Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Barangay articles are inherently notable!

Can we all come to an agreement or consensus that all articles on barangays in the Philippines are all inherently notable so we can put an end to these neverending AfD nominations which all end up to being kept by the way? Can people try to read and understand WP:GEOLAND and what it means for our barangays? I seriously don't understand why people are discouraging the creation of barangay articles when i find them to be MORE IMPORTANT than the wider, generic city or municipality articles they are in, as they actually can be used to summarize and describe WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE. We don't live in those big cities or municipalities where people don't know each other. People live in barangays and are therefore far more important if we only try to improve the coverage of each one. I myself have created some barangay articles in Metro Manila and i actually learned a lot more about where people live, the actual communities, unlike in their generic city articles which covers basically just the general topics and their politics (boring generalizations really). I hope we can add this somewhere like WP:MOSPHIL like a statement that says barangays and all populated places are notable! :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So again, why are barangays inherently notable? The answer is in WP:GEOLAND which we can use to back up and strengthen our policy regarding barangay articles in MOS:PHIL or somewhere. Barangays pass the first criterion of the WP guideline: Populated, legally recognized places are notable.

1. Are all barangays populated places? Yes. Their population are continuously monitored and updated by the Philippine Statistics Authority.

2. Are all barangays legally recognized places? Yes. All barangays are recognized local government units with their own set of elected officers forming the lowest level of local government in the Philippines. Each barangay has a barangay captain, a barangay council composed of barangay Kagawads, and even barangay tanod and Sangguniang Kabataan.--RioHondo (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that all barangays are notable. Let's put aside WP:GEOLAND for a minute. Can you really convince us that Barangay 12 in Pasay City (basically just one small city block) is worthy of its own separate article and would pass WP:GNG? Sure you can fill the article with population statistics and names of barangay officials but pretty much nothing else. —seav (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I can! One-block neighborhoods, there's a lot of that in big cities like NYC like Cooperative Village, Herald Square, Union Square, etc. We even have articles on uninhabited one block plazas or traffic circles, like Plaza Moriones, Plaza Lacson, Burgos Circle, Philippines–Thailand Friendship Circle, Maysilo Circle, etc. So why shouldn't one block neighborhoods have articles when these are populated legally recognized places? Numbered divisions aren't unique to PH either, the French arrondisements are numbered too for example. Barangay 176 (although currently titled by common name Bagong Silang also has article). Any geographic entity that is populated should be notable, what more if these were legal administrative divisions of a country with their own local government? Even streets no matter how short have articles these days if you haven't noticed, that's cos those are important landmarks to people who use them, just as barangays are important to people who live in them! And important too to people who, like me, search for specific places and locales in different cities. Articles like Quezon City, Pasay, Caloocan, etc are worthless TBH, who here honestly depend on information in those articles or have even read them in their entirety? (I haven't) Those articles are all like general reviews with no specifics to offer. To truly learn and understand a place, you turn to their specific neighborhoods. New York City, London, San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, Los Angeles, those have the best and most complete coverage of individual neighborhoods in their hundreds that provide the specifics that their parent articles can't. I always turn to neighborhood articles to find the specific information i am looking for, which are almost always more dynamic than those general info in city articles that are like stuck in museum display. Barangays or neighborhoods no matter how small have more things goin on, which because of their "localness" are almost always rejected in their city articles. The latest notable establishment openings, the latest local road projects or barangay ordinances, or even local incidents that are widely covered in media but confined to that specific barangay, demolitions/fire/other tragedies. The festivities and traditions unique to the neighborhoods, etc. You won't find them in their city articles, because city articles are boring! Ive done streets and parks that are unpopulated, the barangays and local communities are far more important and notable than those streets and parks precisely because Filipinos in their hundreds and thousands reside in them. Period. If i decide to create Barangay 12, Pasay article, I will of course describe its location vis-a-vis other barangays in Pasay, the major landmarks there including physical/natural features like creeks, the character of the neighborhood--if it consists of informal settlements/makeshift houses/public housing/ apartment row or gated townhouse/subdivision, the notable businesses in that neighborhood, schools or colleges within the barangay, which parish church or vicariate it belongs to, other demographic details like ethnic composition of its residents if there are reports on such, other religious denominations present in the barangay, the existence of public parks and facilities, hospitals, clinics, etc. Poverty incidence reports if available, and then transportation, if it is served by LRT1, i can even write in detail about the streets that serve as the barangay's boundaries with Google map as my guide, how susceptible those streets are to flooding: MMDA compiles a list of thoroughfares that are prone to flooding, then i will search the legal websites for its origin, when the barangay was established by which act of Congress, etc. How the barangay came to be numbered and which barrio it replaced (i know this was in San Rafael), while also touching on the former divisions of Pasay: San Roque, Maricaban, Pildera, Santa Clara, Maytubig, Malibay etc. The history of their parishes/visitas etc. That's a lot of materials to cover if you really start caring for these villages where people live. If i decide to create articles on all the barangays in Pasay (which i know are around 200), i will probably group them according to their former barrios or traditional districts above, with a description of each numbered barangay arranged per section, to make it easy. The bigger and more prominent barangays can have their own separate articles (like Barangay 176 Caloocan), but that's only because there's a lot more info going on for them requiring a bigger and dedicated space, and doesn't mean the other barangays aren't notable anymore. They are all inherently notable, even when there's only a few hundreds living in them or even if their residents are all informal settlers. They are still Filipinos! Forbes Park is home to only a few hundred residents and yet it has its own article, because rich or poor, all barangays are equal and are equally notable because these are all neighborhoods of the Filipino people!

Anyway, this exercise of arguing over the notability of barangays is futile precisely because of the existence of GEOLAND, and I have also already given my inputs as to what should constitute these barangay articles, and its beyond just population or elected officials, way beyond that. It's just a matter of incorporating the WP guideline to our project, because like it or not, i will continue to defend these articles even if it reaches the Supreme Court teehee!--RioHondo (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Barangays do seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, but that does not necessarily mean that an article will be created for each that meets Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing, nor that an individual article for each would be helpful to readers. I haven't seen the AfDs in question, but if the articles are tiny stubs, then they might be better grouped with redirects leading to the grouped page. Pasay City for example divides its Barangays into zones. CMD (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is an active Wikipedia taskforce whose objective is to come up with articles on all barangays or barrios or neighborhoods in the Philippines. But the very few that actually create articles on such shouldn't be discouraged either by deletionists who think their home barrios and local government areas aren't important or notable enough to have their own articles, because actually they are, per Wiki guideline itself. There is a whole lack of appreciation for barangays like in Metro Manila for example, many of the street signs, the jeepney, bus, uv express destination signs, and even rail transit station names indicate the names of barangays, they are so visible throughout the metro in fact and yet there's really just a few who dared to write articles on them. Umm, look these prominent barangays and transport hubs continue to be redlinks Fairview, Quezon City, Malanday, Marikina, Cogeo, Bagong Ilog, Monumento, Caloocan, Magallanes, Makati, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, Guadalupe Viejo and Guadalupe Nuevo, Pinagbuhatan, San Bartolome, Quezon City, Greater Lagro, Zapote, Las Piñas, Hulo, Mandaluyong, Bacood, Culiat, Quezon City, Baesa, etc etc. Ive seen some editors try to create articles on some of them, but they end up getting deleted eventually or merged back especially with Quezon City barangays. See Novaliches, the popular district and former barrio turned municipality, is still a redirect. It's not just Geoland, Notability of barangays is evident in the streets itself where people are aware of these barangays as they see them everyday in those colorful placards.--RioHondo (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I added some sitios at Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna to AfD and my requests were all declined without hesitation. I can see your point here but I think it's just useless to keep them here without following MOS and GNG. --hueman1 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sitios and puroks are a different story, and this is where we can come to a sort of compromise. This is where i'll agree with you that strict adherence to WP:GNG should apply as sitios and puroks are too miniscule to matter, but on a per case basis of course. For example the sitio of Bulabog in the barangay of Balabag, Malay, Aklan i believe would pass the GNG easily, it's that beach sitio on the world famous Boracay hehe! But Sitio Uno/Dos/Tres, forget it! Merge them with their parent barangay. Instead of nominating sitios or puroks for AfD, merge them right away to the parent barangay under their own sections, instead of inviting attention or geoland arguments where you will never win hehe. That way we are also helping to expand the coverage of barangay articles.--RioHondo (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot of potential for growth among these Barangay articles, but I still do not feel they would best serve readers as a series of stubs. Take Novaliches for example. It has merely two sourced tiny paragraphs, and much of the rest is just lists. No doubt there is a good potential article, but it's not the current content. If in any article a certain portion of content grows too big, it can always be split down at that point, and its notability would be more self-evident. CMD (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that I did not say that all barangays are not inherently notable. I said that not all barangays are inherently notable. So using Caloocan's Barangay 176 as an example is a strawman argument because I can definitely see that barangay being notable (particularly since it is the largest barangay in Metro Manila by land area, and the most populous barangay in the Philippines, among other notable facts). Yes, individual city blocks in other countries and many plazas in the Philippines do have articles but that is because those city blocks and Philippine plazas are indeed notable; but it does not mean that all city blocks and all plazas are therefore notable. It does not follow.

Furthermore, you said, "articles like Quezon City, Pasay, Caloocan, etc are worthless TBH", and I vehemently disagree. If you ask any random Filipino, I think close to 100% would know the town or city they live/work in and even their local officials, like the mayor. But if you ask them what barangay they reside/work in, I would wager that maybe not even 50% would know which barangay much less who their barangay chairman is. Heck, I recently got a barangay business clearance document and I have now forgotten who my barangay chairman is. I don't even vote in barangay elections because the barangay has barely any impact on my day-to-day life, whereas the gated subdivision I live in has much more of an impact. This lack of knowledge/awareness for barangays among Filipinos is actually evidence that barangays are not inherently notable (though some certainly are notable). You may argue that Wikipedia can help improve this awareness by having barangay articles, but that is putting the cart before the horse.

Lastly, if you read the actual text of WP:GEOLAND it says, "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." That these places are typically presumed to be notable is not a logical argument for saying that all such places are automatically inherently notable. —seav (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy election day Seav! Did you vote? That provision in the guideline "Typically presumed to be notable" was actually my basis for saying that barangays are "inherently notable" because it implies that this type of populated places, without even looking at their contents, are "automatically presupposed" to pass the WP:GNG. That's like saying this class of populated places are "generally notable", and is given the preferential treatment in Wikipedia unlike other topics where notability still has to be demonstrated through citations. When the guideline says that "Populated legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable", that means ALL populated places that fit this type or description or criterion are automatically presupposed or considered to be notable, are therefore generally notable, and does not leave any room for exceptions at least within the type or class of topic in question. Barangays fit that type of populated places, hence are presumed already or considered to be notable, in other words they are all essentially, typically, generally, inherently, intrinsically notable. They are one in the same, at least as far as Wikipedia jargon is concerned.--RioHondo (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As for relevance or importance of barangays, if you think they only matter in barangay elections or business permits, then you are mistaken. If you voted today, or in the last presidential elections, you wouldn't have been able to do so if you didn't know your barangay as those are your election precincts even in national elections. You wouldn't have also been able to vote for your Congressional representative as the Legislative districts of the Philippines are actually divided according to barangays within a city. Apart from business permits, barangays are also the issuers of cedulas, blotters and clearances of all sorts. ZIP codes are also determined by barangay. And most importantly, barangays are used more often than cities in street signs, which i already said hehe, so they are very useful references, with some barangays being even more popular than their cities, like Alabang, Sucat and Baclaran, Alabang is simply Alabang, and people rarely refer to it or aware that it is in Muntinlupa. Sucat and Baclaran, people don't even know if they are in Pasay, Muntinlupa or Parañaque. But this is not a contest between cities and barangays. All im saying is that barangays should be treated like cities, as they are also local government units and because Geoland got its back also.:) --RioHondo (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I really think you are stretching the meaning of "typically presumed" to mean something that you want it to mean rather than something that it actually means in plain English. I find this presumptuous (pun intended). "Typically presumed" is not jargon, "notability" and "notable" are the actual jargon terms in Wikipedia.

