a few times already, Wtmitchell, but I'm afraid I still don't currently have the level of expertise in that time period to be able to edit intelligently. But I can say I support the creation of the Cat and the List Article that you propose. :D - Alternativity (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been dithering about the wording of category names and a title for the list article. Polity needs clarification, as the list is of polities in the Philippines which styled themselves as governments but which did not meet sovereignty criteria. insurgent wouldn't fit the British occupation of Manila, which I think should be included. Any suggestions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps "governments" is a better term, since my impression is that these all sought to establish a governance structure of some kind, whereas "polity" is more closely linked to physical settlements. That or a term in a similar vein may be useful, given that some of them moved around.- Alternativity (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

But, as I understand it, none of these was a legitimate government. They were self-declared as governments, asserting by implication sovereignty over all or part of a territory which was, at the time, recognized as being under the jurisdiction of an external sovereign state. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be more prudent to call these entities as either general polities or revolutionary governments depending on the context of the situation. Polity is generally any governing structure, while government usually refers in the context of states. So, going by this, I would classify something like Aguinaldo's Republic as a revolutionary government, while Sakay's Tagalog Republic is a polity in the general sense, since it was more of a rebel structure in the context of American occupation. The First Republic, on the other hand, patently declared independence from Spain, thus actualizing its desire to form a Philippine state. Or something like that. NyanThousand (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

An article titled Revolutionary government in the Philippines has recently appeared. Here, I have added most of the list above to that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to discuss this, but here goes. So I'm looking at the campaignbox for the battles of the Philippine Revolution and if you'd notice there are a lot of redlinks in the box. Maybe we could try to create articles for this? There's also the issue of general clean-up (Battle of Tres de Abril, for example.) I, unfortunately, do not have a lot of primary sources on this topic, but nevertheless I'd like to see this eventually get filled out. NyanThousand (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've initiated a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of FFE Magazine (as a WP source on Philippine History) on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. This reference may have been used on multiple Philippines-related Wikipedia articles, so I'd like to inform the community about it, and request participation in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FFE_Magazine.

Thanks! :D - Alternativity (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Philippine Wikipedians,

Scholarship applications for ESEAP Conference 2018 is now open!

ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities around the ESEAP regions. ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5-6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for the Wikimedia communities around the regions.

Full scholarships are subject to quotas, maximum two people per country and your country is eligible to apply, visit this page.

We also accept submissions of several formats, including:

• Workshop & Tutorial: these are presentations with a focus on practical work directed either to acquiring a specific skill or doing a specific task. Sessions are 55 minutes led by the presenters in a classroom space suitable for laptops and work.
• Posters: A2-size format to give news, share your community event/program, set out an idea, propose a concept, or explain a problem. The poster itself must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a suitable license.
• Short Presentation/Sharing talks: 10-15 minutes presentation on certain topic.

Deadline for submissions and scholarship applications is on 15 March 2018.

Best regards,

-Filipinayzd 08:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (Communication Team)

Rappler's reliability as a source has been disputed in light of the revocation of the site's license by the SEC. Please refer to Reliable Sources Notification to participate in the discussion and give feedback so a consensus could be made.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The article does not exist?? 112.202.168.67 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't. First Philippine Republic exists though --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed the Tagalog Wikipedia licensing page seems to be virtually entirely in English. Could someone fluent in both languages please investigate and translate this into Tagalog? Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Translating that page has been in my queue for the past 10 years. :-) And I think that page is already outdated. It's currently not my priority but I will translate it once I got a chance. But if someone beat me to it, well and good. Tagalog Wikipedia has a very small editing community but you can try to inform the Tagalog Wikipedia's noticeboard at tl:Usapang_Wikipedia:Kapihan. --Jojit (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I have a draft translation (which I never finished) sitting somewhere in my computer. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through stuff that has come across my watchlist recently. One of them was the proposed deletion of E.J.R. David. As you can see, it's already been deleted, and if you really don't care, then I really don't care. My concern is that the rationale offered by the PRODing editor appeared to imply that Filipino-American community media is categorically unreliable as a source. Specifically as it pertains to where I live, we have the article Filipinos in Alaska. The article's lead states that Filipinos are 2.7 percent of Alaska's population, based on the 2010 Census. Demographic data published since that time would lead me to believe that it's really closer to five percent. Regardless, as we have many places in the United States with significant Filipino populations, I would think that the stance implied by the PRODing editor about these media outlets would have an effect on our coverage and perhaps should be discussed. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The media outlet contention is concerning, as I'd think ethnic media is a reliable source for news about that community. Filipino American media for one is a good source for reading more about the community, and I'd think that they would be valuable additions on Wikipedia. But the deleting author seemed to have a different rationale for deleting the article more than the sources themselves, which ultimately can't be discounted as well. However, I think on its own the article should be capable of withstanding scrutiny. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is almost entirely based on the work of 1 researcher and could use some additional sources from other authors. It would be great if editors interested in language-related articles could have a look and try to add more diverse references. Just to be clear, I don't doubt the author's expertise but basing an entire article on only one author is problematic. Thanks in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto's expertise is language studies and he may be able to improve this article. His work on an article he created is pretty rad I had to give him a barnstar for it. Slightlymad 08:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I agree that it would be good if references from additional authors could be found, but that is not always possible with some languages which are neglected by researchers. From a cursory glance that seems to be the case with Hokaglish, unfortunately. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Heads up! A few articles related to the Philippines are included in a Wikipedia Education course at UCLA related to Southeast Asian Anthropology: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCLA/Anthropology 116S (Winter). The articles are:

• Archaeology of the Philippines
• Ifugao
• Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project
• Wilhelm Solheim

—seav (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I want to put a section in WP:TAMBAY where we can identify Filipino Wikipedia admins and users with extended rights. That way, people can run to them if they need help relating to admin-related matters.

