Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 53

Distorted tables on road articles using the PHLint template

Apparently at one point or another, the PHLint template must have changed the way it parses columns, but in doing so it broke the table formatting on a lot of road-based articles.

I noticed that in many of the articles with distorted table formatting, they were denoting table entries using |road|White Plains Avenue while articles that did not have any distorted tables were using |road=White Plains Avenue.

The documentation on the template page indicates that the latter is correct, however the problem is there are probably hundreds of road articles that need to be corrected for that issue. Ganmatthew (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to revert. I am reasonably sure I got carried away with fixing |road=White Plains Avenue in {{Jct}} with |road|White Plains Avenue. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I did go through articles last night to try to fix mistakes I made. –Fredddie™ 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tagoloan II#Requested move 1 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tagoloan II#Requested move 1 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection for the Wikipedia Article of Antonio Gerona

Requesting semi-protection for the Antonio Gerona article since it is being edited by actors trying to malign the father of VP Robredo --2001:FD8:B312:C060:917A:5B38:C48C:1ADD (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There should be maps for Philippine IP groups

After looking at the wikipedia pages for the Ibaloi and Kankannaey Peoples, I wondered why I was so confused about where they live in relation to each other. And then I realized, maybe the problem is the lack of a Map? If the territories are uncertain or if they overlap, the map could just show indicative location or something. But not having a map is confusing. Wikipedia should have one for each of the IP groups, and for major groupings of IP groups, such as Igorot, Ita, Ati, Lumad, and Moro. What do you think? - Batongmalake (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Take your pick. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Ibaloi language and Kankanaey language do have locator maps too. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll try to use this one on the various pages soon. I had imagined a map of Luzon showing the Igorot and Aeta peoples, a map of Visayas showing the Ati peoples, and a map of Mindanao to show the specific Lumad and Moro peoples. But yes maybe this is good enough for now. - Batongmalake (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd imagine Igorot, Ati and Lumad peoples aren't a majority in any of the provinces, plus these groups are not mostly defined by languages, which is usually how groups are defined. Aren't the terms Igorot and Lumad supposed to be depreciated by now, too? This screams "ignorant lowlander", just as when us Filipinos see foreigners who can't spell "Filipino" correctly as "ignorant foreigners". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Talavera, capital of Talavera Municipality (?!)

I don't know if this is the right venue, but I found two incoherent articles on Cebuano Wikipedia: ceb:Talavera (kapital sa munisipyo sa Pilipinas, Tunga-tungang Luzon, Province of Nueva Ecija, lat 15,59, long 120,92) and ceb:Talavera (munisipyo sa Pilipinas, Tunga-tungang Luzon, Province of Nueva Ecija, lat 15,62, long 120,93) (I found them via Wikidata while adding Philippine Hokkien transliterations of a select Philippine cities/municipalities at Wikidata). I have already nominated for deletion the Wikidata item of the most incoherent one. Perhaps some of you are aware of numerous dupe or incoherent articles there, yet I cannot see any significant action. Plus I am certain that my concern will be ignored there (for this reason I chose to post it here instead). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Another one: "ceb:Dasmariñas (kapital sa munisipyo)" (Dasmariñas, capital of the municipality [of Dasmariñas]?!). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the data pollution created by the bot-created articles in the Cebuano Wikipedia. For almost all municipalities, there are three Wikidata items (and three Cebuano articles): the usual one linked to most Wikipedias, one linked to the "capital" of the municipality in the Cebuano Wikipedia, and one for a duplicate article for the municipality itself in the Cebuano Wikipedia. Example: ceb:Quinapondan, Eastern Samar (d:Q314175), ceb:Quinapundan (munisipyo) (d:Q31482195), ceb:Quinapundan (kapital sa munisipyo) (d:Q31482173). I've been slowly cleaning these up by merging the Cebuano Wikipedia articles into 1, and then merging the Wikidata items into the original item. Example of what I did for Mapandan, Pangasinan: CebWiki: [1], Wikidata: [2][3]. It's slow going since there are more than 1,400 municipalities. —seav (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Seav: for my deletion request of the Wikidata entry, did I did the right thing? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The deletion request is not really wrong, but it's likely to be rejected because it is currently linked to an existing non-redirect Cebuano Wikipedia article. It's much easier to just merge the item to the "main" item. See d:Help:Merge. —seav (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the list of websites at Fake news in the Philippines listcruft?

The list is unmaintainable, requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date, and some of the entries use unreliable sources. I dunno what to do though, but if we were to remove the list, we should keep the notable websites. Itsquietuptown t • c 05:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the intention of having the list is out of public awareness, but at the same time, as the list becomes really long and convoluted, it becomes hard to follow, especially with the hundreds of pages with similar names. Somehow I wonder if even having the list can consider itself as "giving them a spotlight".
I agree to keeping only the "big fish" on the list. Ganmatthew (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm willing to maintain it. Define "big fish"? It's pretty interesting though that after the list was created, a number of these fake news sites listed there went down, so I see a large value in maintaining the list. -Object404 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I also do know that the list is being used by Philippine disinformation researchers at the Consortium on Democracy and Disinformation. -Object404 (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
That only addresses a part of the problem. Again, we can't keep adding every single Philippine fake news website on the list. I think big fish websites = covered by reliable sources and notable. Also, I don't think the list is the cause for these websites to go down. Correlation doesn't exactly imply causation. Itsquietuptown t • c 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Covered by reliable sources is fine. -Object404 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This smells like a textbook example WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, with the added bonus of us doing somebody else's job, unpaid. We all detest Mocha Uson and her ilk, but at least pretend we still adhere to WP:NPOV. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We don't expect to get paid and get the satisfaction out of volunteering. Maybe you're not be happy to do "unpaid work", but other editors are more than happy to work on the article. -Object404 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
By the same arguments, shouldn't the article List of fake news websites be taken down? I don't think it should be. -Object404 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not Duterte's Philippines communist Russia. Why is everyone using this "taking/shutting down" argument? No one made arguments (contrary to what was said to be "same arguments") of sending this to AFD. Wikipedia articles should be tertiary sources, but instead, in this case, are being used as primary sources by secondary sources.
Look, we all love to pwn the likes of Mocha and document every travesty that she did, but this is Wikipedia, not the what-Mocha-did-something-stupid watchlist. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This list is not about Mocha. If you guys think this list should be taken down, then make the same arguments at List of fake news websites first, as this was spun off from that list. If you cannot defend your arguments at the main List of fake news websites article, then this list stays up. -Object404 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You are the only person making this "the article has to be deleted" argument. Are we referring to the same article or are you in the wrong section/page? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Am I misreading the phrase "if we were to remove the list" from the opening paragraph of this discussion? -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Just like the much maligned MLQ quote "I would rather have a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government-run like heaven by Americans," you missed the second part "however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it." Howard the Duck (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Fish sauce, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