As for business permits, I actually have an addendum to my anecdote. After going to my barangay, the next step is to go to the city hall to get my Mayor's Permit. Guess what? The BPLO staff told me that the city is now the one that will be issuing cedulas for the permit and the one who will be collecting fees for the barangay clearance on behalf of the barangay. This actually means that when I renew my permit next year, I do not even have to go to my barangay at all and can go straight to the city hall making my barangay even less relevant.

You mentioned places such as Sucat and Alabang. This is yet another strawman argument and for two reasons. First, the fact that these places are popular does not in any way refute my thesis that not all barangays are notable. Just because some barangays are more known or popular than their respective towns or cities is not a logical argument that leads to the conclusion that all barangays are inherently notable. It does not follow; aka a non sequitur. Second, when people mention the toponyms "Alabang" or "Sucat", they do not actually refer to the barangay of the same name, but rather to some amorphous "place" that by happenstance the barangay may be located in or named after (these places or place names often predate the modern barangay with the same name). In the case of Alabang, there are many sites that are considered in the "place" called "Alabang" that are not actually in Barangay Alabang, Muntinlupa. Alabang Town Center is actually in Barangay Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa. Alabang Hills Village is actually in Barangay Cupang, Muntinlupa. The new residential development of Alabang West and the original office of Toyota Alabang is/was actually in Barangay Almanza Dos, Las Piñas. In the case of Sucat, most places and establishments people think of as belonging in "Sucat" are actually because they are located along Sucat Road (officially Dr. A. Santos Avenue) in Parañaque and not because they are located in or associated with Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa. To give two prominent examples, SM City Sucat is actually located in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque, around 6.5 kilometers and several barangays west of Barangay Sucat, while Manila Memorial Park Sucat is located in Barangay BF Homes, Parañaque, around 1.5 kilometers west of Barangay Sucat.

(As an aside, places—not barangays—like Sucat and Alabang fall into what I think of as "pseudo-districts", which are places that people know of and often refer to but do not actually have any legal definition or legal character—unlike Manila's districts like Binondo and Sampaloc, or Iloilo City's districts like Jaro or La Paz, which are all legally defined. These "pseudo-districts" includes places like Cubao, Diliman, and New Manila in Quezon City; Malibay in Pasay; Gagalangin in Tondo, Manila; and Guadalupe in Makati—generally composed of barangays Guadalupe Nuevo and Guadalupe Viejo but often includes adjacent barangays like Pinagkaisahan and Pitogo.)

Going back to Wikipedia jargon, when Wikipedians say that a topic or subject is "notable" this actually means that the said topic/subject is deserving of its own separate article. (Note that if a topic/subject isn't notable, it doesn't automatically mean that Wikipedia can't have content about that topic/subject. Wikipedia may certainly have content but likely as part of a larger article. So in the case of unnotable barangays, we can have content about them, usually under their parent city/municipality, or as a list like Barangays of Quezon City.) Furthermore, saying that all barangays are inherently notable means that you are actually in favor of having a separate article for Barangay Pag-asa, which is the only barangay of the municipality of Kalayaan, Palawan, and that you are in favor of a separate article for Barangay Adams Proper, which is the only barangay of Adams, Ilocos Norte. These two barangays are not notably separate from their parent municipality and content about them should be folded into the articles of their parent LGUs.

Finally, if we were to really dissect your argument, you keep on referring to WP:GEOLAND like it is some sort of gospel. However, it seems you are forgetting that GEOLAND is part of WP:NGEO, which is a guideline. Unlike Wikipedia policies which are "standards that all users should normally follow", guidelines are actually less restrictive and are "sets of best practices" that "editors should attempt to follow", but "occasional exceptions may apply". You are so convinced that all barangays are inherently notable ("because, GEOLAND!!!111") and are not accepting of the idea that exceptions may apply, just like with all other Wikipedia guidelines. We should actually use common sense or seek guidance from other guidelines (like the broader general notability guideline) to inform our decisions on specific cases. —seav (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, this practice of marketing certain developments as part of famous localities or destinations even when they don't actually fall in the territories of those famous localities are not exclusive to barangays. This is common practice too with cities, like Twin Lakes Tagaytay and Canyon Woods Tagaytay which are actually located in Laurel, Batangas; Tagaytay Midlands which is actually situated in Talisay, Batangas; and Sonya's Garden Tagaytay which is actually in Alfonso, Cavite. And then there's also Subic, the municipality. Many establishments in Olongapo, Castillejos and as far north as San Antonio and Anawangin, and south like Morong, Bataan market themselves as Subic. I think ive spent more than enough time in Wikipedia (6 or 7 years?) to know what these jargons mean, and have become so familiar with these guidelines where the words typically and generally have been embraced by the community at large to mean inherent notability. And we are not even talking about abandoned places or ghost villages here, but existing census designated places and legally recognized local government areas like barangays. The fact is there is consensus on inherent notability of census designated places in the US, UK and elsewhere. See WP:INHERENT. So it is not surprising that they are always the first to cite geoland in any AfD argument. As for single barangay towns, i would imagine they would be like our coterminous island barangays or even island municipalities where standard practice of merging them regardless if they are namesakes or named differently is followed, like Cabarruyan Island and Anda, Pangasinan. This shouldn't be treated any differently. And finally, because barangays, like any populated legally recognized place, are existing legal entities and political communities, their notability does not end in their creation by executive order or act of Congress (itself already suggestive of notability), but their notabilty encompasses their entire histories, so continuous coverage for them in reliable sources, up to the present and even in future suggests that this topic will continue to remind us of their notability with every update or news it generates in RS. That's the way i see all these recognized communities with legal and political powers granted to them by the national government. P.S. Alabang and Sucat are not pseudo-districts, they are in fact barangays with legally defined boundaries, the former being redefined recently with the creation of New Alabang (Ayala Alabang).--RioHondo (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the barangay of Mayapa

WP:BEFORE the barangay article gets deleted because a fellow Pinoy wikipedian here thinks it is trivial, let me just put it on the record here that the barangay's history is no trivial matter. From a really quick Google Books search, i found these interesting and i would say notable accounts of the barrio/barangay:

• Did you know that Mayapa was the location of a steam mill back when it was still part of the Hacienda de Calamba or Calamba Sugar Estate owned by the Dominican Order? The hacienda was sold by the Dominican Order to the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company of Francisco Gutierrez Repide on November 18, 1898. Seven years later on October 19, 1905, the estate was purchased by the US Insular Gov't for P50,000 under the Friar Lands Act. The estate included a railroad and hydraulic mills spread out over 16,424 hectares (40,580 acres) with the casa hacienda or administration building located in Majada? The steam mill of Mayapa was reported to have been destroyed by Filipino insurgents during the Philippine Revolution.
• Did you know that Mayapa had a population of only 217 in 1903?
• Did you know that during the Philippine-American War, the 21st Infantry of the U.S. Army under First Lieutenant Marion M. Weeks captured Filipino revolutionary captain Juan Rubio and 5 other insurgents at barrio Mayapa?
• Did you know that after the U.S. government purchased the Hacienda de Calamba from the Dominican Order and the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company in 1905, 56 hectares (140 acres) of it in Mayapa was transformed into a military camp known as Camp Paciano Rizal in 1937? That during World War II, the barracks there were set on fire by the Japanese invading forces in 1941? That it was renamed to its current name Camp Vicente Lim in 1951?
• Did you know that in November 2015, 0.8 hectares (2.0 acres) of land in Mayapa was reserved by the national government as the site of the regional offices of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Public Works and Highways?