As far as I know, our admins are myself, Lenticel, Efe (not sure if active), Elockid (hasn't edited since 2016) and TheCoffee (inactive), while Jondel, Titopao and Nanami Kamimura are rollbackers, and Seav, Namayan and Howard the Duck are pending changes reviewers. Anyone else who I'm missing? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a rollbacker as well, fyi. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

'm a pending changes reviwer. --Bluemask (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have the same editing privileges that Blakegripling and Bluemask have but, quite frankly, my participation in the Philippine project is rather sporadic. My greatest achievement in the project, however, is the On the Job article, having promoted it to Featured Article last year. I'm also a file mover, which I requested just last month. Slightlymad 08:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollbacker here. Xeltran (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I propose we do away with these parameters for the LGU infobox. These are often unsourced and serve as promotional purposes (the LGU's tourism and specialty commodity) and mottos seems to be just the motto of the incumbent head's government. There are special cases like Baguio being universally known as the "Summer Capital" of the country. This can be mentioned in the article body. The notable nicknames are bound to be noted in third-party non-government reliable sources and lesser known nicknames not yet adopted by the general public will be confined in the About Us or Tourism pages of LGU's websites.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Support, given how this is more in line with the mayor or governor's interests than anything. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Support they're in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NOTADVERTISING anyways --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Really serves no encyclopedic purpose. (Plus, we know how notoriously quick these nicknames change depending on who's sitting as the local executive.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Complete with logos and such. :P Blake Gripling (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment:Don't even get me started on the nicknames, slogans and logos appearing on every project such as ambulances, waiting sheds or even garbage bins :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: To paraphrase Sam Fisher, isn't having logos of oneself be the height of narcissism? :P Blake Gripling (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Good thing there is no parameter for the government logo (aside the LGU seal) which are more of personal standards of the incumbent.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Like for example "My one and ONlY GenTri", the boldfaced letters being in reference to Antonio Ferrer. So yeah, in contrast to cities such as Cincinnati most of them slogans are merely out of vested interest in favour of whoever's the Führer in a particular town. Hence the narcissism line I mentioned. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. This has been bugging me for some time as well. By far most motto's, slogans, and nicknames are not official. In most cases, someone finds one website giving a place some nickname, adds the website as reference, and somehow it is now authoritative and it could be considered vandalism to remove it. However, we should not remove it altogether in cases where LGU's have official motto's and slogans. WikiProject Canada dealt with this issue a while ago, see that discussion for many helpful pointers in drafting a MOS:PHIL standard. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps it would be better to rename "nickname"? These are usually titles (or tourism marketing slogans; which I think should only be included if made official through legislation, not mere mention in a tourism page). "Kyusi" is a nickname of Quezon City. "Special Science and Nature City" is an official title of Los Baños bestowed by the national government through Presidential Proclamation. If there's a way to rename "nickname" to discourage unofficial or semi-official titles (which solely appears in Tourism/About Us/Profile of an LGU without evidence of being adopted through legislation/executive issue). "Mottos" are rarely permanent or long-standing unless they are part of the seal. For example "Forward Ever, Backward Never" seems to be the motto of Manila, under the latest admin of Joseph Estrada. Again if these mottos are official or widely use there should be third party reliable sources or government sources of pertinent ordinance/legislation.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. Usually the mottos were for political purposes. This is in contravention to WP:NOADS. However on nicknames, I comment that keep those nicknames which are historically recognized. --ERAMnc 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

How official is official? Is "City of the Stars" official enough? Let's say a Sangguniang Panlungsod bestows itself that nickname. Does that count? –HTD 03:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question, the Sangguniang Panlungsod can pass a resolution to bestow its own LGU the nickname. But then copies of these are usually hard to access online except for major cities (e.g. Quezon City; even so only the recent years or only covers the administration of the incumbent executive head). Though self-serving its better than a cite to an LGU profile page.

National recognition by the President through an executive order (or proclamation or decree) or legislation by Congress is likely notable and these should be prioritized than local designations. Nicknames in Department of Tourism brochures or LGU profile pages are not "official" enough for the sake of this discussion.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This is where it gets tricky. For example, those U.S. state nicknames (especially the newer states) such as "Golden State" for California, Cornhusker State for Nebraska, are bestowed upon by themselves. If we're going to slap "our" standards on them, things such as state soil, bird, animal, etc., these won't be official enough. Is "More fun in the Philippines" ever legislated via Congress? I don't think so. –HTD 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

So in case that consensus is to allow unofficial but widely used nicknames. These should be sourced by reliable sources other than LGU websites or government tourism boards. We don't have to follow what Wikiprojects covering the US states are doing. European settlements don't list motto or nicknames as far as I know. Even the US states don't list official birds, animal, etc. on their infoboxes. These stuff along with the nickname and motto can always be mentioned in the article body if they are reliably sourced.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

California does list the state nickname, song and motto in the infobox. East Riding of Yorkshire lists the motto. While I'm not saying that we should follow what the U.S. (or UK or Ghana) Wikiprojects are doing, as settlements, these articles should look similar throughout the encyclopedia. –HTD 08:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I double checked and just noticed that the LGUs use the standard settlements infobox rather than a customized infobox like "Template:Infobox German state. So my proposal isn't really feasible. But how do we determine in which nicknames and mottos to place? Legally recognized nicknames should be prioritized in my opinion as well as long time recognized nicknames like Summer Capital of the Philippines for Baguio.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that Template:Infobox German state uses Template:Infobox settlement as a backbone. I suggest we can also revive(?) a Philippine-centric infobox with Template:Infobox settlement as the backbone. Currently LGU infoboxes list all members of the local legislature. This is not how infoboxes are intended to be used.

As for which nicknames to use, use WP:RS as the basis, just as what you've said. If someone else aside from self-published sources (from the LGU) uses it, whether or not the sources are official or not, it's good to go. –HTD 11:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I concur with Hariboneagle927's comment. I would like to add that statutes conferring a nickname enacted by the legislature are also reliable sources. However, I would qualify on the LGU part for nicknames should be provided from an ordinance and not from a resolution for under our laws, resolutions merely state and declare the sentiments of the council over a particular topic and therefore is not a law while ordinances on the other hand are those enacted by the local sanggunian with the force and effect of a law and therefore is a true law. ERAMnc 08:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently reformatting the legislative districts articles. You can see an example at Abra's lone congressional district. Here's the summary:

• The "Legislative district of place" articles, like Legislative district of Abra, will be for history of how the districts were apportioned, like boundary changes and renumbering.
• List of congressmen will be on new articles in the "Place's ordinal number congressional district" naming convention. Each district in the province/city gets one.
• If district is coterminous with a province, there's a link to the "Place Provincial Board" article.
• If district is coterminous with a city or town, there's a link to the "Place City/Municipal Council" article. If there's no article like that, perhaps a summary of representation will be discussed.

Currently, the legislative district articles are a mess. It's not in chronological order. It has to be fixed. Here are the new features:

• Party designation, whenever available
• Link to the elections article, including special elections.
• Notes section, avoiding footnotes. This includes vacancies, special elections and redistricting.