RM Datu Saudi-Ampatuan → Datu Saudi Ampatuan

An editor has requested for Datu Saudi-Ampatuan to be moved to Datu Saudi Ampatuan. Since you had some involvement with Datu Saudi-Ampatuan, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: Richard J. Gordon → Richard Gordon (politician)

An editor has requested for Richard J. Gordon to be moved to Richard Gordon (politician). Since you had some involvement with Richard J. Gordon, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:University of the City of Manila#Requested move 12 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:University of the City of Manila#Requested move 12 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the requested articles list be organized by category/similar areas?

I noticed that the list of requested articles is very long and hard to read through. Perhaps it would be a good idea to allow and recommend that they be grouped into categories (e.g. politics, sports, people) or whatever similar areas they cover (e.g. Supreme Court judges). Ganmatthew (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We could use the main topic categories at Category:Main topic classifications as a start. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree. WP:Be bold and just add categories as User:Lenticel suggests above. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I've categorized the requests. Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The articles do not have to be automatically disambiguated. We have articles on Victor Yap, Jose C. Campos, Hermogenes Concepcion Jr., Florentino P. Feliciano and Emilio Gancayco. If "Tatang de los Santos" refers to the infamous Lapiang Malaya founder, we have Valentin de los Santos. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Philippine labelled maps up for discussion

A number of Philippine labelled map templates are up for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Template:Philippines labelled map, being currently unused. CMD (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of vice presidents of the Philippines for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Does anyone still want to work on this? This had a good run and it's quite hard to maintain this as drive by editors screw things up every few months and even AFDs end up merging articles to this one making it hard to maintain. If no one's working on this, I'd move for it to be be quickly closed and delisted. Someone can always work on this in the future. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Use style instead of bgcolor for table cell colors

I noticed that when tables use bgcolor=<color> for formatting cell colors (e.g. party colors in lists of presidents, etc), some dark mode reader extensions like Dark Reader don't properly retain their colors when transitioning the page to dark mode. I changed a few of these pages to use style="background-color: <color>" instead. Ganmatthew (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this carefully (no time, sketchy background), but it seems to me that {{Background}} ought to be used. I looked at the template source, and see that it uses, <span style="background-color: [...]>. I tried this in the List of senators of the Philippines article, replacing |style="background-color:#1434A4"| with |{{Background|{{party color|Democrata Party}}}}|, and it seemed to work OK but I didn't test dark mode. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the COMELEC accessible to you guys?

https://comelec.gov.ph/ doesn't do it for me. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Yep. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
What's your ISP? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
​Converge ICT. It's [my Internet connection] kinda slow right now, but surprisingly, COMELEC's website is running smoothly. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Got it thanks. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove unreferenced, possibly WP:OR lines/stations in List of Philippine National Railways stations?

I plan to do a cleanup/overhaul of the list, and I think we should remove them, especially since they're all unreferenced, and likely synthesis/OR. We can re-add them though if we manage to find reliable sources. Itsquietuptown t • c 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've filed a FOI request to see if the PNR can provide official data on historical stations. Not likely they'll actually respond, but who knows? It would save the effort of cleaning it up only to re-add them eventually. Ganmatthew (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Reed Bank#Requested move 28 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Reed Bank#Requested move 28 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_11#Category:Filipino_women

I think you need to take a look at this CfD. Should this be opposed then no issues. However, if the renaming gets support then we need to overhaul several categories and probably articles related to it.

I'm also linking this MOS for your reference: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I was sorting out Category:Filipino film actresses (as counterpart to Category:Filipino male film actors) and wondered if that should be at Category:Filipina film actresses. I'm leaning on keeping the current title, as "Filipinos" refer to both men and women. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to filter both Unreferenced articles and Philippine articles?

Question on the title. I'm surprised that there are really important articles that are unreferenced like Amado V. Hernandez. It's better to filter them out and then expand them before they get AfD'ed. --Lenticel (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why Philippine entertainment articles attract indef banned or will be indef banned editors. This has been a thing since I started almost two decades ago... --Lenticel (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Lenticel! I've just made a query for this on quarry; see quarry:query/59031. Chlod (say hi!) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll save that link. --Lenticel (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the output to User:Zoomiebot/Unreferenced Tambayan Philippines pages. This should be more user-friendly and should automatically update daily. Chlod (say hi!) 13:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Antonio Luna

Antonio Luna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Aircorn (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans § Infobox image

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans § Infobox image. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bangsamoro population is wrong

The population of Bangsamoro in the infobox is wrong. This is due to the 2020 Census excluding Cotabato City and the 63 barangays in Cotabato which were grouped in Socksargen despite these areas being part of BARMM. The actual population is closer to 4.9 million rather than 4.4 million. Likewise the "historical" statistic for the population is wrong since the ARMM had smaller territory. (stored in the wikidata). I deleted it due to the same rationale, but has since been reverted back.

This would also affect the Socksargen article so I decide to raise the concern here.