This is what i have been saying about barangay articles, that local community topics have their own stories to tell that are not found in their city articles! And i have barely scratched the surface there, if only we start taking our local government units seriously. If only.--RioHondo (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't read the third source, but the others really don't support an argument about the notability of Mayapa. The first uses Mayapa as the name of a steam mill. The second just states it's an area with a population, which we already know. The fourth doesn't even mention "Mayapa". Wikipedia should not 'take things more seriously' than external sources do. CMD (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That is your opinion. But the sources demonstrate a local government area that has a history going back more than a century. A continuously populated area with a local government structure that predates the information age, if your idea of notability is prominence in today's mass media where basically every topic is covered from the sensational and promotional to the mundane, then that would leave us with very few topics concerning histories of settlements, as we know topics in that era are scarce. By requiring stringent standards for local government areas in PH, we are in effect creating a double standard where the treatment for villages in other countries and projects only require verification of their existence in a RS per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. PS the military camp mentioned in the 4th RS is located in Mayapa which can be easily verified by clicking on the website's contact, or even google and google maps.--RioHondo (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources I could read demonstrate it had a population of 217 in 1903, and nothing else about its history. That's not my opinion, that's what the sources you present say. I understand the fourth source is about somewhere in Mayapa, it's just noticeable that in a source provided to demonstrate the importance of the history of Mayapa, Mayapa was so unimportant to that fourth source that it wasn't mentioned in that page (unlike Calamba, which is mentioned). CMD (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you are not from the Philippines then if you don't know barrio and friar estate histories. Where are you from? Yes, many of our barrios were named after their prominent landmarks or even the type of vegetation present in the area. For example, Molino in Bacoor was named after a windmill (molino basically means windmill in the Spanish language). Olympia in Makati was named after the brick factory building there in the late 19th century. As for barangays' non inclusion in some addresses, i believe this is no different from how they shortcut addresses in most other places, for example the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York is never known or advertised to be in Turtle Bay, Manhattan.--RioHondo (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made zero comments on what I do and do not know. I have only commented on the sources you've provided to try and demonstrate notability. CMD (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You dismissed the first source as irrelevant to the barrio, when that account actually discusses its origin as part of an agricultural landholding we call friar estate or hacienda, that was owned and administered by the Dominican priests during the Spanish colonial period, which had a steam mill and which when ownership transferred to US govt in 1905 was a community of at least 217 people as recorded in a census two years earlier. The other barangay article submitted to AfD was even mentioned there also. You need to have an understanding of the barrio and encomienda system to appreciate the development of early settlements in PH is all im saying.--RioHondo (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have an understanding, but my understanding is WP:OR, as is yours. We require the sources to directly demonstrate notability, not our understanding of the sources. CMD (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 ??? What is OR there? The fact that Mayapa was part of a friar estate owned by the Dominican priests? Or it being a place where a steam mill was located? Those are in the first source! Even the locations of the other mills of the hacienda mentioned in the source are in fact their own barangays today. The source says "the sugar mills, with all their camarines (Spanish/Filipino for shelters or bamboo huts if you will) and accessories are called Mapagong, Mayapa, Siranglupa, Real, Punta..." You can even check Calamba, Laguna to see that those are actual barangays today. (SirangLupa being the other article nominated to AfD for also being "trivial"). Ive written on several of these estates-turned-barangay articles to know the pattern of development of different parcels of friar haciendas into barrios of tenant farmers, and eventually the barangays as we know them today. It shouldn't be difficult to understand if you know Philippine colonial history. So where is OR in all of these? The account is clearly worded and straightforward when it described the settlements within the friar estate at the turn of the 20th century. And for the nth time, Notability is in their being populated legally recognized places and in this case, with a history of continuous inhabitation spanning more than a century. Its length of existence alone beats half of the existing municipalities we have individual articles for. The sources combined not only verify its existence, they describe the growth of the populated place from a colonial farming community to a military camp and now a regional government hub. I havent even started to dig into the history of its parish. Anyway, im done lecturing here, meanwhile you havent told us where you're from cos its like i had to explain all these concepts to a complete outsider.--RioHondo (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The OR is where you insist on checking other Wikipedia articles and interpret the sources based on your knowledge of estates-turned-Barangays. This is classic WP:PRIMARY. No-one has asked you to explain anything, because what we need is sources explaining things. CMD (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, it's not my fault if you don't know the terminologies and concepts referred to in the source? cos the source clearly explains and indicates that those locations of the sugar mills in the hacienda are settlements without even having to look anywhere. A collection of sugar mills, houses and infrastructure/fixtures that are named this, this and that, what do you make of that? (Top of mind, without looking anywhere?) Actually, without having to even know a thing about Philippine colonial society and history, but just knowing what is being described in the sources, (which obviously you don't that's why you dismissed it as irrelevant so i had to explain, note that my explanation only came after your categorical dismissal and even bad faith accusation of OR (!) Anyways, im done here. As this is an important domestic discussion on the notability of barangays, what this needs is domestic expertise on the issue at hand. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing this back to what you or I know or don't know? From your response where you again delve into your knowledge and interpretation of the source, you don't seem to have read WP:PRIMARY. WP:SYNTH below that, may be another relevant section. Wikipedia doesn't use "domestic expertise", that's much of the point of WP:OR. CMD (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Focusing on just one case like Mayapa in order to argue that notability applies to all barangays is not a good argument. Also, some sources just mention Mayapa as the location of a site, establishment, or event, but these things can just as well be included in the article on Calamba itself and the sources do not actually say anything particularly notable about Mayapa as a place other than something was located or happened there (i.e., the mention is "trivial coverage" if you look at examples in WP:GNG). You also mentioned Molino in Bacoor. Well, there may be a valid case to have a separate article about Molino as a place if we can have content that is rich and separatable from Bacoor itself, but I really don't think we need separate articles on barangays Molino I, Molino II, Molino III, Molino IV, Molino V, Molino VI, and Molino VII. —seav (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm im not sure i can follow your argument there regarding the barangay being only the location of a site, establishment or event so it does not deserve its own article. We are talking about populated places here and their histories so what else is there to present but what took place in those places? That's what you call history? I mean geography, population and events, on top of local government, those are standard subtopics of populated places. And this is not like it was only notable for one event for which its independent notability might be questioned. We're talking about multiple events here that shaped the history and growth of the populated place over a century. And being the location of notable establishments, of course that has to be mentioned as part of the built environment and landmarks, if they are notable colleges or schools, education, if they are notable religious buildings, religion etc. It's the combination of all those subtopics as they relate to the barangay: geography, history, politics, the local economy and transport, demography (insert population figures here), and then education, religion, etc etc, that make the barangays inherently notable on their own. As i said, the localness of the scope of their subtopics make them all eligible for their own separate articles, as the city articles are supposed to only summarize their neighborhoods and have their own political histories and general topics, any "overcoverage" of a component neighborhood is like hijacking the city article and gives rise to undue weight or balance issues. As for the current setup of Molino in Bacoor, they would actually qualify for a district/ subdistrict/ submunicipality or collection of barangays article, and I would fully support them being grouped under one article with their own sections, as with my previous Pasay numbered barangay proposal.--RioHondo (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing two types of sources. One type of source is used to provide content to articles (see WP:RS). The second type of source is used to establish the notability of a topic or subject (see WP:NOTABILITY). These two types of sources may overlap (and the second type is usually a subset of the first type). I would argue that most of the sources you dug up that mention "Mayapa" is just of the first type (i.e., can be used to populate the article on Mayapa, if and only if Mayapa is actually notable; but those sources may certainly be used to populate the article on Calamba), and are not of the second type (i.e., the sources do not actually establish that Mayapa is notable since they just provide "trivial coverage" according to WP:GNG).

Again, the concept of notability in Wikipedia is intrinsically tied to whether a topic deserves its own individual article. If you "fully support" Molino, as a whole, being just one article instead of having individual articles for its 7 component barangays, then you are actually agreeing with my stance that those individual barangays aren't inherently notable—otherwise you would argue that those barangays should have their own individual articles instead of grouped together. —seav (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class. At least when it comes to geographic entities including populated places as they appear in gazetteers. But just because articles on islands and islets, rivers and creeks/esteros, and mountains/hills in the entire Philippines may be created doesn't mean an article for each one of them would actually be created. It would take a lifetime or most probably never. Those that have already been made however, regardless of how unfamiliar or seemingly insignificant they are, like have you seen the individual Category:Islands of Iloilo?, they are all kept. I don't see people questioning their individual notabilities or mass nominating these articles for deletion, even when some of them are uninhabited or are forever stubs supported by only one source that says nothing other than they exist. Do they establish notability according to your standards? So the same should apply here. And just like island or islet articles, Molino could be treated as an archipelago article for convenience or for better presentation. But that doesn't mean we can stop others from pursuing each and every island or rock of the Calamianes or Cuyo Archipelago. Or an article on a mountain range instead of one per named peak, although named peaks within a range can also qualify for their own. Should an article on a river cover its entire basin or could its individual tributaries and creeks also have articles? It works either way too. Im not bothered by editors preference for a single island or island group articles. What bothers me is the double standard and the strict control of the little there is. Don't worry there's not a lot of editors doing gazetteer work here, our priority is still our Showbiz project of course and an article on every single Philippine movie and TV program, past, present and future. Lol! We never miss on these topics, well that and pageants. ;) --RioHondo (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Btw, the only reason i had to start this Mayapa subsection discussion is because of your delete votes in that AfD as well as the other one. I figured this has to have a proper and extensive discussion which a quick deletion poll can never provide. I was actually surprised to learn of your stance a few years back regarding what you claim is the unimportance of barangays when Ive always known you to be involved in mapmaking or gazette work. Barangays, like those geographic features i mentioned are almost always included in city and even regional maps, unlike the artificial ones, infrastructure or building landmarks, so that alone is indicative of their notability. Of course not all rivers, mountains or islands will be featured prominently in maps, like barangays, but that doesn't mean an article on say Estero de Sunog Apog or Mangangate River can no longer be created. Except for the artificial features, the above geographic entities almost always find their way to gazettes, and that includes our Official Gazette (Philippines) where protected areas that include these physical features and barangays with their proclamations or acts are gazetted.--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"A standard applied to one should apply to all within its class....": Have you actually read the whole of WP:NGEO? This current discussion with you is actually making me think that you still have quite a bit more to learn about Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines despite having been editing for over 7 years. You point to the articles on the islands of Iloilo as evidence but this is just another "other stuff exists" argument. Unless and until the island articles have actually survived an AfD discussion or have been merged but reverted with a proper discussion (i.e., their existence as separate articles have been questioned and their notability has then been established per the WP:NGEO and WP:GNG guidelines as appropriate), then the fact that these articles currently exist is not actually proof that they are Wikipedia-notable. For example, I may actually decide to just go ahead and merge/redirect Himamylan Island to Carles, Iloilo because I think this uninhabited island is not notable per WP:NGEO (because of the criteria under the "named natural features" subsection). But I generally leave such articles alone for now because I would like to concentrate on other areas in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons).

In addition, whether geographical features are typically found (or not) in maps (and there are many different types of maps, such as political maps, where barangays are appropriate, or natural/topographic maps, where islands, rivers, streams, hills, and mountains are appropriate, or historical/heritage maps, where monuments and landmarks are appropriate—subject to the map size and map scale [if I am making a small, small-scale map of Bacoor, I may just have a single label for "Molino" and "Zapote" instead of trying to cram each and every "Molino X" and "Zapote X" barangay labels]) have very little bearing on the notability of their corresponding geographical features in Wikipedia. To quote WP:NGEO: "This guideline specifically excludes maps ... from consideration when establishing topic notability".

P.S. A gazette like the Official Gazette is different from a gazetteer, like the GEOnet Names Server. —seav (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The thread has died once more. Like every other "barangay notability" section does... We need to settle this argument down and agree to a specific understanding. Perhaps we could create (or add) some guidelines (to MOS:PHIL) that will evaluate barangays if whether they are notable or not? And will no longer depend on a guideline that only presumes a notability but does not evaluate them specifically. I do not wish to end up discussing this topic in the supreme court for that would be preposterous. But in all seriousness, not all barangays are "inherently" notable. They may pass WP:GEOLAND and etc. but that isn't enough for Wikipedia standards after all we want to make this encyclopedia better as well as information to be verified and be accepted as a proper source of information that could be used in hundreds or thousands of research and studies that may further understanding of the information given or do you? —hueman1 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's hard to get consensus on this topic. My view is that majority of Filipino Wikipedians, based on past discussions here on the Tambayan and on numerous AfD discussions, do not think that all barangays are notable (see this "almost" consensus discussion for a bit of reference). But most other editors (mostly non-Filipinos) refer to WP:GEOLAND as a reason to keep barangay articles. If you really feel strongly about this issue, feel free to open a new section (or subsection in this thread) to propose to add guidelines in WP:MOSPHIL regarding barangay unnotability. But do note that this means that this proposed guideline will carve a very specific exception against WP:GEOLAND—which is allowed since Wikipedia guidelines can have exceptions—but that will be an uphill climb. Furthermore, the Tambayan is not as active as it used to be so it would also be hard to get consensus for your proposal. —seav (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Seav: I see, but let's give it a try. I'll start a new discussion below. —hueman1 (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

More on the Wiki entries related to Pre-colonial Philippines that have little to no sources

Dear fellow Wiki editors who visit the talk page of Tambayan Philippines,

I am reviewing some of the Wiki entries related to Pre-Colonial Philippines and I have found out that several of them lack sufficient sources to back up their claims. In particular, I have PRoDed some of these new articles that do not meet the verifiability and notability standards:

• Battle of Manila (1405) (talk page)
• Battle of Manila (1500) (talk page)

I have written further explanations in the respective talk pages of the article in question. You are invited to participate in the discussion if you have something to contribute. I also reviewed another article (written by the same author who wrote the two articles listed above) with too many claims but with only two sources, one unreliable source and one unverifiable source with a bad citation format. I will also PRoD this article and my fellow Tambayan dwellers are welcome to participate in the talk page discussion:

• Kedatuan of Dapitan (talk page)

Other articles that I have identified with similar problems regarding source verification and/or reliability (not to mention notability issues) are the following:

• Ama-ron (talk page)
• Rajah Lontok (talk page)
• Dayang Kalangitan (talk page)

I'd like to know the opinion of others whether these pages are justified to remain in Wikipedia despite their unresolved problems regarding sources. Stricnina (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stricnina. Just for context, I function as a near-absolute inclusionist when it comes to most pre-colonial articles, simply because the references tend to be inaccessible. The only time I delete things is when investigation clearly shows them to be hoaxes. But the fact that I don't initiate deletions myself and don't vote in their favor except in the case of contradictions with established scholarship doesn't mean I'll get in the way of someone else assessing them to be non-notable. In the case of the above, I can only really summon a weak argument in favor of the verifiability of Dayang Kalangitan and Rajah Lontok. And in favor of the Notability of Dayang Kalangitan, given her prominence in the orgin myths for Pasig City. As I presently don't have much time away from work, I may or may not look into them, and leave the AFD process up to your discretion. Ama-ron, I tend to agree, should never have been created, while the 1500 and 1405 Battles of Manila probably shouldn't be their own articles. ( I am unsure where they belong.) I now nothing of Dapitan, so I won't comment. Part of me cringes at the thought of article deletions, as I've said. But I think in most of these cases I shall choose to regretfully look away instead of actually objecting. - Alternativity (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alternativity, thanks for your input. I will take your comment on consideration. If you believe some of the pages pass the verifiability and notability criteria, then I'll not proceed to the AFD process. I do think the Ama-ron page needs to be PRoDed, seeing that it lacks proper sources that testify its verifiability and notability (and it seems you also agree). However, I'll leave the rest for now. Plus, after doing a little research, I believe I have found the "sources" of the Kalangitan-Lontok legend: [[1]]

[..]y dicho Lontoc se casó con la Señora de Pasig que es Calañgitan[...]

— Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, Historia de Filipinas para uso de los alumnos del Instituto Burgos y de otros colegios particulares (pg. 6)

I'll leave the rest of the Wiki pages for future fixing or re-writing once the sources come up. Stricnina (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the poorly-justified existence of certain content regarding pre-Hispanic Philippines

I would like to know whether Wiki entries with only one citation like the one dedicated to Rajah Gambang is justified and merit its own Wiki page in the first place. Also, the remarkable specificity of claims (like the very name and existence of a certain Rajah Gambang, together with years of rule and name of wife) despite the overall scarcity of primary sources on pre-Hispanic Philippine history will only make more serious and fact-based editors raise their eyebrows. I personally suggest total deletion of the Wikipedia entry as per the WP:Notability standards, seeing that almost zero sources are presented, thus proving that it has not received significant coverage in scholarly circles, making the existence of the page totally unjustified.

I also would like to raise my concerns regarding the very existence of Battle of Manila (1258) and Battle of Manila (1365) for similar reasons, especially the lack of significant coverage of these events in scholarly circles besides pure minor trivial fact. Stricnina (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already nominated Rajah Alon and Rajah Gambang for deletion, also because the one who created the page (Ph2v) was already inquired on improving the article many years ago (from 2011, judging from his talk page: User talk:Ph2v) by someone (Fences_and_windows) who asked for proof of the existence of the two rajahs, without an apparent reply from the creator himself. I think I messed up with the nomination process though, but I hope someone who eventually opposes the deletion of the two articles give a proper justification of the existence of these Wiki entries by improving the article and providing more reliable academic sources. However, I'm still firm in my stance that those two Wiki pages do not satisfy the WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability guidelines and are thus subject to either improvement OR deletion. Stricnina (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am also inviting Alternativity and Rene_Bascos_Sarabia_Jr. to justify the existence of separate pages for the Battle of Manila (1258) and Battle of Manila (1365), respectively, by providing the reliable secondary sources (better with quotes from the books in question and their respective pages), as per the WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability guidelines. Stricnina (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I dropped the ball on this, Stricnina! I obviously meant to follow up 8 years ago... Please also check Dayang Kalangitan, Rajah Sulaiman I, and Empress Sasaban. Fences&Windows 23:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor Fences_and_windows, you don't have anything to apologize for. Rest assured that in the future I will move on to the other pages you have suggested. That's actually my plan. I also noticed the same issues with those Wiki entries, namely the lack of a sizeable amount of secondary sources to back up the existence of those people. Dayang Kalangitan and Rajah Sulaiman I for example seem to come from the book written by Grace Odal-Devora according to the other editors, however no quotations nor pages of the book were provided, and even if there were, it would constitute a Wikipedia:Articles with a single source (since their very existence relies on a claim from a single book) and are thus not qualified for a Wiki entry as per WP:Notability guidelines. In other words, I will also propose their deletion once I am done with the Rajah Alon and Rajah Gambang (or a merger if possible) Stricnina (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fences_and_windows and Stricnina, please see my note in the section below, which also represents my position on most of these articles, except perhaps Rajah Salalila. I had initially tried to disprove his existence, since he was being referenced (as "Sulaiman I") in several narratives which I felt were hoaxes. But there were enough references to him in the literature. Odal alone, I might choose not to use as basis, but Dery, Scott, and Majul all mention him. I can find the appropriate pages, I think. But they'll be close to the original text because I recall mostly rewriting that article by collating and paraphrasing the narratives from the various sources (which cite each other and mostly cover the same ground anyway.) There are problems with the article, mostly brought about by editors who seem to think having monarchs in one's ethnic history confers some sort of weird racial dignity. But I think the main thrust of the article itself is clearly supported by scholarship. (I note that the article doesn't cite Luciano PR. Santiago, who is the scholar actually referenced by most of the others, including Dery and Scott.) So there you go. I think Salalila is worth discussing; the others, I won't feel to bad about seeing go. - Alternativity (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe I should ask just one question first: when it comes to notability, can't an argument be made that legendary rulers who spoke a language that isn't one of the world's current lingua francas (and are therefore less covered my mostly anglophone/francophone/sinophone scholarship) are possibly more notable than obscure royals who just happen to be English or French or Spanish? Is there merit to retaining articles for obscure Tudors (Lady Jane Grey, really?) while deleting articles about the forebears of Lakandula? I agree with the notability concerns in general, but I also worry that by deleting articles, we're helping keep the world just a little bit more Eurocentric/Sinocentric/Indocentric/Dynastocentric. Or maybe that's just me. - Alternativity (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alternativity, my answer to your question is that it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to prevent the world from becoming a bit more Eurocentric/Sinocentric/Indocentric/Dynastocentric. Leave that to true researchers, historians, etc. Our job is only to make sure articles pass the verifiability and notability standards and if certain pages do not meet the requirements, then they eventually should be deleted. Having said all of this, I have decided to leave the other Wikipedia pages for a while, since I believe they pass the verifiability requirements and notability standards like I have explained below (I have found primary sources attesting the existence of the Lontok-Kalangitan legends, which is the "Will of Fernando Malang Balagtas of 1539", and I believe there are other references out there verifying the legend of the "Lady of Pasig/Señora del Pasig"), and I'll leave the task to the rest of the editors to improve these Wiki entries by adding information regarding the scholarly consensus of the authenticity or the legendariness of some of them. Stricnina (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Stricnina, well, maybe I should rephrase myself. What I actually meant was that we should be wary of Wikipedia being more Eurocentric/Sinocentric/Indocentric/Dynastocentric, and affecting the popular public discourse as a result. There seems to be a concerted effort to shift the balance of pre-colonial Philippines articles back towards the over-romanticized, empires-emphasizing, monarch-focused views of Philippine history common in the mid 20th century (ehem,Zaide; ehem,Fox), before analyzing history in light of critical historiography elevated the discourse. It is, after all, also our job to make sure that Wikipedia accurately represents present scholarship, and this overromanticized reading of Philippine history has long been dismissed by the literature. Anyway. Just my two cents. - Alternativity (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Alwyn Alšarifović Abubakarov's edits (removal of Tagalog language from Philippine geography-related articles)

Just to inform fellow editors to kindly check Alwyn Alšarifović Abubakarov's edits, as most of it involves removing the Tagalog language from several Philippine-related articles (usually geography-related), without citing sources as needed. Thank you. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• They have explained the nature of their edits rationalizing that there Filipino/Tagalog language place names should be removed from the non-Tagalog dominant localities since it would be imposing on those non-Tagalog ethnic majority living in those areas while I countered that Filipino is an official language and shouldn't be removed. You could refer to their talk page for better explanation of their side. I would like to reach consensus regarding this. I invite @Alwyn Alšarifović Abubakarov:|p=}} themselves to participate in the discussion.

The way I'd approach this is similar to how I'd now like to approach airport articles: in non-Tagalog/Filipino speaking areas, the local languages should go first, followed by the Tagalog/Filipino name. Currently this is the reverse (Tagalog/Filipino first), but we're slowly getting there. That said, we have to face the reality here: Tagalog/Filipino is the national language, and whether we like it or not, they deserve to have a place in geography-related articles. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is his latest revision of the article Bangsamoro, with his reason:

"The racist and undemocratic imposition of Tagalog, sugarcoated as "Filipino", on the Bangsamoro region already qualifies as "good reason" for its exclusion"

. Whether we like it or not, Filipino is based on Tagalog. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Date format

Hello.

What is the general date format within this project? I thought it was mdy, due to the historic relations between the Philippines and the United States (where it is mdy), but I recently saw an article (Eddie Garcia) tagged with {{use dmy dates}} despite having many dates in the mdy date format.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I recently changed the {{use mdy dates}} tag to {{use dmy dates}} as several (if not all) references in the Eddie Garcia article use dmy format. As for the article content itself, the dates still use mdy format, so I am unsure if these should be changed to dmy as well. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would think that WP:ENGVAR applies here. Most Filipinos use the American style (mdy) but generally dmy style is also used and understood. I don't think the format matters but it should be consistent per article. —seav (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the discussion regarding the selection of the proper title of the Wiki entry Indian influences in early Philippine polities

To the dwellers of Tambayan Philippines,

You are all invited to participate in the talk page discussion regarding the naming of the Wiki entry which is currently named as "Indian influences in early Philippine polities". The article has assumed at least three different names in its entire history and we are currently deciding on what title should the Wiki entry have in order to avoid possible continuous renaming by different editors based on their own reasons and/or preferences. If you have constructive opinions and suggestions, you are more than welcome to participate in the talk page discussion. Stricnina (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Malo, Louisiana#Blogs are not reliable sources . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rate this article please

Good morning guys,

I recently edited the Wikipedia page,SM City Bacolod. I would like for you guys to rate it again because of this massive edit. It would mean a lot to me if you check it out soon. This is the one of the few malls I visit every time I head back to the Philippines. KCastillo11 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Officer in Charge or Acting Position

I notice that government officials serving posts (especially appointive posts) in an interim basis are referred to as an "Officer in Charge" or OIC which is essential an acting or interim role. I am seeking consensus on what standard shall we adopt. Shall we use OIC because it's official or "Acting" since it's can be understood by an international audience and is arguably the common term for OIC (Acting Secretary rather than OIC) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, the CSC identifies at least one major difference. As per the CSC website at http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/itduser/res-000778.html.pdf :

• Section 32, Chapter 6, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292), reads, as follows:

"SEC. 32. Acting Head of Bureau or Office. - In case of the absence or disability of the head of a bureau or office, his duties shall be performed by the assistant head. When there are two or more assistant heads, the Secretary shall make the designation. In the absence of an assistant head, the Secretary may designate any officer or employee of the bureau or office as acting head without additional compensation."

Clearly, the designation contemplated under the foregoing section pertains both to the designation in an acting capacity and designation as Officer-in-Charge (OIC). The kind of designation actually conferred on the incumbent is determined by the language used in the document effecting such designation.

It must be noted that a designation under acting capacity may be differentiated from a designation as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) in such a manner that an OIC enjoys limited powers which are confined to functions of administration and ensuring that the office continues its usual actitivities. The OIC may not be deemed to possess the power to appoint employees as the same involves the exercise of discretion which is beyond the power of an OIC. On the other hand, as aptly ruled by the Commission in the case of Amado S. Day, a designation in an acting capacity entails not only the exercise of the ministerial functions attached to the position but also the exercise of discretion. This is so considering that the person designated is deemed to be the incumbent of the position.