Plans are for creating individual articles for the senatorial districts, and districts for the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

If anyone has other suggestions or resource materials, please add it here. –HTD 04:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me think about this. At first glance, it seems redundant to have separate articles, especially if the province only has 1 district. I could be convinced that if there are multiple districts, then each district could have a separate article per WP:SPINOUT. —seav (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Legislative" doesn't just mean "House of Representatives". In the long run, the "Legislative districts" articles could host info on every level of legislation from Congress to barangays. For example, Legislative districts of Antipolo would refer to congressional, provincial board, and city council districts. –HTD 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I guess the articles on Abra, and another province with multiple districts be updated to your proposed outline/content then we can evaluate if this is a good approach for the rest of the provinces and cities. —seav (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The next province, Agusan del Norte, has multiple districts. It works a lot better if the LGU has been redistricted multiple times such as Cebu, which was first numbered counterclockwise, now clockwise. Currently the way it's presented it's very hard to follow who succeeded who. –HTD 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition: Not all legislative districts are coterminous. Bulacan-4th is different for the House (where San Jose del Monte is excluded), and for the Provincial Board (where SJDM is included). Basilan is different for the House (where Isabela City is included) and for the ARMM RLA (where it isn't). 11:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing discussion here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of the Philippines. —seav (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Inquiry about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Tourism in the Philippines is over bloated and is mainly being used as a coatrack for excessive images and lists. As it is it reads like an advertisement and is a mess of an article. Mostly edited by a single person with a revolving IP. Needs eyes to clean it up to Wikipedia standards. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the same can be said about most Tourism sections within province and city/municipality articles. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ramsky78 (talk · contribs) has been adding repeatedly long plain lists of every hotel, restaurant, school, or other institution to Philippine LGU articles, contrary to WP:NOT and despite warnings. Considering his high number of edits, I'm asking other editors to keep a watch. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

He's not responding to your warning right? HueMan1 (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This IP: 112.204.106.75, added a LOT of unreferenced material that violates the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. (This topic is about General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite) HueMan1 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that Alternativity has been hired by the Bantayog ng mga Bayani as its first Wikipedian in Residence. As far as we know, this will also be the first ever WIR project in East and Southeast Asia.

Alternativity will be working with a small team to help the digitize portions of Bantayog's library as well as to improve coverage of topics related to the Marcos regime, especially the Martial Law era, in Wikipedia and its sister projects. He will also serve as a liaison between Bantayog and the Wikimedia community by organizing events and workshops, and hopes to help the local Wikimedia community grow by sharing his skills as a Wikipedian to Bantayog's constituency of museum visitors, library researchers, and supporters.

If you are interested, you can "follow" the project page on the Outreach Wiki where more information about the project and its output will be posted. —seav (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Wiki Society of the Philippines (formerly known as meta:Wikimedia Philippines) will also be involved in a supporting and advisory capacity especially when the resident will be organizing events and workshops.

It seems worth noting here that our sister site, the travel guide Wikivoyage, also has extensive coverage of the Philippines and many articles there could use more contributions. Pashley (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and its the proper place for the tourist destination/festival directories that seem prevelant in LGU articles. I am trying to transfer content from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage. Leaving a external link to the pertinent Wikivoyage entry is also helpful, so people are more aware of the site.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pashley, thanks for dropping by our noticeboard. I've been busy lately so I haven't been able to contribute to Wikivoyage as much, but I do try when I get the chance. Hope to do so more often. ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we talk about the template PH brgy table lite? HueMan1 (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: What about it? --Bluemask (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluemask: I'm having trouble with the parameter names. --HueMan1 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I added a documentation for {{PH brgy table lite}}. Anyone can expand that. --Bluemask (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluemask: Thank you for that --HueMan1 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And @Bluemask: do you have any idea about the font used here?

• 
• 

--HueMan1 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: let's ask our regular map makers (Scorpion prinz, TheCoffee, Seav) for that. --Bluemask (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluemask: Are they active? And do they use SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) file format? --HueMan1 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am active but I am not actively making any maps for Wikipedia now since I am working on improving OpenStreetMap instead. My earliest maps are not SVG, but I did create SVG maps too but with text outlines instead of embedded text that could be translated. See File:PH locator map dinagat islands basilisa.svg for an SVG map that I created. —seav (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the font is ITC Officina Sans. But if you want to create SVG maps, it would be better to use one of the open/free fonts supported by the SVG renderer used in Commons: [2]. —seav (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seav: and @Bluemask: Thank you for that. --HueMan1 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to convert png locator maps to svg for easier editing. --HueMan1 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Btw @Seav: is there any way to make commons render this font? --HueMan1 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That is unlikely. Commons only prefers open source fonts and Officina is definitely not open source. —seav (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seav: Well in that case, I have to vectorise every single letter that I'll use for the conversion. Thanks for the help. --HueMan1 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have SVG versions of the maps I made, and I haven't been active in a while. TheCoffee (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seav: Uhh what's the italic font you used in water bodies? --HueMan1 (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Like here? It's ITC Officina Sans Italic. —seav (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi friends! A staff member at DePaul University came to me with the beginnings of a page for Dr. A. Gabriel Esteban, the Filipino president of DePaul University, former president of Seton Hall University. They wrote a draft (with no citations... they're a beginner, but apparently missed the citations part of the walkthrough...), which I cleaned up a bit and moved to here: Draft:A. Gabriel Esteban. Since I'm also DePaul staff, I will not be taking the lead on completing or moving the page. While I'm happy to help provide sources and assistance, I'd love to find an editor interested in amplifying the accomplishments of important Filipinos. If that's you or someone you know, I hope to see you working on the draft! Thanks MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Please look at the Filipino immigration to Mexico & Mexican settlement in the Philippines articles. They both need references badly, and most of the content could be removed by WP:BURDEN as they stand now. Perhaps there is a subject matter expert who can focus some time on these articles?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone not involved in the article rate the quality of History of Filipino Americans, I have added a significant number of references recently to the article, which should improve its quality?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in the Philippines has started! Upload photos of natural heritage sites in the Philippines to help Wikipedia and win fantastic prizes!

This is a list of protected areas of the Philippines administered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Biodiversity Management Bureau under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992. As of 2013, there are 240 protected areas in the Philippines covering a total area of 54,500 square kilometres (21,000 sq mi) – 14.2% of the Philippines' total area.

 •  List of national parks in the Philippines
 •  List of natural parks in the Philippines
 •  List of natural monuments in the Philippines
 •  List of nature reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of landscape reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of landscapes and seascapes in the Philippines
 •  List of seascape reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of game refuge and bird sanctuaries in the Philippines
 •  List of resource reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of watershed forest reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of marine reserves in the Philippines
 •  List of wildlife sanctuaries in the Philippines

This is the first year that the Philippines is participating the competition. The local contest will run from May 1 – June 30, 2018, and is being organized by PhilWiki Community members. A writing contest will follow later this year. -Filipinayzd 11:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm from WP:Abandoned Drafts and there's a draft that could merit some workthrough/improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:21henrim/sandbox/Thi_Zhu_An

I'm not sure about any sort of notability, but I thought that this Wikiproject was a good place to ask.