I'm not sure if this constitute as WP:OR if we "correct" this. This is easily verifiable because fortunately the PSA tables provide a breakdown of population by province, municipality/town, and barangays.

How should we handle this. Should we...

For the infobox

  • List the "correct" statistic for BARMM (4.9 million) and list the PSA figure in the note (4.4 million).
  • The reverse.
  • List only the PSA figure
  • List only the "corrected" figure

In all cases I think there should be a footnote explaining the scope of the 2020 census.

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 Philippine census was dated to June 17, 2019. Cotabato City was turned over to Bangsamoro only on December 15... the year isn't specified but it doesn't matter since it is either 2019 or later. When the census was made, Cotabato City was still in Soccsksargen. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
While I don't think it is necessary to change given the current footnote, if wanted it would be reasonable to WP:CALC for the population based on the 2020 census. In addition to a footnote, such information might be a good start to a Demographics section which the Bangsamoro article lacks. CMD (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Philippine English vocabulary

You are being invited into a discussion about criteria for inclusion for Philippine English vocabulary. Please reply. Thanks. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Disussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Philippines vaccinations chart

You are being invited into a discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Philippines vaccinations chart. Thank you. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 02:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Should a separate barangay article be created for Camp Aguinaldo?

I noticed that the Barangays of Metro Manila category includes Camp Aguinaldo , and while it is an official barangay in Quezon City's third district as indicated here, it may seem a bit confusing to designate the military base article to be linked and categorized under the context of a barangay article as it contains no information on the barangay itself there.

Though the barangay itself is mostly if not entirely the military base and anything inside it, it does include some establishments along White Plains Avenue and Santolan Road, much like Barangay Fort Bonifacio.

Should I go ahead? Ganmatthew (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It also similar to Brgy. U.P. Campus which includes parts outside the University of the Philippines Diliman campus. If you could pull off, a article about Camp Aguinaldo, especially about what differentiates Camp Aguinaldo, the military installation from the barangay, I think its okay to create a separate article for Brgy. Camp AguinaldoHariboneagle927 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
So I attempted to write a draft, but it really seems like there isn't much distinction between the barangay and the base itself, mainly since the barangay in itself isn't very notable either. Even the reference material on the history of the barangay just says that Camp Aguinaldo used to be part of Barangay Socorro and that's about it.
I'll probably just leave it alone for now. Ganmatthew (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ganmatthew: I think it is best to incorporate the barangay information in Camp Aguinaldo article itself, as the 3rd (final) section, plus a brief mention in the heading paragraph that "Camp Aguinaldo" is also the name of an eponymous barangay in the area. Barangay articles have been subject to endless debates in the past (though right now somewhat cooled down), see Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. The current "de facto" agreement is that barangays that pass WP:GEOLAND as per references and quality of the content (not just promotional, directory, or tourism portal) are worth of having their own standalone articles. Note that the subpage was last updated (by me) in July 2021; perhaps several more barangays were redirected or merged to their mother cities or municipalities' articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with JWilz12345 that the barangay should be given a section in the Camp Aguinaldo article. I also think it's a good idea to create a redirect for the Barangay, which would lead to the Camp Aguinaldo article. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added the barangay section to the article. I could do the redirects if I have time, but for now, I think linking to the article itself will do. Ganmatthew (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

Can you please help me build Template:Tglg? The template is dedicated to Baybayin. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you help put Xerex Xaviera at WP:DYK?

I'm currently helping expand the article but I'm not really that versed in WP:DYK submissions anymore. --Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Philippines medical cases chart

Other editors might be interested in updating Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Philippines medical cases chart. The persons who used to edit the template have very little time nowadays to do updates. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Politicking

This seems to be the worst politically-motivated vandalism I noticed lately on Philippines-related content: the Philippines section for List of state-owned enterprises (October to November 2021 version). Any other articles affected? I would say there’ll be a lot of obvious targets for this type of pro-Marcos rants and red-tagging as we'll have the presidential elections in a few months.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The Nicanor / North Domingo (N. Domingo) conondrum

So for those who pass through San Juan or parts of QC, you might be familiar with a road called N. Domingo Street. I made a draft for an article about the road but the problem is, I cannot find any source of what the 'N' in the name really means.

A lot of real estate sources claim the full name is Nicanor Domingo, while others claim it's North Domingo. I'm dubious about the North Domingo name, so I've searched virtually every mention of Nicanor Domingo and N. Domingo to know that the answer probably can't be found online.

As a last resort, I might try to ask the San Juan or Quezon City LGU. But before that, I was hoping maybe someone here might know? Who is Nicanor Domingo? Is it really Nicanor Domingo? All I know is the earliest point in time that the road has existed is in 1945 as both the road and the name appeared in several US maps during that year. Other sources over the years simply called it "N. Domingo". Ganmatthew (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've always known this as "Nicanor Domingo", but interestingly "North Domingo" shows up in the internet, and no one knows who exactly "Nicanor Domingo" is. He could be a mayor but he is not a mayor of San Juan or Quezon City. List of mayors of Metro Manila is such a bitch to use with you having to "show" what's hidden in the tables. Also, Metro Manila doesn't have mayors. Shouldn't that article be at List of mayors in Metro Manila? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually yes, it should be moved to that name instead. Ganmatthew (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I only started seeing "North Domingo" after Waze came along, and Waze reads "N." as North by default. Can't be absolutely sure, but I suspect that has something to do with it. - Batongmalake (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed as well that Waze always calls it "North Domingo". Google Maps simply calls it "N. Domingo". So I think it's safe to disregard the possibility of the N being North. Ganmatthew (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This is precisely the reason why I strongly encourage people to avoid abbreviating roads and to use full names if possible when writing articles. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ganmatthew, Batongmalake, and Howard the Duck: perhaps leave it as N. Domingo Street in the meantime, until reliable sources appear that give the real name of the road. Besides the road itself fails WP:GEOROAD and may not survive an AfD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