Hope this helps, Koakaulana (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the link. So an OIC, has no appointive and discretionary powers. I'll keep this in mind.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Prime Minister post in early insurgent Philippine governments

I have opened a discussion about removing mention of such a post from Wikipedia articles at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic. So far, I have not publicised this discussion beyond that talk page and mention of it here. Please provide input there if you have information and/or concerns about this. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ariel Abadilla

Hi there, there's a AfD on Ariel Abadilla at the moment (Mr Abadilla was the first Philippines ambassador to Ireland and seems to have also been an Undersecretary in the Dept of Foreign Affairs). I was wondering if any Philippines-based editors could vouch for his notability (or not, whatever is the case). I've suggested keep but happy to be guided otherwise. The debate seems to be currently dominated by foreign editors who may not be aware of local sources. The AfD is here. Thanks in advance. Bookscale (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits by IP editor adding redundant stuff

There is an IP editor constantly adding duplicate, redundant, unnecessary, and poor grammar info to LGU articles in Bataan and other places in Luzon. (S)he continues to add distances to San Fernando, Pampanga, to a variety of places, many of which are not even in the same region (hence not their regional center) and many of which are utterly wrong distance. See contributions here, here, here, and here. Because this is an IP editor, I may miss similar edits. Please help me to keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This IP editor continues to add totally wrong distances and continues to add SanFer as the regional center to places farther and farther away from it. Continued monitoring is needed. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I started an incident report, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent IP editor adding wrong info. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the disruptive IP editor is back, see 107.215.191.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Help me to keep an eye on the articles that he edits and roll them back. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mega Cebu

User:MegaCebu2050 keeps on adding info and links about Mega Cebu at Cebu and Cebu City. But the draft article on Mega Cebu has been declined because there is not significant coverage. There is indeed nothing at this draft that explains what ties all 3 Visayan regions together in one megalopolis; it is nothing but a list of transportation and infrastructure projects without context. It seems therefore that this user is actively trying to promote a fringe idea, concept, or speculation, that has not found acceptance in general (all of which is contrary to WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SPECULATION). Are there some knowledgeable Cebuanos or Visayans that can look into this? I doubt Mega Cebu is a real concept (at this time), but maybe other editors know if there is any validity to this? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of response, it looks like that the Mega Cebu concept is not notable? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a non-notable topic and likely a hoax. —seav (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mega Cebu is more of a roadmap spearheaded by the Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc. but not really an entity. It does get some coverage here in Cebu but the focus is more on the Metro Cebu Development and Coordinating Board. —Emperork (|talk) 09:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania coming closer to home in 2020

I am delighted to officially announce to you that the 16th iteration of Wikimania, Wikimedia's international confrence will be coming to Southeast Asia for the first time and the location is Bangkok, Thailand! Though travel grant (also known as scholarships) are available, we encourage you to attend this event even you were not able to get the scholarship. We aim to finalise the exact conference dates as soon as possible. It is between July - August. --Exec8 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully i can attend. --Emperork (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss: Philippine Senator articles and inclusion of a list of bills passed, authored, and the like by the subject

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Win Gatchalian.

Hi all! I would like to invite you to discuss the article Win Gatchalian. I appreciate your inputs as it will help me learn on the manual of style and editing for articles related to government officials!

What is the current position on the inclusion of a list of bills passed, authored, co-authored in articles? I have observed that some articles of Philippine senators have a long list of bills passed while others do not (example: Bongbong Marcos, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Manuel Villar, Cynthia Villar do not have a list of bills in their articles while Teofisto Guingona III, Win Gatchalian, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Ralph Recto, Sonny Angara have).

Thanks! Markoolio97 (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sofiasean560 wiki

Good day (or night), I just want to inform you that this new editor (Sofiasean560 wiki) has been replacing some political maps on Philippine provinces with his/hers "slightly modified" versions without adding an edit summary. He/she also had engaged an edit war with me (I guess?) when I reverted his/her edits (last week or so?). Any thoughts my fellow Wikipedians? hueman1 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This user won't stop. What can we do about them? –hueman1 (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If the user does another replacement without explaining their edit either on the edit summary or on their talk page, you should revert and maybe add a report at WP:ANI. —seav (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see that it has already been reverted to the original map. Report if Sofiasean560 wiki changes it back. — Emperork (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding user Xiang09 and the Philippine Mythology page

There's a new user named Xiang09 (most likely the same 120.28.57.166 judging from both the user's obsession to the Philippine Mythology page and to the related ones) who is probably struggling with following the basic Wikipedia guidelines, trying to undermine my inline tags like "verification needed", spamming the same citations from the same website (notably "The Aswang Project" and the "Myths of the Philippines; Gaverza", just look at the footnotes on how many times those two sources are cited, especially the Gaverza one), and removing the templates like "Original Research" without giving proper justification. Although I have yet to verify this, I am afraid that he might also be copy-and-pasting some of the contents of those sources in the Wiki article. I suggest someone control it.

When asked for references regarding specific passages in Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, the same user Xiang09 also spammed the same "Kasaysayan: The History of the Filipino People" several times (in most likely a copy-and-paste fashion, as you can clearly see here) while removing the inline tags that I have put in place in order for someone else to add the proper citations with the QUOTES from the relevant pages of the sources. This user is apparently undermining all of my inline tags and I am tired of re-checking his newer edits, like the ones about "colonially-imposed toxic masculinity" on the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines. Stricnina (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

More specific complaints:

• Removing "citation needed" inline tags asking for sources with relevant quotes and spamming supposed references without specifying what page or what passages from the invoked sources actually support the claims. For example, as you can see in here, Xiang09 only copy-and-pasted the 14'800 kilogram source "Kasaysayan" several times without specifying which volume, which chapter and which pages support the numerous claims he have written in that section of the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines;

• Removing "excessive citations" inline tag as you can see in this revision, without the decency of explaining why. According to the citation overkill Wiki page, large number of citations can be aesthetically unappealing and may make the article unreadable or may lead to confusion about what exactly each citation is used in support of. However, despite my attempts to communicate to him regarding this error in his talk page, he deliberately continues to delete this inline tag without specifying his justifications regarding his decision;

• Removing "verification needed" inline tags like for example in this revision. As you can see, Xiang09 keeps invoking the same source ("The Dictionary of Asian Mythology") and I have placed the "verification needed" inline tags in hopes of obtaining more complete citations in which the relevant quotes that can support the claims in the "concept of beliefs" subsection of Philippine mythology are also provided. However, as you can see in his revision, he just removed the inline tags without explaining the reasons in doing so, plus he has failed to put forward which pages actually support the claims written in that subsection;

• Possible synthesis of sources, most likely misinterpreting them by using them as references to claims that aren't actually supported by the sources themselves, although I can't verify it because most of the cited sources can't be reviewed online. Possible examples of original research include the "Concept of beliefs" subsection of Philippine mythology, in which there is a claim like this: a collection of myths is called a ‘mythology’ by a non-believer and a ‘religion’ by a believer, although a believer would most likely not call the stories of her/his religion as ‘myths’ due to personal choice. The aforementioned claim however was not actually supported by the only source I can consult, since the source didn't say anything about believers using the word "mythology" to a collection of myths belonging to another religion or about the supposed "personal choices" of a believer. It only talked about the "anti-mythological" tendencies of the Abrahamic religions, while noting some exceptions like in the case of the jinns of Islam, and also the more tolerant stance of the Dharmic religions. Another unsourced claim is this: In the same manner, a native Maranao who believes in the indigenous Maranao beliefs might call Jesus as a ‘myth’, which may be part of a ‘mythology’, because Jesus walked on water, which is something outside the sphere of science or the Maranao indigenous faith, and in fact this passage is funny since the Maranao people are Muslims and they believe in Jesus. Another example is from the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, specifically in the "Effects of colonization" subsection: within that colonial time frame, many values were replaced by colonially-imposed toxic masculinity although the cited source in question didn't mention anything about colonization or the colonial era or about the Spanish colonizers. Xiang09 even used this source to support the claim that "disregard for the natural world and its wildlife" is an "effect of colonization", even though a quick CTRL+F control failed to identify the necessary keywords like "Spain", "Spanish", "colonial", etc.! I can go on and on, but I think these examples suffice.

• For the above reasons I have put templates like "Original Research" but Xiang09 keeps deleting them. So I am forced to ask intervention instead of continuing this incident that might devolve into a petty edit war;

Stricnina (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Revised version of Philippine name template

Greetings!!! Below are the revised version of Philippine name template which I'd been edited as it follows:

In this Philippine name, the matronymic name is ________ and the patronymic name is ________.

In this Philippine name for married women, the matronymic name is ______, the patronymic name is ______, and the marital name is ______.

Kindly try to review my revised work before you judge it!!!! RenRen070193 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Philippines, we don't use the terms matronymic or patronymic to refer to family names. The middle name is mother's maiden name and the surname is family name. The relevant style guide is MOS:TIES. The current set-up already reflects this usage.

In this Philippine name, the middle name or maternal family name is Gonzalez and the surname or paternal family name is Recto.

In this Philippine name for married women, the birth middle name or maternal family name is Tuazon, the birth surname or paternal family name is Santos, and the marital name is Recto.

--Bluemask (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The "middle name" in the Philippines functions as a matronymic. In the Philippines it is not called as such but for all intents and purposes, it all has the properties of a matronymic. Stricnina (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It may have the properties of matronymic but, legally:

Furthermore, application forms for various legal documents define the first name as the "Christian name(s)," the middle name as the "mother's maiden surname" (this becomes the basis for the middle initial), and the surname as the "father's surname."

— Filipino name#Middle names

so, let's use what we Filipinos refer to our names. --Bluemask (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is like the whole "tomato is botanically a fruit but legally (in some places) a vegetable" talk. The Filipino middle name exhibits all properties of matronymic name, so there's no point denying it: a middle name is a matronymic name in the Philippines, compared to the middle names of other countries like the United States. To avoid confusion, it is not wrong (and in fact it is also wise) to stress its matronymicity. Stricnina (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I get the intention of this, but the terminology seems misplaced. I'm very hesitant to call these matronymics and patronymics because of what the terms entail: neither are technically surnames, and while both imply that you are the son/daughter of that person, they function very differently from how surnames work. When I hear patronymics, for example, I immediately think of how Russian and Icelandic names use this, as opposed to the Filipino naming tradition which is, of course, informed by Spanish practice. You don't see Spaniards and Latin Americans calling their mother's surname a matronymic now, do you? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I would probably prefer to keep the current one since it would be easily understood by most of the readers. Honestly, it's also my first time stumbling upon the terms matronymic and patronymic since we commonly use the term "mother's maiden name" as the middle name and "family name" as the surname. — Emperork (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal for List of Filipino millionaires and List of Filipinos by net worth

Hi! I need your thoughts on this one. Please feel free to discuss it here. Thanks! — Emperork (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Proposal: Changing “Tagalog Wikipedia” to “Filipino Wikipedia”

Good day Sir/Madam! The national language of the Philippines is “Filipino” and not “Tagalog”. It is supported by Commission on Filipino Language (Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino). These are the links:

1.) http://booksphilippines.gov.ph/archives/5172 2.) https://learningfilipino.com/blog/difference-between-tagalog-and-filipino/ 3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_language 4.) https://theculturetrip.com/asia/philippines/articles/tagalog-or-filipino-explaining-the-philippine-language/ Jsnueva1022 (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Jsnueva1022 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jsnueva1022. I'm sorry, I didn't get your request. What were you pertaining to exactly? Yes, the national language is Filipino and it is different from Tagalog but aren't we already Filipino Wikipedians? I'm confused. Please clarify. Thanks in advanced. Allenjambalaya (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good day @Jsnueva1022:. I don't get your point as we already have the following Wikipedia in Filipino Languages listed below :

• Ilocano Wikipedia
• Cebuano Wikipedia
• Bikol Wikipedia
• Waray Wikipedia
• Tagalog Wikipedia
• Pangasinan Wikipedia
• Pampanga Wikipedia
• Chavacano Wikipedia

The above list represents the Filipino Wikipedia in different Philippine languages--Wakowako (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not Filipino, I don't speak either Filipino or Tagalog and I'm not sure how interwiki links are implemented on the various wikipedias. That said, I observe that tl:wikipedia and ilo:wikipedia appear to navigate to pages about Wikipedia on those two wikipedias while fil:wikipedia is a redlink.