Thanks,
18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwdirre (talk • contribs)

I know it's none of our business, but I tried visiting the site lately, and as of now it is no longer responding. It limped and zombied along for the past few years, the only significant edits being those from some serial hoaxer whose name I won't mention. Can anyone confirm that Vibal has discontinued support for the site? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Most probably? --HueMan1 (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph:: I cannot say this at the moment, but I saw the latest post of WikiPilipinas on their Facebook page posted like this (using quote)

To our fellow readers,wikipilipinas.org is currently inaccessible for it is undergoing maintenance. Thank you for your understanding.

---WikiPilipinas' Facebook post on December 6, 2017.
Hope this would clarify some things.JWilz12345 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So I've read, yet nothing much has come out of this. It's almost half a year since they announced said maintenance operation, but they're still offline as of now. That being said, they don't seem to be proactive with keeping the quality of their content, as vandalism and spam are rife with impunity. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Can anyone provide a Tagalog IPA in the Insiang article's lead? Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Thomasites . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! This is the new logo of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL: https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/releases/2014-09-22-06-26-21/629-the-ipophl-has-new-logo-beginning-september

Please change. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanynsantiano (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done: See Intellectual Property Office (Philippines)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Greeetings fellow Filipino editors! It has been a while since I last opened a discussion section. As per the recommendation of a reviewer (see: Template:Did you know nominations/Hinulugang Taktak), the article on Hinulugang Taktak requires reassessment to forward its DYK process. I have also submitted it for assessment at WikiProject Protected areas, since the article seems to have not been tagged yet for the said project. Hopefully, the reassessment goes well. Many thanks! Arius1998 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that we are now approaching the 1,000th entry in Wiki Loves Earth Philippines! These photos can now be used in the articles. --Filipinayzd 02:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Metro Cebu is Collaboration of the month this month. Would welcome knowledgable contributions on points of interest in the cities and municipalities of the area. Not just tourist attractions need to be expanded, but if you have any restaurants or hotels to recommend, please contribute. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States. Would editors be able to find sources about the subject? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Care if someone would look into this? Some dude's fluffing it up with unnecessarily in-universe and unreferenced stuff. I am considering doing my thing with the article and excise or edit out some statements but I do need some cover on this. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

i think people can make article about this Leptospirosis Outbreak, it was declared by our country last 3 or 4 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.234.156 (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Philippine political parties colors were determined a long time ago and needs updating. While most parties are somehow correct, some major parties are dull, boring and somehow inaccurate. These are the possible suggestions:

•   Nacionalista Party: #CF0821
•   KBL: #BE1021
•   Liberal Party: #FCD20E
•   PDP-Laban: #ECB13D
•   Lakas/Lakas-Kampi: #0038A8
•   LDP: #002368

This would also make for better presentation, avoid the use of washed out hues, and avoid the use of green hues (NPC and NUP are already using green hues). This would mean updates of maps, diagrams, tables and such. –HTD 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've made slight tweaks. Unless no one objects by May 31st, I'd be applying the changes by June 1st. –HTD 01:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposed changes well except with the Nacionalista. I found the color for the Nacionalista very similar with KBL, what about a lighter red perhaps? My other concern would be the complete overhaul of the election maps once these changes are done. --Janbryan (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The red of NP and KBL came from their respective logos -- it does look the same since both were based in the Philippine flag. I'll be delaying this until there's wide consensus, but I've already done some election maps using the new colors. I'll look into how to deal with the NP color. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I came up with this color for NP. We'll stick with the KBL's color.

•   Nacionalista #F71733
•   KBL: #BE1021
•   Lakas/Lakas-Kampi: #0052FD
•   LDP: #002368

We're also avoiding instances when the strongest parties have the same color. This happened in 1981 (NP red vs KBL red), 1992 (Lakas blue vs LDP blue) and 2016 (PDP yellow vs LP yellow). Sometimes we can't avoid that though. Yellows are particularly hard to distinguish from each other, as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

With yellows, it's better to have lighter yellow for Liberal and a darker one for PDP-Laban. With the upcoming 2019 elections, I say go ahead with these changes.--Janbryan (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've went along with the darker yellow for PDP-Laban, with a bright yellow for LP. If anyone has further suggestions, please do so before June 30, 2018. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: I'd be making the changes today, considering it's been over a month since I first promised on changing those (LOL). The election maps for the Fifth Republlic have been updated and will be uploaded later once the templates have been updated. For earlier elections it would be in the pipeline, unless other people get to it faster than me. A little problem is the new PDP-Laban color looks the same as the PMP color. I'd be changing the PMP color as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This'll be the colors:

•   Liberal Party: #FCD20E
•   PDP-Laban: #ECB13D
•   PMP: #F17301
•   UNA: #FE4D00

Howard the Duck (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Major update: The colors were changes, and Fifth Republic election maps were all updated. If there's something that I missed, just let me know, or you can do it yourself via MS Paint. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: All presidential election maps from the Fourth and Third Republics have been replaced. AFAIK there aren't any vice presidential or Congressional maps, and that there's only four of them, so we're done on that one. What's left are the electoral diagrams in the List of legislatures of the Philippines. It averages 5 views/day I don't think no one's going to be confused since that article isn't even properly formatted as it doesn't have a legend. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: All presidential election maps from the first one (1935) until the latest (2016) have been updated with new colors. There aren't any vice presidential and Congressional maps beyond 1986 though, so I guess I covered every major election map. There are additional 3 Senatorial election maps from the early 20th century and end-of-Congress maps, gradient maps and parliamentary diagrams that have to be updated with the new colors, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to preface this by acknowledging that overhauling an established colouring scheme on Wikipedia is a mammoth task that requires a certain bravery to begin—a boldness I commend you for. That said, I think you should abandon this overhaul. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of overhauling the colouring scheme of Philippine political parties on the provision that: 1. There is a reason for changing the colours in the first place, 2. The changes to colours have been thoroughly thought through, explained and, if necessary, argued over, 3. All the required alterations to articles, diagrams and maps are identified prior to the change taking place. You have neither of these three things. The former colour scheme between political parties was consistent and unambiguous. Now it is neither. Please reverse your changes. Katya2017 (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Some comments about this:

1. There's is actually a reason, where some colors are confusing, washed out, and are too similar. The Liberal and Nacionalista colors especially appear too washed out and if you have bad eyesight, you can't see it clearly. Also, the Nacionalista color is particularly wrong. The color it has been associated with the longest time is actually red, and not green. Green just became a secondary color lately, and it wasn't the light green that was previously being used. Either we switch to the primary color that is red, or use a darker hue of green, something that would make it more ambiguous with the NPC and NUP colors.
2. There is actually discussion about these changes, on the exact same section that you have posted this comment of yours. The older colors notoriously don't have a discussion on how it was thought out with, it just happened, and for major parties, it was just a discussion with me at Glenncando 12 years ago (!). That's not particularly a consensual discussion, unlike what we were trying here.
3. All major election maps for the Fifth Republic (1986-present) have been updated with new colors. The current Congressional diagrams have also been changed. The election maps for the Commonwealth-Fourth Republic maps and diagrams will be changed in due time. There are some Fifth Republic election maps that haven't been changed though, such as the gradient maps, and the per municipality maps for the 2016 election. Those would also be changed in due time. The 2016 presidential map per municipality is particularly hard to parse as the Roxas and Duterte colors are too similar. As for the main election maps, those have been changed.