More info about radio station vandal

Heads up for everyone monitoring the long-term radio station vandal, I've been able to trace some additions of fake stations to a "Bulgar Radyo" after sweeping through GMaps (especially in Nueva Vizcaya). Other notes are that some stations were added to Maps with logos as proof so to make them credible but these are low-quality trash (e.g. "ACI WHO"). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean our dear friend Bert? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
You got it. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: I’ve just saw a lot of dubious future SM and Robinsons locations in Tarlac on GMaps. Can that be the work of the same person (I can recall it's one of his MO)? I'm no longer interested in editing here (I'll still be in WV, WT and sometimes Commons), but will keep an eye out. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bert really is an internet nuisance considering the consequences of his hoax map edits. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@TagSanPedroAko and Blake Gripling: just chiming in: regarding Bertrand101, he is already blocked on Commons a long time ago. He also violates rules on proper Commons usernames for his sockpuppets (c:User:Audiovisual Communicators Incorporated, for instance), as well as uploading images that violate architects' economic rights, or no FOP violations, refer to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101#Habitual behavior, item no. 20. Worse, as per No. 19 he uploads obvious copyvios like screenshots. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I know this is outside Wikimedia's jurisdiction, but if anyone finds any of his handiwork on Google Maps, report it like the plague. Such fraudulent listings could have serious consequences, you know. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blakegripling ph: Just followed up removing those fakes in Bayombong, and also asked Google to block some of the accounts behind those. A lot of those have names that clearly follow the vandal's MO. There's still a lot more, however, far north and far south. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
And the vandal's socks have been adding also lots of fake SM, Robinsons, CityMall. And even restaurants (Jollibee, Kenny Rogers, KFC) and car dealers. All around Nueva Vizcaya (I think he's also behind some of the fake malls in Tarlac I just saw). @Blakegripling ph: He's a very terrible vandal, you know. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Update on the suspicious "soon-to-open" malls around Gerona, Paniqui and Moncada, Tarlac: these are also vandalism, traceable to accounts with fake ACI station logo as photo (obvious MO). Also asked Google to delete them and block the accounts behind those. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blakegripling ph: I'll agree we should ask the ISP (PLDT) to remove his Internet access over abuse. While his IP ranges have been exhausted after range blocks, it's not impossible he'll be back. That should be our last resort.
On the Google accounts I asked to be blocked, these got photos, mostly of radios or useless trash pics, in addition to those bogus logos often bearing ACI and the call sign and name of his hoax radio stations (usually their profile pic). These accounts also are usually the only guys who reviewed the fake POIs; if there are any other users who reviewed them, socks aside, they find nothing (e.g. the bogus Shakey's Bayombong). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@TagaSanPedroAko: The best recourse to this is to conduct an investigation and eventually confront him and/or his relatives, provided this is done within reason. He has been causing undue disruption on the internet and he clearly needs therapy for his behaviour. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blakegripling ph: Haven't you and others contacted the user's relatives back then? Again, contacting them may be a good step in resolving the issue, but be reminded we can't post or speculate on everything that can be overly personal or confidential, such as user's mental condition. Yes, his activity is causing undue disruption, but to bring up mental condition (even when the real-life person's relatives provided you that through private contact) is way too much; it can only stigmatize them. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
And to add to that, there also have that thing with another LTA from Indonesia. Similar situation (user relative contacted, info provided for LTA page), but overly personal info about user (mental health, even name) got removed (Indonesian equivalent still seems to contain that?). Again, such info shouldn't been divulged that can have real-life consequence. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for consensus: Should we redirect season articles to List of Doble Kara episodes?

There are I think 6 highly detailed yet several years unreferenced season articles for the TV program Doble Kara (ex. Doble Kara (season 6)). I was thinking to simply redirect them all to the List of Doble Kara episodes article since that one has references and also to avoid unreferenced fancruft. What do you think? --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We should have consensus on what to do with similar articles. PH TV series are constructed differently from US and UK ones, so their practices with articles does not immediately apply. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree. --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we just merge or redirect it to the main article and be done with it? Practically all of the references were press releases by the production company behind the programme, and none in the way of secondary sources to balance out any sort of bias. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we even have WP:RS that we can use for Philippine TV episodes? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the closest are AGB Nielsen Philippines ratings but we can only access them through press releases/ news articles that are biased to their own shows. --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Aren't these all TV ratings and not you know, things like episode listings? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Redirect all. WP:FANCRUFT and leaning towards fandom/wikia-style articles. List of Doble Kara episodes already groups episodes into the six seasons, plus there are relevant rating information from Kantar Media (if someone will add AGB Nielsen's ratings, they are free to do so as long as backed by reliable and non-promotional sources. Doble Kara (season 6) alone must be expunged (redirected): it lacks list of sources, though contains two external links, both of which are not independent — [4] and [5]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking of other countries' practices where a TV show has one run, then we'd forget about it for the rest of eternity. Do they have episodic articles? What kinds of sources do they use? Yes, it's easy to dismiss things such as this as "cruft", but we do similar stuff to sports, and sometimes way worse, but it's okay because men like it. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
By Jimbo, I hate those unrefed sports articles too. I have to crawl through Google News Archives just to get mentions. Just cite your freaking sources. --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(reset indent) If there are no issues, I'll boldly redirect all season articles to the list of episodes. --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Attention