(A) If Tagalog and Filipino are two different languages (my understanding is that they are, perhaps similarly different to the difference between Tagalog and Ilocano), and if separate Tagalog and Ilocano wikipedias in those languages exist, should not a separate Filipino wikipedia in that language also exist?

(B) If (A) above is faulty, and Filipino in this context refers to a grouping of Filipino people speaking various languages other than the Filipino language rather than referring to the Filipino language, perhaps fil:wikipedia ought to navigate to a soft redirect (I know that article says, "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided [...]", but perhaps this is a special case) offeriing a brief explanatory introduction followed by a list of wikipedias in the various languages grouped together as languages of the Filipino peoples?.

Just wondering, or thinking out loud manually. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell Filipino is "different" in a way that it is considered the national language and not Tagalog. The grammar is actually identical. It is a long story (see Filipino). Both Filipino and Tagalog are not actually different languages but just one language. Filipino borrows a lot of loan words from other ethnic languages such as Cebuano, Maguindanaoan, Bikolano, Ilocano, Kapampangan which Tagalog doesn't do. Tagalog is Filipino; Cebuano is Filipino; Ilocano is Filipino; Kapampangan is Filipino; Bikolano is Filipino; Hiligaynon is Filipino; Tausug is Filipino; Maguindanaoan is Filipino, and the list goes on. There is no need to change Tagalog Wikipedia to Filipino Wikipedia as Tagalog Wikipedia is indeed, "a" Filipino Wikipedia. Surprise! All Wakowako mentioned are all Filipino Wikipedias. So if there will be a move to make a separate Filipino Wikipedia, it will just be a redirect to different Filipino Wikipedias. I'm just guessing that the proposal of Jsnueva1022 is to just change the label of Tagalog to Filipino which I do not agree with. Or is that the proposal? I do not know unless Jsnueva1022 clarifies what exactly does he propose. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m Bisaya but I’m quite sure that the word “kawatan” is not a Tagalog term (which is magnanakaw). Both “kawatan” and “magnanakaw” are used in Filipino though. As mentioned above, there are loan words in Filipino from other dialects. Should the proposal be to change Tagalog Wikipedia to Filipino Wikipedia, that’s something I would disagree. — Emperork (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Allenjambalaya, I am pretty familiar with the story even though I'm not Filipino. I lived in the Philippines 1996-2018 and I've participated in the development of both the Tagalog Language and Filipino Language WP articles. I know that a lot of this is messy and still in flux; I'll point out that the lead section of the Filipino Language article currently asserts that Filipino is "a standardized variety of the Tagalog language" and that "there have been observed 'emerging varieties of Filipino which deviate from the grammatical properties of Tagalog'", citing support for both assertions. Agreement between articles is pretty important in Wikipedia -- things get very confused without it. The Philippines is not unique in terms of complications in the language situation (see e.g., National language#Ethiopia, though the details of the complications in the two are not similar at all). I'm not going to vote on the proposal in this section, but I don't think it's a good idea. Offhand, I think the soft redirect approach which I suggested above is the best one to take for now, but I don't plan to propose it officially or argue for it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A "Filipino Wikipedia" would simply look like the current Tagalog Wikipedia. The assertion that Tagalog doesn't borrow words is misguided. "Filipino" is simply the standardized, government-regulated variety of Tagalog, borrowings or not, and even if a government policy says they're different doesn't mean that that's reality. In addition, as Filipino is the standardized variety, doesn't this mean that other varieties that emerge from Filipino are nonstandard and thus not "Filipino" anymore? Mr. Gerbear|Talk 20:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this discussion be taking place on Tagalog Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia? English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction at all over other Wikipedias. 79.123.87.171 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the n-th time we're having this discussion. Whether people like it or not, the fact of the matter is that linguistically, Tagalog and Filipino are the same language. There is no linguistic difference between Tagalog and Filipino that would justify having a separate Filipino Wikipedia, and there continues to be no difference that would justify any sort of split, whether now or in the immediate future. This is also the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation's Language Committee, which approves projects in new languages, and I remain particularly leery of attempts to "differentiate" between Tagalog and Filipino on elements as superficial as lexicon — of which Filipino words are, for the most part, Tagalog words and vice-versa — as opposed to grammar. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge Tagalog language to Filipino language. There is no doubt the two languages are identical. The Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino just wants to complicate things and treat them as two different languages with the latter evolving or having already evolved from the original to form its own unique language, which is far from the truth. All languages naturally evolve and incorporate words from other languages and dialects, including Filipino with other languages in the Philippines. Filipino is therefore still Tagalog, as Spanish is still Castillian. I therefore propose the complete MERGER of these two language articles and use Filipino as the article title, because that is how it is officially and commonly called now in the English literatures. Even Google has that as a language option in its search engine, it says Filipino followed by Cebuano. See for yourself. Tagalog must now give way to the national language just as the following other "national" languages or languages that have taken the names of their bigger nations. Tagalog should also then take the place of alternative name to Filipino, just as Castellano to Spanish, Gaelic to Irish and Magyar to Hungarian.

Spanish language and Castellano language are merged under Spanish language.

Irish language and Gaeilge language are merged under Irish language

Hungarian language and Magyar language are merged under Hungarian language.--RioHondo (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Revisions to Delano grape strike article

Hi all! I am in the process of revising the article "Delano grape strike," so it can accurately capture the involvement and contributions of Filipino farm workers during this event. I would appreciate any and all feedback you have to offer. Please feel free to look at my current revisions in my sandbox (linked on my user page) and discuss on the article's talk page. Salamat! AMRara (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I really support this initiative, although I don't have that much familiarity with the article in question. I'll try to do some reading when I can, but I have to focus on exams nowadays. I'll try to help. (Maybe when you're done with this (or want to take a break from California and wanna do something about Pilipinx history in Seattle, I've been wanting to expand the Silme Domingo and Gene Viernes articles. LOL.) Happy editing. :D - Chieharumachi (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:DXAP-TV, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested page move – Visayan languages→Bisayan languages

Hi all! I have proposed a page move that is related to this WikiProject. Input welcome! –Austronesier (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Move for Compostela Valley to Davao de Oro

With the recent plebiscite held last December 7, 2019 on changing Compostela Valley's name to Davao de Oro lapsed, I'd like to have the consensus of the community if we can move now the page to its new name. I can't find any link with the results of the plebiscite for now though but I saw this one: 1 — Emperork (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lechon - national dish

Please add your opinions as to whether lechon should be called a "national dish" here: Talk:Lechon#National Dish -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Philippine university athletic team articles

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Adamson Soaring Falcons and some of the other similar team articles listed in Category:University Athletic Association of the Philippines? There seems to be quite a bit of unsourced content (including some WP:FANCRUFT) and well as some other pretty detailed information which might need to be re-assessed. I can understand outhow it's beneficial to readers to list some general information about a school's athletic teams and their accomplishments, but I don't think listing team rosters (including player heights and other personal information) are really helpful to the reader. Perhaps such information would make sense in an article about a particular team for a particular season, but not really in a general article about a university's sports teams as a whole. Wikipedia notable players can be mentioned as part of the prose or in a list of notable athletes, but not every player who was a member of one of the school's teams needs to be mentioned. It seems that a lot of this content is being added by IPs or WP:SPAs who probably mean well, but are really just WP:Namechecking people who don't really warrant being mentioned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike error. — 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)]

Agree. We should pattern the content with Ivy League articles (e.g. Harvard Crimson and Princeton Tigers containing only notable information. —  McVahl  Talk  00:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move Visayans → Bisaya

FYI - There is an ongoing page move discussion Talk:Visayans#Requested move 27 December 2019. The article is rated "High" in the importance scale for this project. –Austronesier (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback

I would very much appreciate feedback on my latest article, Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel. (I previously got constructive feedback from here on Tagalog profanity.) This subject was very difficult to write about, with many twists and turns. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancies in PHN

From this poiny on I'll refer Philippine highway network as PHN. Sorry if I'll be havinv typos due to lack of time.

@RioHondo: @HueMan1: @Sky Harbor: @Jojit fb: Paki-tag po ng iba pang users para sa diskusyon na ito. Salamuch! :-)

Recently I contacted HueMan1 through Messenger and we discussed some issue in PHN. It appears that Pulilan Regional Road is not wholly under PHN. The segment east of the Academia de Pulilan (shown in the pic) appears to be unnumbered. What I though before of "mistaken installation" of N115 sign at the road leading to AH26 from Academia junction (pasing through Longos) is actually CORRECT. Not only that, one thing we mentioned is that E4 only encompasses Subic Freeport Expressway (I presume its the official name of STE now the SFEX).

I don't know if DPWH has updated their road atlases or what. What appears to be stable highway system is unpredictable in reality. I understand its still in the beginning stages since more hiways are being integrated ij the system. But further clarification is much needed. The websites seem not to load properly. Also the dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is not loading well on my browser.