In other words, "You have neither of these three things." is patently fake news. As for "The former colour scheme between political parties was consistent and unambiguous." that's actually debatable. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to expand on my explanation.

1. You say in your original post that they needed updating because they were determined a long time ago. That isn't a reason in itself. If the colours still do their job, they don't need updating. You say some are "dull, boring" but they're not meant to be impressive or flamboyant. You also say they're inaccurate. The colours can't be inaccurate because they're completely arbitrary by design. There's no requirement that the colour we use on Wikipedia reflects the party it represents (though obviously for parties with an official stance on promotion colour there's a good motivation for doing so). The sole purpose of a colour in election tables or maps is to allow for easy and unambiguous reading of information. That unambiguous comes above all considerations of historical or present affiliations to the colour. You mention an aversion to green hues. The Swedish election had three shades of blue. The British election had four shades of green. The French election had five shades of red. How many of each colour we have doesn't matter. What matters is that the colours are unambiguous and I do not accept that these greens can be confused with each other –      . I'll concede that the accessibility argument is one that I didn't consider but I think that's irrelevant too. Some users are red-green colour blind but we don't adjust template colours away from red and green. As per MOS:COLOUR, we need to ensure that there is contrast between written text and any background colouring but nobody's writing on these colours anyway so it isn't something we need to consider. There is no reason for changing the colours. They worked just fine.

2. Yes, I saw the discussion. I didn't say there was no discussion. What I said is that changes have not been "thoroughly thought through." If you want to undertake a complete overhaul of the political colouring scheme, you need to be thorough and take all factors into account. Why mention the pale yellow of LP and pale green of NP but not the pale colours of Aksyon Demokratiko or the People's Reform Party? They've both contested numerous elections. If you're concerned about similarity of greens, what was the consensus on Bangon Pilipinas? They're medium green is closer to the green NPC than the washed out green of NP ever was. I think there are some really dumb decisions that have been made with regards to the colours chosen too but I'm not going to labour this point any further (unless you want me to) as I've largely already made the case that you haven't thoroughly thought through the implications of these choices.

3. I was looking for something like: "These are all the things that need changing. <insert list of articles and images here>. If you want to help out that's cool. Otherwise I think I'll have it done in ~3 months." The colours were synchronized across Wikipedia. If you change them, you want the period of un-synchronization to be as short as possible to prevent confusion. A list of things to do and that are done would mean that when some third party like myself comes wandering in, they know you've got all bases covered. It also means that if, for whatever reason, you were forced to abandon the transition part way through, someone can take over where you left off instead of start from scratch. All I wanted was a list or something more substantial than "maps, diagrams, tables and such."

I stand by my points. You haven't thoroughly thought through the new colours, you haven't prepared fully for the transitional period and there's no reason to change the colours in the first place. If you really feel otherwise, I'm more than willing to hang around and spar with you for however long it takes for us to reach consensus. But until then please reverse your changes. Apologies for the long read essay. Katya2017 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. "There is no reason for changing the colours. They worked just fine." Then someone says "no it doesn't." Yes, we could talk about this all year, but nothing will come out of it.
2. We have been discussing this for since early May. I have made, and broken self-imposed deadlines. No one opposed about this, and actually people ignored this discussion, preferring that they battle fanboys in an article about a TV show. We've been talking about this for months. I have even asked for suggestions on which colors to use. This being "thoroughly thought through" may be inaccurate. As for specific questions:
   • As for Aksyon Demokratiko: This wasn't originally in light blue-purple. This was originally in pink and was changed just recently. (By recently, it's been pink far longer than it was in this current color.)
   • As for People's Reform Party: This is supposed to be in red. But since there are so many parties with red colors already (even prior to switching Nacionalista from green to red), we've settled on this color. This is distinctive and dark enough for it to be noticed separately from other parties in an election map, for example.
   • As for Bangon Pilipinas Party: This is a minor party and they don't particularly perform well ever since establishment. AFAIK they have won just one mayoralty and other local posts, have never won a Congressional seat or a provincial seat. The yellow-green color is actually a compromise, as their party colors are yellow and green, and seeing that there are already several parties with yellow and green shades, and none for yellow-green, we've settled on this color. I'd guess it's distinctive and dark enough for people to notice in a map just in case it wins a bigger seat.
   • The Philippines currently has a multi-party system. Congress of the Philippines has to be national legislature with the most number of parties in it, with 64 parties by my count on both chambers. Discounting the party-lists, the lower house has 17 participating parties, that's more than the UK with just 10. (To make it even simpler, I even made all local parties under one color in election maps, purple.) You'd never be bored with political party colors.
   • The primary problem was the color for Lakas, the Liberals and Nacionalistas, where both are washed out, and in light color. Not exactly the best choice of colors. That's the main changes that was made, with the Liberals getting a brighter yellow, and Nacionalistas getting the red color. What changed is that those were darkened, and were not washed out anymore.
3. The way it started out is somewhat not exactly the best way to do it, but as you can see, someone else agreed that it was due for a change. The Philippines is the only democracy where the three largest parties have washed out and light colors. This changed that. The changes will arrive in due time. This is a Wiki. It has no deadline. We've actually thought this through. No one opposed it here until now. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, something's not right with "stop it because one of the reasons is that you are not updating fast enough." Howard the Duck (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Don't just tell me that they don't work. Tell me why they don't work. I don't accept "it's been a while" and "they're dull" as compelling reasons for an overhaul. I don't think the fact there are too many greens is a concern either. I still don't understand why the use of pale colours is a major enough issue to warrant an overhaul. They're all distinguishable to a person of typical eyesight. Please explain why does the old colour scheme require an overhaul?