Take note of some wrong 2020 figures in the article List of cities and municipalities of the Philippines (proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_and_municipalities_in_the_Philippines&curid=2192536&diff=1063471224&oldid=1053811331). Hard to believe that a less famous and insignificant town somewhere in Mindanao would have more than a hundred thousand residents (when in fact it has only around 30 thousand souls). A reliable source for 2020 figures is https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/ird/pressrelease/Table%20B%20-%20Population%20and%20Annual%20Growth%20Rates%20by%20Province%2C%20City%2C%20and%20Municipality%20-%20By%20Region_AGBA_rev.xlsx JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If some would claim that they base their figures on Wikidata entries for cities and municipalities, then those entries must be revisited too. Wrong population infor has been generated in Wikidata Infoboxes for Commons categories like c:Category:Datu Montawal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Exec8: since he was the one that imported the 2020 census figures into Wikidata. Maybe he had a mistake in one of his spreadsheets. seav (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It was a sorting issue when PSA used Pagagawan instead of Datu Montawal. --Exec8 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, the reason why PSA still uses the old name of Pagagawan is because a plebiscite was never conducted to ratify the change of name to Datu Montawal. This is what a statistician told me in reply to my email to PSA back in 2019. This also affects Talitay -> Sultan Sumagka. -seav (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Seav and Exec8: how about the article titles for both municipalities? — Datu Montawal and Sultan Sumagka — Does the current titles comply with WP:AT? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Facebook photos to see what residents actually use, it seems the titles should be "Datu Montawal" and "Talitay". --seav (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Likely for Talitay. Also the sources cited in the recent history section of the article all use "Talitay" instead of "Sultan Sumagka": [6], [7], [8], and [9]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It is better we have a moratorium on these (including map making) until the result of the plebiscite of splitting Maguindanao as per RA 11550 as this is the best reliable source of the names used, similar to the situation of the "Province of Davao" naming with "Province of Davao del Norte" with RA 9015 and RA 9265. There are several clerical issues with PSA like Pigcawayan, Sapian, Panamao, Datu Saudi Ampatuan. --Exec8 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass blanking and redirecting of barangay articles w/o consensus