A thorough discussion should help. Maraming salamat po! JWilz12345 (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add tge pic. I added it now.JWilz12345 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dagdag lang po, if DPWH is correct in their designation, Pulilan Regional Road veers southward after Academia de Pulilan intersection. The remainder, based on dpwh.maps.arcgis.com is "Pulilan Railroad Station Road." Sus kailangan ko pong irequest renaming of my files on Commons having this case - 2 files I guess including the one above?JWilz12345 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Repinging: @RioHondo: @Sky Harbor: now pinging more: @Blakegripling ph: @TagaSanPedroAko: dunno who are the other users that participate in PHL hway/roads discussions.JWilz12345 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging more @Korean Rail Fan:, @Exec8:, @Hariboneagle927:, @Dingo1234555:, @Mark Jhomel:, @Itsquietuptown:, @Marwan Khan:, @Seav:, @WayKurat:, @Hushskyliner:. —hueman1 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Supporting website: http://dpwh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4bc4f2dc3a5644088c57de02108a8fd3 (courtesy of my Messenger chat with HueMan1 last Dec 2019) JWilz12345 (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this website free? I can't create an account nor sign-up using my Facebook. Anyways, regarding this one, I think we can contact the Twitter page of DPWH or Mark Villar himself on his Facebook account kasi nagrereply naman siya. :) Mark Jhomel (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Jhomel: Yes, it is free. —hueman1 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I revisited this DPWH website - http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/2018%20DPWH%20ATLAS/Road%20Data%202016/bulacan_1st.htm - and closely and meticulously analyzed the end to end labelling of N115 for Pul. Reg. Road (or Calumpit-Pulilan Road or National Road/Highway as many people here would refer). It is labelled "8." The west end is consistent with the enwiki articke, but the east end placement of label 8 is at the lower left of the Academia de Pulilan (Cutcot) junction, signifying that Pul. Reg. Road indeed turns south after this junction and goes straight towards Brgy. Longos where it merges with Daang Maharlika (AH26/N1). The remainder of the straight route to the east, passing through the "palengke" of Pulilan, Robinson's Townville and up to what we colloquially call the "Pulilan Crossing" (with AH26/N1) is a national tertiary road called Pulilan Railroad Station Road. The total assessed length of Pul. Reg. Road as per DPWH is 10.95 km, while the Pulilan Railroad Station Road is 1.35 km. Note that the "Stn. Road" (as I will refer to from this point on) continues past the Crossing up to Old Cagayan Valley Road beside Angat River in Barangay Santo Cristo. This is per my close inspection and analysis of the map in this DPWH website, but I don't want to insert this info into the main article since my analysis might be "accused" as WP:Original research. I want to have more comments or points of view to make this discussion thread as neutral and fair as much as possible :-) By the way, maraming salamat po @Mark Jhomel: para sa response! :-D JWilz12345 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition lang po: Whenever I go to Robinson's Townville with my mom by riding on a jeepney, I can notice the route past Academia de Pulilan. The road goes to the south with good quality asphalt road, while going straight towards Palengke/Robinson's area the road becomes a bit of inferior quality, with good portions only in the immediate area of the mall and the junction area. This is per experience. Also, heavy vehicles are now prohibited from going past Academia and are urged to turn south towards Longos. But again, this might be WP:Original research so I don't want to include yet in the article.JWilz12345 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have someone from Bulacan that can validate this claims? Unfortunately, Nueva Ecija lang ang kaya kong imap ng sa tingin ko ay tama kasi taga dun ako and I am participating as a Waze editor. Pero as you have mentioned @JWilz12345:, dumaraan ka naman dito and yet you have validated this already, so we are glad of it. :) Mark Jhomel (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Jhomel: I can still recall back in June 2016 when we passed the road leading south to AH26 in Longos, Pulilan from Academia de Pulilan junction. There's a N115 marker on that segment. It was confirmed by the Google Street View, in which I took a screenshot and showed it to @HueMan1: through Messenger. I would want to send you another screenshot of that road segment (since I already deleted it just after New Year), though I cannot find or be sure of your Facebook hehe. (BTW, my Facebook profile's url is the same as my username except the word "user:" of course. And also, I'll be renaming two of my pics at Commons, since it is becoming more evident that Academia de Pulilan - Pulilan Crossing segment, including the segment facing the Palengke and the Robinsons Townville Pulilan, is not Pul. Reg. Road and not even N115 but a national tertiary highway as "Pulilan Railroad Station Road") JWilz12345 (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Asia: The 10,000 Challenge

Inviting contributors to participate in Wikiproject Asia's 10,000 Challenge. You could create, expand, substantially improve any Asia-related articles. Please refer to the campaign's page for more details.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does the infobox of Askal have "Aspin (dog)" in the title?

Can't seem to change it. And who the heck uses "Aspin"? Asado (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Asado, changed it. Removing the |name= still reverts it to Aspin (dog) though. - SUBWAY 15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: Fernando Suarez

This is a heads up that this page is being heavily edited because of Suarez' recent death. Be aware that some of the recent edits are heavily POV. (In particular, some edits try to remove properly-cited information that are perceived to be negative.) I'll try my best to clean up this article, but feel free to help. Thanks! --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Titopao: Sorry for the conflicting edits a while ago. (I didn't you know you were there) —hueman1 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Should we ask for a temporary page protection? —hueman1 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: no worries, all good. When that happens, I just cancel my edit and just wait until the other editor finishes ;) Not sure if a TPP is in order (I'm not an admin tho), unless we see heavier editing activity...perhaps wait and see for now? ---Tito Pao (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't wanna cross the 3RR boundary here. Can someone please have a look at Red Rose 13's edits? That user returned their edits that I removed which, even though it was directly taken from the cited reference, makes the article look like a subtle promotion of Suarez. Thanks! --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1 and Titopao: I don't know much about the topic, but I toned down some obvious non-neutral wording. –Austronesier (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

shape of Laban sign

The description of the Laban sign is confusing and probably inaccurate; see Talk:Laban sign#shape of sign?. --Thnidu (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes Art of the Philippines?

I did a quick glance at the Wikipedia article with the title Art of the Philippines but the content confused me. Apparently no scholarly criteria has been used to define what can be included in that page as "art" or not, no wonder almost any aspect of Philippine culture and history can be included there, from archeological artifacts like the Agusan image and the numerous lingling-o, to martial arts like arnis, and even to Filipino cuisine itself. Everything goes there, while the cited sources apparently don't even define them as "art". So what constitutes art according to the reliable sources available? Can all aspects of Philippine culture be considered as "art"? Should I also add OPM, the numerous Iglesia ni Cristo architectural buildings, the San Juanico Bridge, the pre-colonial burial sites as "art" too? What do the sources say? Stricnina (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the section on "branches" define the branches and sub-branches of art? It lists Martial Arts as a subset of "Other artistic expressions of traditional culture," for example. That source is from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts - you don't get much more definitive than that. I think it should serve as basis for re-organizing the article branch by branch, followed by a section on the History of Philippine Art (which should be short, and have a redirect to its own article) and then any major thematic discourses, such as Religeon in Philippine Art (or Philippine Religious Art) or Protest Art in the Philippines (or Protest in Philippine Art).... each of which should be relatively short and have a redirect to their own article. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

1981 Philippine video game ban

In the same vein as Law 3037/2002, does Marcos's ban on arcade games and pinball deserve a separate article? There's plenty of sources that back it up, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to this Marcos law banning pinball and slot machine operations: Presidential Decree No. 519, it specifically targetted only those used as "gambling devices". So i'm not sure what you meant by "Philippine video game ban", as this is no different from other regulations concerning gambling operations in the Philippines in the 1970s and 80s like Republic Act 3063 (Horse Racing Bookies), Presidential Decree 499 (Cockfighting), Presidential Decree No. 483 (Game Fixing) and Presidential Decree No. 1036 (Jai Alai Bookies), which is also why Marcos formed PAGCOR in 1977 to regulate them. We already have an article on Gambling in the Philippines that touches on some of these. Not sure why a separate article on illegal gambling machines pinball (not sure where you got the idea of all arcade games ban) or even video karera must be created. :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure on its veracity but it was widely reported that parents and watchdog groups had video games banned due to delinquency issues, as covered by the likes of the New York Times. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Edict number 519 was passed in 1974, but Marcos amended it with "Letter of Instruction no. 1176" which extended the ban on other "gambling devices", video games included. Imported Atari 2600 consoles and personal computers seem to have survived the ban unscathed as they were marketed as "computers" and were generally out of reach to the average Filipino, or that OFWs nonchalantly brought imported Ataris from Saudi and elsewhere without any apparent reprisal from the local Gestapo. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

TBH, this is my first time reading about this episode of Marcos rule. But based on the PD and LOI you just posted, there was no mention of home video games at all, and to me it is clear that the law meant to prohibit only gambling devices. The LOI mentions "jackpot machines, commonly known as “one armed bandits”, pinball machines, slot machines, video machines and similar devices as prohibited and/or gambling devices and contrivances" and what was being outlawed here was the "operation and maintenance" of those video machines. It also talks about the cancellation and withdrawal of "all permits or licences for their operation, if any, issued by any office" and "measures to prevent the entry into the Philippines of any such devices." This could be a case of statutory misinterpretation, as both the PD and LOI explicitly referred to gambling devices as the ones being outlawed. Or maybe even yellow journalism by MSM? or anything that puts the Marcoses in a bad light is worthy of coverage regardless how twisted they are? LOL but regardless, presenting and examining the PD and its LOI would be inevitable if you do decide to create an article on this, and to me, the NYT article does not quite accurately describe what is in the law.--RioHondo (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the wording was rather vague as video games were in its infancy and just defined them broadly, and lobbying from parent groups prompted Marcos to ban arcade games at the very least. I know anecdotal sources aren't enough but some attested that they were forced to either give up their cabinets under the fear of reprisal or have the balls to set up a speakeasy. That's why we needed clarification on what defines a "video machine" as it could mean anything. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes maybe this is also an issue of semantics, or how the law actually meant to outlaw only this type of gaming and not all video gaming per se. Ambiguity of the law coupled with the newness of the technology back then? But in both the PD and LOI, the term "video machine" is always used in conjuction with "gambling devices." And from my earlier research, this Marcosian law hasnt actually been repealed, as it actually serves as the basis for our current gambling laws: Republic Act No. 9287 which only ammended (not revoked, to add the numbers games and higher penalties) Presidential Decree No. 1602 that cites this gambling devices law. Even PAGCOR continues to operate through the Marcos PD that created it to takeover all forms of gambling outlawed by those earlier PDs, including those video machines. So unless we find sources or court cases that actually ruled against all forms of video games (not just those used for gambling) citing this PD, we can never really claim there was indeed a video game ban in PH, which is probably why your atari and nintendo family comp continued to be sold even under martial rule.--RioHondo (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinball doesn't normally involve gambling per se, yet Marcos had it banned in '74 as a worthless and corrupting distraction. Maybe some youths did try to weave in betting to the mix, but it seems more to do with kids skipping school and thus parents pressuring Der Fuhrer to declare them verboten. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh, honest question. I'm unable to figure out from reading the conversation, but what's the argument for the notability of P.D. 519? Quite aside from questions of scope and evolving meaning, it doesn't seem notable to me. Did it result in massive arrests, have a long term effect on the international gaming industry, significantly change the Philippine economy, or set an important legal precedent? Or is it something else? - Alternativity (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Word has it that the Philippines became the first country in the world to ban video games, so I guess that counts as an argument, especially given the circumstances e.g. Marcos calling all the shots as dictator. Of course RS still stands so some citations are definitely needed. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