2. Yes, I'm aware you've been working on this for a while and I recognise barely anyone's noticed it. I imagine many people simply weren't aware of the conversation but their absence from the initial conversation doesn't exclude them from the conversation now. Yes, it's frustrating when someone comes along after you've put hours of work into something only to tear holes through it—it's a feeling I'm all too familiar with. Just know that my intentions here are pure. Your changes are to the detriment of clarity. Also, I apologise for all those questions on the specific parties. I didn't actually want an answer to them as they were supposed to be rhetorical but clearly hadn't communicated that well enough. My point is that if you're overhauling the colour scheme, you need to be thorough and consider everything so you don't run into problems part way through implementation as is happening now. I couldn't find any comments explaining the reason other parties maintained their colours so it was reasonable to assume you hadn't considered it

3. Yes, I understand that. I saw the sudden and needless changes (that I maintain don't need changing) and automatically assumed the worst. I do see you're an incredibly experienced editor and recognise that such an overhaul is a process and not event. Yes, no one opposed it earlier but I am opposing it now.

And to address your final point, I'm not saying to stop it because you're not updating enough. I refer you to my OP. I'm not opposed in principle to the change. I simply ask that if you insist on tearing down the infrastructure of the past decade then make sure there is a reason to do so, that all factors are taken into account and that a list of things that need changing after the templates have changed is put up somewhere so that people understand what you're doing. You have not so I reiterate my position. You should revert your changes and seek a broader consensus. Regards Katya2017 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. They don't work, in particular, as what I've said, the Nacionalista Party color is flat out wrong. It should have been red, and not green (and if it's green, it's not that shade of green). I actually understand the use of too many greens isn't an issue, but using the "correct" color in this case is of paramount. The use of pale colors is again wrong, the two other parties using these pale colors, the Liberals and Lakas, aren't using these exact hues. The Liberals use a bright yellow, and Lakas uses a darker shade of blue. The pale colors are wrong from the get-go, and are bad as it is hard to read on a bright monitor, on against a white or transparent background.
2. We have actually determined the potential problems and covered all bases above, as you can see. All I can see on your side is there's nothing wrong with the status quo so let's stick with it. We have been thorough with this. There had been several requests here to get this done. It's only right now that someone worked on it.
3. I'm not tearing down the infrastructure. We're not destroying anything. We're making it better. We're making it correct. We're making it accurate. This has long been requested for. We have actually checked out all contingencies here. If you think my changes are against policy, you're more than welcome to BRD. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. There is no wrong. The colours are arbitrary. Nacionalista could be purple and Liberal could be pink if it helps keep the colours separate enough to portray useful information. I struggle to believe you're seriously arguing that the colours needed changing "because they're pale".

2. You have not done this. Or if you have, you've made some particularly dumb decisions while doing so. Yes, I too used the search function to look through the archives before posting this. I believed you were being stubborn but at this point, I'm willing to assume you don't understand that you have not thought all factors thorough.

3. It was a metaphor. There is no correct or incorrect. You are making Wikipedia inaccurate due to my second point which you seem unable to concede or somehow unaware of. All I was asking for with my third point was a list of things that need changing or for you to at least say, "I compiled a list of things that need changing before I started the overhaul."

Bluntly, if you don't grasp that "the colours are pale" is not a reason for overhauling the colours, a BRD won't help here. How about I walk away from my first point instead? You clearly feel strongly they need changing, I'm not going to be convinced their "paleness" merits an overhaul. How about I agree to stop questioning the fact of whether a change needs to take place and just cut to the part why I think the colours you're changing to are stupid. Would that satisfy you by way of progress? Katya2017 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia http://tl.wikipedia.org/ is in Tagalog language. What about Filipino language? (I understand there is also the Cebuano Wikipedia and the Waray Wikipedia...) which Wikipedia is the one most often used by people of the Philippines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus! Long time no see. :)

Since 2005, we've treated Tagalog and Filipino as the same language, so the Tagalog Wikipedia is effectively the Filipino Wikipedia. And as far as the data shows, it's also the most-used Wikipedia in a Philippine language, with Cebuano coming in a distant second. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There are two articles created by bots about rivers called the Cochrane River at the Cebuano Wikipedia: w:ceb:Cochrane River (suba sa Manitoba) and w:ceb:Cochrane River (suba sa Saskatchewan). This is because of a quirk of the Canadian geographic names system: there are two entries for the same river, one entry only for the portion of the river in Saskatchewan, and the other for the full course of the river in both provinces to its mouth in Manitoba. The single English Wikipedia article for the river is Cochrane River (Canada). The bot created articles cause confusion at Wikidata too, as the two articles (along with identical bot-created articles at the Swedish Wikipedia, w:sv:Cochrane River (vattendrag i Kanada, Saskatchewan) and w:sv:Cochrane River (vattendrag i Kanada, Manitoba)) have been imported to create errant entries there (the Manitoba article was imported as d:Q22517891 and the Saskatchewan article as d:Q22517908; the correct English article is at Wikidata as d:Q18150029). Could someone merge the two articles at Cebuano Wikipedia? The simplest solution would be to merge the Saskatchewan article into the Manitoba one and update the Manitoba article with information from the English Wikipedia article. Alternately, one could create a new article and merge both old ones into it. I regret my skills in Cebuano are not sufficient for me to do the work myself! --papageno (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, here we are two days into the 14th Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival, and the page is still a redlink. I'd volunteer to make it, but all I have time for right now is a stub. I'll try to clear up some time to make it, but if someone has time to beat me to it, please do? :D The article would be very useful to festivalgoers. (Also, perhaps it's time to create separate articles for the 2017 Pista ng Pelikulang Pilipino (currently a redirect) and 2018 Pista ng Pelikulang Pilipino, separate from the existing Pista ng Pelikulang Pilipino article? :D Anyway, goodnight folks. Gotta go rest my eyes now. I just got back from Liway and bawled my eyes out. - Alternativity (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking through random orphaned articles I came across Comedy in the Philippines. It has to be an important topic, but I don't have the language skills or cultural knowledge to adequately fix it. It's currently orphaned, unreferenced, opinionated and difficult to read. Might anyone on here be able to help it out? I'll cross-post to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. › Mortee _talk 00:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that mess of an article clearly has little to no idea on how to best present it. Not to condescend and all, but I guess it speaks volumes on how English literacy has devolved in the Philippines no thanks to those pridist zealots and mainstream media dumbing down the populace. I propose a complete rewrite in much the same vein as Australian comedy and British humour, with the obligatory references of course; I may be able to start things off with an intro, but I don't have the time or zeal at the moment. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Will this brief intro suffice? "Filipino comedy refers to the comedy and humor performed in the Philippines and throughout the Filipino diaspora. Filipino humor can be traced to various origins, and is rooted to the people's sense of optimism and happiness which has been viewed as hallmarks of Filipino culture." Blake Gripling (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a better way to phrase "rooted to the people's sense of optimism and happiness which has been viewed as hallmarks of Filipino culture." I worry that it may generalize to a point where it restricts the coverage of the article? (Also, isn't it a bit editorializing?) - Alternativity (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, that could have been worded a bit better than sound like a shrine of sorts. There are sources that corroborate surveys on a population's optimism or lack thereof, but what do you think? 'Tis certain that our comedic tastes can be traced back to pre-colonial days, but I am honestly not an expert on that so some input is definitely needed.