There is an ongoing massive blanking of articles of the barangays without consensus. Check WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Number 4 Juannoy22 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus that barangays are not inherently notable. Even if they were, that does not mean they should have an article when information on them could be better presented in a wider format. CMD (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It also shouldn't have to be deliberated on a per-article basis if they have a snowball's chance in hell of standalone notability.
I think the Task Force LGU page should have concrete guidelines for barangay articles, especially to what extent they have to be notable for them not to be AfD'd. It's probably the most suited place that we can discourage a mass creation of barangay article stubs that would just end up being blanked, redirected, or deleted. Ganmatthew (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the unwritten consensus here is that unless a barangay is within NCR, industrial in nature or an island barangay, its article should be blanked and redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What exactly am I disregarding, Juannoy22? The current consensus is that, barangays are not inherently notable (see Are barangays notable? and Moving forward on barangays). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Besides, a lot of these articles have been neglected for years. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Does that mean that all barangay articles should be blanked and redirected?
Except when these barangays are: 1) in Metro Manila 2) outside Metro Manila but are industrial, or an island barangay? Juannoy22 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No, a barangay can independently meet WP:GNG. CMD (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Then why are these mass blanking of articles allowed to happen? If an article is sufficiently referenced, then there shouldn't be a problem. Wikipedia contribution should not be gatekeeped. Juannoy22 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
When did wikimapia.org and elevationmap.net become reliable sources? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
according to elevation map.net, they are using Lidar data, which is alao used by USGS https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-lidar-data-and-where-can-i-download-it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
And in what way does that make it a reliable source that would sufficiently exhibit a barangay's notability? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That it is a data published by a non-Filipino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A source from a non-Filipino does not make it more or less reliable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I already answered your question why it is a reliable source because they are also used by the USGS. What reliable sources then should be put to stage the barangay's notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Barangays aren't notable just because they exist. Otherwise, every sari-sari store would get their own articles just because they exist. Most barangay articles meet WP:GNG through sources that indicate and verify their historical, cultural, or economical significance that merits having its own article. Ganmatthew (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Our policy on reliable sources is at WP:RS. A foreign source talking about topics about the Philippines doesn't make it automatically reliable (or not reliable). Howard the Duck (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's the USGS itself, not me, who uses the lidar model. If the USGS, or anyone who uses their data, isn't reliable for you, we should stick with PAGASA then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not privy to how this source is used, but if this is used as a reference to merely indicate that a barangay exists, it won't cut it as per WP:GNG as it is "trivial mention." Howard the Duck (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It was only used to state the amsl of the barangay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If you'd find "trivial mention" in a dictionary, you'd see a picture of that. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Then can we all agree that unless a barangay is in NCR, industrial or an island barangay, their article should be blanked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
...No? The relevant guideline is WP:GNG. CMD (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Really? Because nowhere in that guideline that says that villages articles should be blanked and redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Barangays aren't deleted because these aren't in Metro Manila (QC barangays noticeably do not have standalone articles), an industrial barangay or is an island barangay. They are deleted because of an AFD. I also suppose people here should cease and desist redirecting barangay articles outside of the normal WP:AFD or WP:MERGE process. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I will not make further edits until this discussion yields a clearer consensus. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That is what I am talking about. These deiberate blanking and redirecting of barangay articles discourages people who want to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The last AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagong Bayan, San Pablo, and these involved several articles that ended in redirecting to San Pablo. There are several other AFDs on barangays and almost all of these ended in redirecting to the mother city/town. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
See? These went under a consensus type of discussion. But there is still a series of blanking and redirecting of articles the past few days w/o consensus. More than half of Malaybalay barangays have separate articles. Is it safe to say that these may also be blanked in a few days w/o consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple discussions on barangays to reach the current consensus. If you find a barangay article that does not meet WP:GNG, please feel free to perform a merge/redirect. CMD (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. And it appears that that guideline may be bypassed or not, depending on the gut feel of the editor. The other editor says that these should still undergo a discussion. See? There is still no consensus. Why are the people here are afraid to put it into words? Say, for example, if a barangay has no thorough details in an article, maybe from ABS, inquirer or DZRH, then its article should be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Each barangay is unique. I suppose there should be an AFD for all barangays in one LGU in one AFD so that redirects and deletions are to be undisputed. Theoretically, we can't redirect UST Growling Tigers because someone redirected the UST Angelicum Roebucks, so we cannot redirect a barangay from Romblon because an AFD decided a barangay in Palawan has to be redirected.
As for contributors, I suppose Wikipedia values those who'd contribute to other more important articles vs. contributing to an article about one's village that won't survive AFD and won't be improve for decades. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Comment and input by me, an involved user since 2020 (one can see that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles#Barangay notability; that is my full disclosure to avoid accusations of bias). The whole issue can be seen at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. I suppose the last Tambayan forum here didn't end in true consensus. Hopefully this will be the last discussion for good. I admit I am leaning towards deletionist approach to barangays (actually thinking of nuking some NCR barangays via AfDs, but I decide not to proceed due to my sickness right now). Perhaps my action for an Isulan barangay will be my last act of redirecting on barangay articles. Seeing many of our news agencies begin to refer to barangays as villages, like GMA News and Inquirer, I accept opening a wider forum that now involves more Pinoy Wikipedians. I support restricting barangay deletions by AfDs only and prohibiting bold redirects and bold proposed deletions or PROD's. Besides the spirit of Wikipedia is consensus building. Regards and stay healthy, panahon na ng trangkaso po ngayon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am for deleting barangays as well, but for issues on deletion, these are best dealt with via AFDs (or other process related discussions that have consequences), and not on discussions on Wikiproject pages such as this one. This is why I insisted on putting the discussion on moving MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila) as an WP:RM (remember that?) and not waste time on discussing that here (or somewhere else) so that we'd have undisputed consensus (or none as the case may be). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This should be put into specific words. Unless a barangay has/is...it will be blanked/redirected/deleted. Contributors faithfully follow the barangay article naming guidelines, only to find out what they made was blanked and redirected based on an ambiguous consensus and gut feel. This discourages people to contribute again because they will feel that they are gatekeeped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the issue on barangays does not help with my sickly condition right now. To add, my vigilance on freedom of panorama introduction for allowance of commercially-licensed images of Philippine public artworks on Wikimedia Commons - which I hope will be passed before the 18th Congress closes for good. Another thing, college works despite the so-called health break. So I leave the barangay notability issue to everyone. But I reiterate my support for restricting barangay deletions via AfD only. Again, keep safe everyone. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If our intention is to redirect barangay articles to their parent cities/municipalities, should we run merge discussions instead of AfDs? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
And with AfDs, we should expect GEOLAND people. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Good question. Redirecting without merging anything is deletion. If you're not adding similar to a table found in Calamba, Laguna#Barangays and instead redirecting to a section similar to Santa Cruz, Laguna#Barangays it's good practice to list that up for AFD. Merging is also cumbersome if you'd be merging multiple articles to one.
As for GEOLAND people, I think they didn't show up in the last AFD I cited above. If you have a strong case for deletion, you shouldn't be afraid of those. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There are over 42,000 barangays (one for every 3 active en.wikipedians). Not all are articles, but it is entirely unproductive to have this discussion again and again as more pop up. As for the specific words, it's a simple "Unless a barangay meets WP:GNG, it should not be an article", as with the majority of topics on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There are 1,634 cities and municipalities, not all have barangay articles. It's conceivable to group barangay AFDs on a per city/muncipality/province basis, especially for those that are barely Wikidata entries.