True. The PD is only notable if it resulted in anything besides that clickbait item from NYT. We need evidence of an actual case where the law in question was used to either prosecute individuals or actually imprison its offenders who simply operated or maintained personal home video game consoles or computers and non-gambling arcade games. So at this point, it is difficult to jump into any conclusion when we don't have all the facts. But if it is just the news item you are after, you are free to start a controversy article maybe, like say 1981 Philippine video game ban controversy? But suggesting there was an actual video game ban and using the PD to support it, that would be bordering on OR already, IMO without actual cases to back it up. Like i said, the PD is still in force and hasnt been repealed. Regarding pinball, see Pinball#Pinball and gambling. I cant really comment on these machines other than whats already stated in the law regarding video machines being used as gambling devices, which was initially outlawed and then regulated under PAGCOR.--RioHondo (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The official week in review first published in 1982 by the Official Gazette did mention video games by name, so I guess it's not just a "clickbait" fluke as you said? I also found a few more sources from established publications such as Time Magazine with some stating that arcade operators are pleading to at least give them a reprieve or be a little more lenient on the ruling. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 : But then again, the official gazette uses the operative words "and other prohibited and gambling devises" when it mentioned video game machines as with the PD and LOI. As with the other links you posted, I cant access their full versions so i have nothing to read there hehe! So again we go back to the issue of interpretation and legislative intent. What was the intent of PD519? Ban all video games? Or video game machines that are used as gambling devices? Because if your interpretation is the former, then you need a whole lot of RS that shares this interpretation. If it's the latter, then you know why they made those horse racing video games illegal. They are video games, but those video kareras are being targetted by anti-illegal gambling operations up to now hehe. Their basis? Marcos's PD 1602 that cites this earlier PD519 provision.--RioHondo (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Again I'd like to state that the definition is a little muddy, but evidence does seem to suggest a (proposed) ban not just in the Philippines, but other countries during that era when moral guardians were upset that their kids are more engrossed with Space Invaders than their studies. This is why some clarification is needed before I or someone else decides to do an article on the ban. Key takeaway here is, some laws are loosely worded due to legislators having a rudimentary grasp on what they're trying to curb or regulate (it's why the US Senate gave video game developers a choice between a government-sanctioned regulatory body or a consortium who would self-regulate and censor aka the ESRB), and Marcos having a history of being a bitter killjoy e.g. with Voltes V pissing off livid schoolboys who were unable to watch what happened during the finale. The evidence itself however is something we need to dig up, of course. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, morality was a big theme during this psych war that was the period of the Cold War. Btw "proposed" means it was never carried out, and only became part of the discourse during this era. So that means there was no ban on non-gambling video machines hence the lack of notability for the PD. Or is there? I learned about the Space Invaders ban just now, thanks for mentioning it, and you're right, the game was indeed banned in the country Source. The same source also said that the Philippines was not the only country that imposed restrictions on these video games. It mentioned Afghanistan and some individual US states. This source claims the video game sparked a moral panic and cited the UK where the game was blamed for an increase in burglaries. It says "in 1981, Labour MP George Foulkes put a bill through parliament called Control of Space Invaders (and other Electronic Games)." Now that that has been confirmed, we just need to research if the ban covered other video games other than Space Invaders and similar coin-operated arcade games, for us to really claim an industry-wide ban in PH. But you said the Atari consoles survived martial law so that alone disproves a total ban. We also need to know if Space Invaders was indeed banned in PH because of moral issues alone as what these sources claim, or because these machines were being turned to gambling devices, at least because they involved coin slots like other gambling machines, and that addiction was turning to bankruptcy or financial problems for these kids'parents much like slot machines in casinos then. As for Voltes V, that would also be an example of censorship in the time of Cold War by our Board of Censors for Motion Pictures (forerunner of MTRCB) through their Memorandum-Circular No. 13-79. Anyway, i think all these you mentioned would be a good addition to Censorship in the Philippines at least for now.--RioHondo (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this would fit in the Censorship in the Philippines article -- to me, it's a real stretch to call this "censorship". By my reading, PD519 bans "pinball and slot machines and other similar devices or paraphernalia used for their operation". I think it is a stretch to read inclusion of video games into that. However, in LOI1176 FDM said, "WHEREAS, various civic groups, parents, teachers and concerned citizens, in numerous petitions, have requested the Office of the President that because of the insidious and deleterious effects of video machines on school children as well as the adult population, such video machines should be prohibited;" and "I consider video machines within the classification of “similar contrivances”, under LOI No. 9 and “other devices” under PD 519". I think that it is clear there that the intention was to include video games in the ban. Those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and interpretation by WP editors is WP:original research. However, WP:SECONDARY sources do exist which make that interpretation ([2], [3], etc.). I note that the ban is mentioned at List of banned video games#Philippines and Video games in the Philippines#1981 ban on video games, with a number of supporting sources cited there; I have not read those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC) (just a drive-by commnet)

Neither the LOI nor the PD explicitly mentions banning all video games, only video machines which were then considered as probihited and gambling devices on the same level as pinball, jackpot and slot machines, etc. What are video machines? Or video game machines? Slot machines or coin/cash-operated machines for gaming or gambling? Do they include home video game consoles like the earlier Ataris and Nintendos which are also video game machines? How about those home computers like the old school IBM PC's that had those black and white games like Minesweeper or Tetris? LOL Are handheld consoles included here too? Thats the thing. The term video machines is so vague, and without reading its context, it could mean anything and everything. When you said the intention was to include video games to the ban, that too is an interpretation because again the PD and LOI does not mention banning all video games. Just video machines which those primary sources kept repeating. So was there really a video game ban in PH? In law, context is everything. And regarding the censorship article, because those games were also banned on moral grounds as mentioned in the LOI, like the Voltes V series, they too could be considered censorship, like video game censorship? But again, without providing evidence that the ban covered other video game formats i mentioned, and we just rely on interpretations from secondary sources, it would be problematic to call it a video game ban, and as per WP:MOSLAW, Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority.--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Name change request from Tondo (historical polity) to Tundun

Hello everyone,

I invite anyone here interested to participate in the ongoing voting regarding the name change of the Wikipedia article Tondo (historical polity). I wish a discussion was carried out first before proposing the voting immediately, but alas the voting has begun. Feel free to drop your two cents regarding the issue there. Stricnina (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hiding extra map in infobox

Currently the infobox of all LGU's has 3 maps. IMO a bit overkill and it makes the infobox so excessively long (they are already some of the longest infoboxes I have seen). I am proposing to hide the OpenStreetMap in a collapsible box, similar to {{Infobox Italian comune}}. The extra code would be:

{{hidden | header = OpenStreetMap | headercss=height:5px; | content = <div class="center" style="margin-top:1em">{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}</div>}}

See the example here for Aborlan, Palawan:

Aborlan Municipality Municipality of Aborlan Map of Palawan with Aborlan highlighted OpenStreetMap Aborlan Location within the Philippines Coordinates: 9°26′19″N 118°32′53″E Country Philippines Region Mimaropa (Region IV-B) Province Palawan

All the advantages of the OpenStreetMap are still there, still available, but just collapsed, reducing the infobox to a bit more manageable size and appearing a little less cluttered.

Please provide your feedback and/or approval if we should adopt this approach. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@P199: Just a question, are we the only nation that still use this kind of locator map?

Because when I searched for other cities in Asia, and some parts of Europe and the United States, I didn't see anything like this. Is this a problem? Because I don't think the OpenStreetMap feature is the clutter here, it's the locator map, but the problem with the OpenStreetMap map is that, it doesn't provide complete boundaries for LGUs, especially for rural areas. This is a problem for OSM contributors anyways, but in a way, it affects this feature a lot. What do you think? --hueman1 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there are many many places that use locator maps in the infobox, for example most municipalities in Quebec (random example: Val-d'Or), United States (random example: Springfield, Ohio), and many countries in Europe. Besides the obvious differences in color schemes, there is no consistency from one country to the next how many and what maps are used (some use only the locator map, others hide it, etc.). In other words, we can decide as a WikiProject what standard to set for LGU's in the Philippines. Personally I find that the locator maps have a cleaner look over the OSM, but I would also support hiding both the locator and OSM maps. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is (like navigation boxes), template {{Hidden}} doesn't work on the mobile view of Wikipedia (I'm not sure about the app though). This proposed change (if implemented) would not make sense for mobile users in general. —hueman1 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(It is the same in the app.) That should not stop us from implementing this. There are already other limitations with the mobile and app views, such as many templates not displaying properly or not at all. OSM map would still be available through clicking on the coordinates. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: @P199: I think this isn't practical. Most mobile users in the Philippines, myself included, rely on predetermined mobile data-based internet promo packages. It means providing subscribers Internet access through a fixed limited amount of data (be it 100 MB 300 MB or 1 GB). Clicking coordinates and going to an option list (to choose whether to use Google Maps, OSM, and the like) consumes more mobile data as opposed to just clicking the OSM and going straight to OSM. This is just the point of view of mine.JWilz12345 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. This is something I didn't think of. But as it is, the the OSM map is not visible in the app version anyway! Considering that the difference for the app version is so small, I feel the advantage for the desktop version is significant enough to consider implementing it... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I found a simple solution for the mobile view: to use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} instead of {{hidden}}. The OSM is now visible in the mobile version but collapsed in the desktop version. See the life example at Agutaya. Now the code is: {{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | titlestyle=height:5px | ta1=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}} What do you think? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Uhh, I think it's basically the same thing (but now using two templates). What I'm saying is, if it's a clutter in the desktop view, how much more could it to be for the mobile view? (the browser mobile view) That's my opinion on this topic. We have more people here, I hope we could get more consensus later on. —hueman1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is the same result in desktop view, but now it is visible in mobile view. That is what User:JWilz12345 wanted... Sorry, I don't understand your objection... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@P199: sorry but I meant that having Filipinos still going to choose whether Google Maps or OSM after clicking coordinates instead of going straight to OSM (through the clickable map) is tedious and more consuming to mobile data, esp. since most Filipinos are registered to a predetermined amount of mobile data (ex. Globe's GoSurf) when going to use mobile data Internet. So I see no problem in the coexistence of both the locator maps and the OSM clickable map. Collapsible box is OK, but total removal of OSM clickable map/s is not OK. Nevertheless I want to let the decision be made by other editors, and more insights as well.JWilz12345 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mobile view doesn't work with hidden items (e.g. same as list of councilors at Pasig), therefore it must be visible in mobile view in order to be clickable, which is now achieved with the revised code. Check out the mobile version of Agutaya. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@P199: I think I need opinions from @HueMan1: et. al.. I don,'t want to be too biased, most esp. in technical aspects in which I'm still relatively a novice. Such decision can affect the visual environment or appearance of all articles of incorporated settlements of PHL (cities and municipalities).JWilz12345 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

P199's suggestion is great. We can also use a shorter code:

{{hidden begin | title=OpenStreetMap | ta1=center | class=center}}{{Infobox mapframe|id={{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}|frame-width=250}}{{hidden end}}

Side note: The collapsible list of councilors in Pasig infobox had an unneeded CSS attribute display:none. Removing it displays the list in plain list form in mobile view. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here and just stumbled on this discussion. I don't have anything to contribute to the ongoing discussion above re details, but please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Places and WP:Settlement. Perhaps some adjustment is in order either here or there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. I had also noticed that already. You know, the OSM map was added unilaterally and without discussion, without regard of MOS:PHIL. Now it looks like there are some users who like the OSM map, so I'm not going to remove it just to comply with MOS:PHIL. Once this discussion has been settled, I will update MOS:PHIL. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that there are no other comments/objections and there seems to be more support than not, so I'll add the code above. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Diacritic use in family names

I'm currently working on Draft:John Paul Gomez and am almost ready to move it to the mainspace. Pretty much all of the sources I've been able to find (even Philippine media sources) spell his last name a "Gomez" without an accent mark over the "o"; however, while lookiing for sources I came across a source that spells his name as "Gómez" with an accent mark over the "o". WP:COMMONNAME seems overwhelmingly in favor of no accent mark for him; so, I'm wondering if it's something commonly dropped in English language publications for the sake of convenience, but is more frequently used in non-English sources or when precision is a priority. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reading through WP:TSC, it does says that "most appropriate title contains diacritics..." but advises to "provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters." On WP:COMMONNAME, it also does provide that commonly used name would be used for recognizability. Searching thru Google, most of the articles do not contain an accent mark on the "o" though - 1, 2, 3, 4 — Emperork (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In general the lack of diacritics in sources known for dropping them for convinience sake or technical reasons does not generate a new commonname, therefore they tend to be used in the article title. There are exceptions, but those tend to be historical figures widely written about. Agathoclea (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the responses, but Emperork seems to be suggesting the accent mark isn't needed, while Agathoclea seems to be suggesting that it probably is needed. Either way is fine for me and there are examples of both in Gómez. The page can always be moved again as needed, I would just prefer to try and get the name "right" the first time around. The usage might vary by individual (some persons might prefer to drop it from their names) and also by country, I'm just curious as to how to figure that out for this particular person. I've been trying to find out whether Gomez/Gómez has a verified Twitter or Facebook account, or an official website to see if he prefers the accent, but haven't had much luck so far.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSPHIL#Modern figures, "no diacritics are to be used unless they are widely used". — Emperork (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

To where Philippine Independence should point?

There is a discussion about the appropriate page to which Philippine Independence should point at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_17#Philippine independence. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)