Quick thoughts:

1. ) I think a distinction needs to be made right away in the lead between Humour and Comedy - the former being the broader term and the later being applied to performance arts specifically.
2. ) A key question is WHICH performance arts you count. The British comedy page seems to restrict itself to broadcast performance, for example, but that's not a very good article anyway.
3. ) While Humour is arguably pre-historic in origin, the history of Comedy would be traced to the beginnings of performance art. It's present in folk literature, for sure and in that sense you can trace the history of comedy to what are presumably pre-colonial texts. (I'm not using a reference here, so I can't be absolutely certain the scholarship supports that... but it makes sense.)
4. ) The first recorded instances of comedy would likely be from the early-to-mid Spanish Colonial era, since the pre-Hispanic records (Chinese, Portuguese, Bruniean) describe mostly trade and political structures. The early missionary-scribes were the first to describe culture in-depth.
5. )Regarding "characteristics" of Philippine comedy, it would be best to state (not just cite) the source in the text, so that it's clear that the description is a point of view (implication: it may be biased and is surely non-neutral)
6. ) It would probably also be best to describe "characteristics per historical era" rather than attempt to describe Philippine Comedy as a whole; culture is continuously evolving, so we shouldn't be speaking for the future.

Hm. Will add more if I think of anything. - Alternativity (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know who's in-charge in road related articles? I need some help here. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! hueman1 (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

whether or not, it suffered lack of articles about notable bridges. 49.145.250.51 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is possible but we need resources to cite them. The problem is, we lack resources too. --hueman1 (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I changed N1 highway (Philippines) to an article under development, but needs a lot of work to complete this. I completely agree that N1 and AH26 are not the same route, so, we must have a separate article for it. Do we need to have a collaboration work to have the N1 article started already?-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The split is wrong. Again, N1 should correspond to the Pan-Philippine Highway, with AH26 becoming a separate article. Unless there's something out there that says AH26 corresponds to the Pan-Philippine Highway and N1 is something else, this should be corrected. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked the correspondence but if AH26 and N1 are coterminous for at least 90 to 95% of the way, then I don't think they merit separate articles in the same way that we generally don't split articles about a geological island and its (roughly) coterminous administrative unit. —seav (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible just to ask the Department of Public Works and Highways for clarifications? Please respond to Talk:N1 highway (Philippines)#AH26 v. N1. Thank you! --hueman1 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want my viewpoint as to why this split is wrong, check out Talk:Pan–Philippine Highway. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I just posted my position on the N1-Pan-Philippine Highway split in Talk:N1 highway (Philippines), but I only saw your replies here since I posted weeks ago. As far as I know, AH26 and N1 are not coterminous (taking note AH26 follows NLEX from Guiguinto to Balintawak and SLEX from Makati to Calamba, and is also assigned to N70 from Palo to Ormoc and N10). Looking at the DPWH Road Atlas, N1 follows different named routes (Manila North Road, Maharlika Highway, Cagayan Valley Road, Manila South Road, MacArthur Highway, Digos-Makar Road, Makar-Marbel Road, Pagadian-Zamboanga City Road, etc.), and N1 being PPH is unlikely. It is not clear whether Pan-Philippine Highway applies to N1 or AH26, so, we can take time to discuss that. I agree that if we will keep N1 highway (Philippines) for the long term, we should be expanding and maintaining it. A road (or more general, transport) task force is also being proposed (see thread below), so, we may take that opportunity to discuss this. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/October 2018 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Recently multiple pushpin maps have been added to the infoboxes for the cities in Metro Manila and some other cities too (e.g. see this edit). IMO, the regional Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao maps serve no purpose in the infoboxes. There is nothing extra on these maps that the national map doesn't show, and since these maps cover about 1/3 of the national map, they don't even add much more detail! Clearly, they are only added because the option is there, not because there is a benefit. It is just more infobox clutter, and infoboxes for Philippine LGU's are already some of the longest I have seen on WP. I propose that we amend MOS:PHIL to say that infoboxes for LGU's should not have regional pushpin map but only use the national pushpin map (pushpin_map = Philippines). Let me know if you support this, or discuss. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Luzon/Visayas/Mindanao pushpin maps are not terribly useful. —seav (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

One person agrees. Technically that is "consensus" ;-)
If no more comments are added before the end of the month, I will implement the proposal. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Now an IP editor even added Southeast Asia pushpin maps. What's next? Map of Asia and the world? (I have actually seen this somewhere!). Not helpful and just clutter.

Comments anyone? Last chance before I close... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For landmarks I'd actually prefer pushpin maps per province, island group and country. For towns, the Philippines should be enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

While WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a thing, obituaries may indicate that someone is notable. Recently professor Mabalon died. She has had obits written up by KQED, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asian Journal, and was given a little shout out by the California Legislature. She also has authored a few books, and contributed to many others. Thoughts on whether this link should be blue?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty obviously notable in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to tell if the potential subject meets criteria 1, the potential subject's primary book has been cited by 39 other sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Her previous employer, SFSU, has a good write up of her on their website. That said I am unsure if the "Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship" is sufficient to meet Criteria 2.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at [[ https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions:2018/Filipino_American_History_Month ]]. For those planning to attend WikiConference North America 2018 in Columbus, Ohio, United States, I have proposed a submission for an edit-a-thon during the conference. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any additional feedback for this AfD discussion or ideas how to resolve the mentioned article issues would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I may need some assistance here. Please see WP:PHLRD for more details. --hueman1 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not make this a WP:TASKFORCE under this Tambayan (aka WikiProject Philippines) instead of a separate WikiProject? I don't think it makes sense to have to put two assessment templates on the talk page of PH road articles. Also, it's not like WikiProject Philippines has enough active contributors that we need to fork the effort of improving PH-related articles into separate WikiProjects. —seav (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Seav. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It probably should be a task force under WP:HWY, since all of the other roads-related projects and task forces are under that umbrella, and that project already has several resources that are already being used for Philippine road articles. A small adjustment to that project banner would accommodate an additional task force easily. (Especially since the page above is a clear copy of WP:USRD).) Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, what should I name it then? Tambayan Philippines Road Task Force? or Tambayan Philippines Transportation task force? --hueman1 (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be a subpage of WP:HWY. I hesitate to suggest creating a separate WikiProject nowadays because they often wind up inactive after a few years (for example, WP:HKRD). --Rschen7754 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