It's also plausible to have all new barangay articles to be submitted via WP:AFC. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you asking it just now? Might as well blank and redirect the other remaining barangay articles and empty their parent categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you not adding colons and signing comments? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If a new barangay article will be made today, will it be blanked and redirected instantly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juannoy22 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please for the love of keeping the discussion sane, please indent your comments properly and sign your comments. We are not obligated to respond to you if you do not do this simple courtesy.
Please submit new articles under the WP:AFC process. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Will that process make it safe for the barangay article from being blanked and redirected? Juannoy22 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The process will make sure that barangay articles pass WP:GNG before it becomes live. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure. How about those barangay articles that have been blanked and redirected without consensus in the past few days? Should they be reinstated with consensus or not? Juannoy22 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Do any of them pass WP:GNG? CMD (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, some them. WP:SNG should be used if the GNG won't work Juannoy22 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, good old WP:GEOLAND. I wonder what happened to the SNG vs GNG discussion I did last year (LOL). The last AFD where WP:GEOLAND was invoked saw the barangay redirect back to its mother town, and AFAIK, it hasn't been invoked in subsequent AFDs(?) But if someone's up to discuss that again and waste everyone's time be my guest. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont know about the other prior discussions. But if the GNG or other notability guidelines don't work for the barangays and end up again in a dispute (surely those aren't working), people here should have a very specific guidleine regarding the barangay articles. This discussion will be repeated again and again unless there is specific word to word guideline when a new/old barangay article should be kept, deleted or blanked. Juannoy22 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The dispute is if WP:SNGs like WP:GEOLAND overrule WP:GNG. We've had two AFDs last year where those advocating GNG outshouted those who says WP:GEOLAND should be enough, which led to the barangay articles to be redirected. After those two AFDs, subsequent barangays AFDs have gone without incident and led to redirections. That, I presume, gave the impetus for other people to start redirecting other barangay articles to their mother towns/cities. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Those guidelines aren't very specific to barangays and will still cause disputes in the future. What I am saying is the guidelines should be very specific to the barangay articles. the guidelines for barangay laid by the WP PH is that a brgy should be addressed in detail by a private media, excluding those trivial mentions in a government census, hence, that article should be blanked and redirected See? Very specific and no dispute will rise then. Why is it very hard to put it into words? Juannoy22 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that what WP:GNG says? Personally, as much as possible, I'd like to defer to sitewide policies and guidelines as that overrules WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. We're not special -- I don't see other countries doing this. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok. So if I blanked all the barangay articles here and invoked the GNG, will I be crucified or not? Juannoy22 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You haven't been paying attention to what a Wiki is and how WP:BRD works, are you? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, despite having reliable sources, being worked on for some time, it can all be blanked and redirected all at once because of an ambiguous guideline that clearly isnt helping and a from of gatekeeping. Juannoy22 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The Wiki editor used to have a notice, and I'm paraphrasing, "If you don't want your contributions to be edited mercilessly, don't submit it." WP:GNG has been a part of WP:N for more than a decade, and has served well, even for contentious AFDs, and not just on barangay ones, but elsewhere in Wikipedia. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. I still believe that there should be a specific guudeline for barangays laid by the WP PH as these appear to be a topic of dispute for a long time now. This discourages me, honestly, to contribute further to wiki other than the barangay articles. I'm sure I'm not the first one, given that those who made other decent brgy articles have stopped contributing after their articles were blanked and redirected. Juannoy22 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If you have problem with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:GNG, you are more than welcome to create a discussion about it at the relevant talk pages. We want as many and as diverse pool of contributors as possible, but if they'd be stuck on creating articles about the barangays that they are residing at then leave those in a bad state for decades and nothing else, then we'd have to look for other people to create articles on more relevant topics. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That's why I am here, discussing possible resolutions to the dispute that people here failed to address since wikipedia began accepting articles for barangays. I am suggesting to lay specific word to word barangay guidelines but it's always brushed off, "hey we have a set of guidelines for that", well, guess what? They clearly aren't working and putting people here back to square one. Juannoy22 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
People ignore guidelines all the time. More specific words won't solve that. But if you want, we can say "A barangay article should be created when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". CMD (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Then what are those guidelines for if we're not bound to follow them because people do ignore them? Should we normalize ignoring guidelines in wikipedia? Well, that is just the GNG. And yeah, sure, either an ambiguous or a specific worded guideline won't solve it? Got it. Juannoy22 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:IAR is a thing.
TBH, this is the first time I see someone complain about the "ambiguity" of WP:GNG. On other discussions, people use the "we have WP:SNG" arguments. It pretty much is unambiguous. "Significant coverage" is not bio-data like entries on a database. If your pet article/topic fails to satisfy WP:GNG, I'm sorry to hear that. Wikipedia has millions of articles that are not... barangays. Municipality articles are just as bad. Instead of focusing on barangays, try improving the municipality article first. Once it becomes extensive enough, you can argue for it to be WP:SPLIT. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's ambiguous because you can use it sometimes, and when you're not feeling it today, you may not. Just like the WP:IAR, unless you are intercepted for blanking and redirecting articles, you can go on.Juannoy22 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
What makes you think it's ambiguous? The guideline is very clear, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unfortunately, most barangays don't satisfy that criteria and won't do anytime soon. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Juannoy22: you can go to the relevant information on barangay through municipal articles. For example, to know about barangay Malhacan, you can search "Malhacan" and, if the JavaScript is enabled, the search will automatically redirect you to Meycauayan#Barangays. This may mean all barangays must be created as redirects, and all barangay sections must be changed into wholesome tables and not just bulleted lists (that exist in most municipal articles). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Does that mean that all barangay articles should be blanked and redirected now? Juannoy22 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Juannoy22: those that only serve as directories of landmarks (schools, palengkes, etc..), or a horrific listing — listing of epalesque barangay officials — without reliable and independent sources must be sent to Articles for Deletion as I suggested above. Also, there should be at least 3 sources for an article to pass notability standards. The sources must not mention the subject in a trivial or peripheral manner (like PSA, whose 2020 census results do not warrant the notability of the listed barangays). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Really? That is what HueMan1 should have done? instead of massive blanking and redirecting the barangay articles? And now, their parent categories are at the brink of deletion because they were emptied. Thanks to that user and thanks for clarifying that. Juannoy22 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hueman1's actions were within policy and per existing consensus. In some ways a redirect is preferable to AfD, as a deletion will get rid of all article history, whereas a redirect preserves it. The categories obviously cannot exist if the articles are not notable. CMD (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
As per the WP:BRD process, you can revert, but the one who redirected it can bring it to further discussion such as AFD. If the article doesn't pass WP:GNG before redirection and will have a hard time passing that, it's best to keep it redirect as further discussions can be a waste of time. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The AfC is useless if the barangay isn't notable to begin with. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the AFC reviewer will reject articles that do not conform to WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Where in this part can we use our gut feel to blank and redirect an article? Should we consult it first or not? Juannoy22 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a Wiki. Just as you can create microstubs, then someone can redirect that microstub. WP:BRD applies. I, presumably, can redirect an article about a current Pinoy Big Brother contestant to the relevant season article if I wanted to. Someone disagrees, then s/he reverts. If I feel strongly about that contestant not deserving an article, I can initiate a discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Any assertions that an article passes WP:GNG should come with evidence. "Some them" is not convincing. Our current WP:SNG for Barangays is that they are not inherently notable. It would be best to avoid putting more work on AfC if possible, so clearly establishing GNG before writing an article is important. CMD (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I've seen Philippine senators(!) being drafted at AFC. If AFC as a project isn't viable, they should close that down. As it is still currently operational, we should use that. It being kept in draftspace can be good for the future article as other references can be found before it goes to the mainspace. It also keeps articles that do not pass WP:GNG off the mainspace rather easily. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(reset indent) Okay I'm adding my part on the consensus