One question though, can it be a task force for transportation and transport-related topics too? --hueman1 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You could create a separate Transportation task force under this project, but then the existing road articles would still be tagged as part of the Asia task force under WP:HWY. If you wanted to create PHL Roads task force, we'd add it to the WP:HWY banner like the UK Roads task force, and retag articles to move from the the Asia task force to the new PHL one. You'll have to make the decision on scope (roads vs. all transportation) first, which is why these sorts of discussions should be made before creating a new project/task force. Imzadi 1979 → 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thank you! I would create separate transport and road task force for this. --hueman1 (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of articles about Bus companies (in the Philippines) that seem to rely on primary sources only and may have been failed on WP:ORG. They can be seen here Category:Bus companies of the Philippines. Tell me what you guys think about this. Thanks! --hueman1 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi HueMan. Yes, you are right that articles about bus companies need to live up to the standards set in WP:ORG. If that is not the case, feel free to start a deletion nomination. It is sufficient that such companies are mentioned in List of bus companies of the Philippines (and if any are deleted, some important info can just be added to this list). Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@P199: Thanks! --hueman1 (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Itsquietuptown pointed numerous issues in the article about the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte and I just made some changes to it, like fixing anti-Duterte statements in image captions, and removing fair-use images that do not have a non-free use rationale. There are too many of those content issues in that article, that it needs collaboration work to make them like other presidency articles, like Presidency of Benigno Aquino III. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes there are some issues like captions on Paolo Duterte stating that he is linked with the Triad drug syndicate as a definite fact when the given citation is about Senator Antonio Trillanes alleging that he has a dragon tattoo that would prove his links to the group. And there is the issue with images positioned left and right of the text making the article unreadable. And I believe while Duterte's controversial rants and rhetorics receives media attention they need to be summarized. Maybe these rhetorics could be grouped together and discussed as a whole in relation to certain positions of Duterte on issues (e.g. relations to the Church, views on women, views on the communist insurgency, etc.). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This anonymous user keeps on adding an unsourced, and I think highly dubious, etymology for the province name of Kalinga. I would also like to note that the etymology stated in the article does not match the etymology listed in List of Philippine provincial name etymologies. Does anybody have any better source for this? —seav (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:PH electorate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Question is in the title. While assessing stuff, I found that several musical artists, song and album articles are lacking in sources. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Have the artists in question made any notable impact in the OPM scene at least? Also, the problem here is with 2000s and earlier acts and songs as sources for them can be a pain to come by. Heck, this is true with any Filipino mainstream media in general. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's quite a pain. I was only able to source Blakdyak's article because of his recent death --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we even add numbered highways in City/Municipality infoboxes? It's quite irrelevant for the lead but articles sections may do, anyone with me? --hueman1 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I find the routes in the infobox as informative. I second with this point. However, I would qualify that it should instead be limited to major cities of the Philippines. In US articles, major cities like Los Angeles and Houston have their major highways on their infoboxes but smaller cities like Minot don't have such.--ERAMnc 03:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@ERAMnc: I agree, but speaking of Major Cities, how about Quezon City? There are 19 numbered routes in the city if I'm not mistaken. --hueman1 (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1:I see. That would make QC's infobox as somewhat clutter-y. Perhaps delimiting it to expressways and national primary roads would do? However I'm on the view that national secondary roads are likewise important for, in some cases, they link cities to national primary roads.--ERAMnc 17:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@ERAMnc: I guess we should just limit the use of it to highly urbanised cities and other notable tourist destinations. --hueman1 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I agree on that point. --ERAMnc 12:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@ERAMnc: Or maybe provinces too. --hueman1 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@ERAMnc: Should this be included in settlement guidelines? --hueman1 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: On provinces i find that there's nothing wrong with adding routes on provinces. In comparison with US states, some states like Texas or Montana did not list such routes in their infobox but have it in their transport section. Other states like New York, did not mention any US routes at all.--ERAMnc 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@HueMan1: On settlement guidelines, WP:Settlement is currently silent about it. --ERAMnc 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion here. I don't see what helpful info this provides. Without context, it is just more infobox clutter. It is much more helpful to describe it in the Transportation section. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@P199: Fair point. (By the way, do have any opinions with the bus company-related articles? Thanks!) --hueman1 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is clutter because I far as I can tell the only place the numbers exist is on government documents and a few scattered signs. I have never, ever heard of anyone referring to any numbered highway except maybe in Metro Manila when talking of the C5. Numbering is irrelevant here on Panay. Unless and until the numbers become just as important as in the U.S. (think Route 66) or the U.K. (the M1) they will just be clutter. Right now highway numbers just seem another dead-on-arrival government project. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The Minot article does list the numbered highways.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed on the Minot and LA articles that the numbered highways listed in the infoboxes are actually links to articles on those numbered highways. Are there articles on the numbered highways in the Philippines? Maybe only once we have the articles should we put them into the infoboxes. If they are not notable enough for an article, then maybe they are not notable enough for the infoboxes. Most of the numbered highways in Philippine highway network do not have articles and many of those that do have article titles that are not the number but are names like the MacArthur Highway or Circumferential Road 5. In general Wikipedia should be descriptive not prescriptive. We should describe things as they are and not try to push a particular effort, such as trying to mainstream highway numbers. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Found out that there were numbered routes on Minot too. I stand corrected. But regarding on highway numberings, would it be considered that perhaps we limit the numbered routes in the infoboxes of major cities to EX and NXX highways only? That might resolve the issue regarding cluttering in the infobox. --ERAMnc 14:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thus, if we would apply such for example, in the infobox of Iloilo City, only N5 would appear in the numbered routes in the city's infobox. Surely that would seem not to be cluttery.--ERAMnc 15:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I still do not think that numbered highways are important enough. I think that including any numbered highways is to give them WP:UNDUE weight. Are we including them because they are important to the Philippines or because numbered highways are important in other countries? I have never heard anyone refer to numbered highways in the Philippines. I have heard people refer to numbered highways in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, but not in Japan where highways tend to have names. I lived and driven in Iloilo for 15 years and I could not tell you anything about Hwy 5, where it goes, what it is, etc. I have never heard anyone say, for instance, "take highway 5 north out of the city". I see an occasionally random sign stuck in some out of the way place, and that's it. Is there any common, third-party reference that refers to highway numbers (as opposed to SCTEX or C-5)? Has there been an article in the Inquirer or the Manila Bulletin that refers to a highway's number, when not talking infrastructure or the building of roads. If not, I think that it is just giving it undue weight. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It might seem that there were no news articles in the past related to such numbering which may fall under WP:UNDUE, but we must likewise note that the numbered highway system in the Philippines is relatively new and were only recently imposed. In fact, the DPWH implemented such highway numbering system just last year. See: [1]--ERAMnc 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)