  1. If there's reliable sources then that would prove notability. If not then too bad. I don't like inherent notabilities.
  2. Barangay articles should be submitted to WP:AFD ideally speaking. PROD's and bold redirects are fine. If you have an issue with them, send the article to AFD. --Lenticel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bulusan, Sorsogon Province#Requested move 19 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bulusan, Sorsogon Province#Requested move 19 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philippine Democratic Socialist Party#Requested move 10 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Democratic Socialist Party#Requested move 10 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Labor Party Philippines#Requested move 8 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Labor Party Philippines#Requested move 8 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Barangay categories

Hello, WikiProject,

An editor has been emptying out categories involving Barangays (see today's Empty Category list) and so these categories will be tagged for deletion and, if they are still empty in a week, they will be deleted.

I don't know anything about this subject or organizing articles based on Barangay (see Category:Barangays of the Philippines by province) so I don't know if this is an improvement or a problem but any category reorganization should go through Categories for Discussion instead of individual editors emptying out categories. But I wanted to bring it to your attention in case there are changes that should be reverted since these categories are tagged as being under the auspices of this WikiProject. Thanks for any attention you can bring to this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?), for the discussion regarding barangays, or Philippine administrative villages that comprise the Philippine cities and municipalities (Philippine towns). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Upon checking, it looks like many of the barangay articles that used to be part of the categories were deleted and cleared into redirects to their respective city/municipality article due to most if not all of them failing WP:NOR and WP:NOTE.
I think its safe to say that unless there is a reasonable number of notable barangay articles of that city/municipality with proper sources, those barangay categories can just be deleted. Ganmatthew (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks like even more barangay categories have been emptied, looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. It appears that this subject is generating a larger discussion but I'm just notifying you that these will be tagged for deletion and, as I stated, if they are still empty in a week, they will be deleted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If these are being redirected, wouldn't it make sense to keep the categories in the redirects? (You can categorize redirects.) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@HueMan1:, thoughts on this? CMD (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck and Chipmunkdavis: Are we gonna do this for all 42,046 barangays or just the existing ones? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure anyone should take the time to do 42k barangays, it's mostly a thought to consider leaving some categories if you perform a merge. CMD (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm proposing to do this for the articles that have been redirected, and no longer create redirects for the other barangays that have not been created. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Beng Climaco Chavacano or Spanish?

I'm currently adding some cites at Beng Climaco and there's a blurb there that says she speaks Spanish which I can't verify. news article says she speaks Chavacano though. However, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to consider said language as Spanish. I'm just thinking of deleting the blurb and call it a day. --Lenticel (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Commenting in passing, there's also the unsupported assertions there that the reasons she has that language proficiency are to honor the influence her late uncle has had in her life and in following an ancient Filipino tradition. I see that [10] indicates that she speaks Chavacano and that [11][12] indicate that she is active in support of efforts on the promotion, preservation and propagation of that language. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, better revise those claims to Chavacano instead. --Lenticel (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Manny SD Lopez#Requested move 25 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manny SD Lopez#Requested move 25 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Vice-presidential" or "Vice presidential"?

Title says it all. My recent WP:CFDS was rejected because of this discussion wherein the hyphen was used. It seems that these two are both used, although I think we shouldn't use hyphens considering we don't use it in the official title of the office and in articles. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 08:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is MOS:TITLE (tl;dr: always use sentence case for almost all cases) and WP:OFFICIAL (tl;dr: don't be blinded by official usage). I'm waiting for another CFD to end so that the presidential and vice presidential election categories are aligned. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC) 

Infobox titling of governmental positions

Some edits which may be an example of something widercaught my eye, so I'm raising a flag about it here.

  • this edit to the Romblon articleby an anon changed a position title in {{infobox settlement}} used there from [[House of Representatives of the Philippines#Current composition|Representative]] to [[Sangguniang Panlalawigan|Legislature]]. I had a some of issues with that beyond whether or not the title is the correct one for the position it is intended to designate:
  1. "Legislature" is not an appropriate title for a person.
  2. According to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan article, members of that body are called "board members" (BM) or "Sangguniang Panlalawigan members" (SPM).
  3. There appears to be tension here between this being the English Wikipedia, with this article presumably being targeted beyond the community of Tagalog-speakers, and resistance against perceived language imperialism.
  • This edit by @HueMan1 reverted that change to read [[House of Representatives of the Philippines#Current composition|Representative]] <!--congressman or congresswoman -->.

Having noticed that, I thought it might be useful to mention it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, House representatives should not be there; these are not, strictly speaking, "leaders" as they are "representatives." Neither should Romblon Provincial Board members (all of them!) should be there too. If you'd notice on Philippine settlement articles, it even has a complete list of the members of the local legislature as "leaders", which should not be done.

I'm going to comment on "language imperalism" but you Americans have to move "San Francisco" to "Saint Francis" first. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My concern re Tagalog/Filipino naming vs. English equivalents is mostly re naming impact on scope of usefulness. Designations like Sangguniang Panlalawigan strike me not particularly useful to non-speakers of Tagalog and as offputting outside of the tagalog-speaking community. I tend to try to subvocalize as I read, and something like that brings the flow of my reading to an abrupt halt, sometimes sending me off on a tangent looking to assign some english language meaning to such a designation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
(added) I'll reinforce that a bit by reference here to the Wikipedia:Official names project page. That page is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy page and this specific example does happen to concern an article title, but my concern re this is wider than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
These Sanggunian series of articles had tumultuous RMs a few years ago that settled in the current naming. I mean Seimas doesn't mean a thing for me but if that's the name that they settled upon who am I to judge. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. I just brought it up here because it struck me that it might be useful to do that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bataan Day#Requested move 31 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bataan Day#Requested move 31 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the alert level system section contain their restrictions just like for community quarantines?

The alert level system on the COVID-19 community quarantines in the Philippines page appears to lack a list of the restrictions under each alert level compared to what was listed for the old community quarantine classifications.

Considering how doing so could possibly make the page much longer than it already is, should we still opt to list down each of its restrictions? Ganmatthew (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion

What do you think of Draft:Shy piece? Do you think it's real? I have never encountered the term all my life. Engr. Smitty Werben 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  • It is real in a sense that it is part of "hiya" or modesty when eating together. However, "shy piece" isn't an actual term for it. It's probably better to make an article about "hiya" itself. --Lenticel (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
God are we making an article about a term that cannot be exactly expressed in English again? (LOL) Howard the Duck (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's the thing about translations. It's never perfectly possible --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The difficulty of understanding that from my non-filipino cultural perspective struck me. I hadn't heard the term and would not have recognized its significance if I had. I took a look at Bulato, Jaime C. (1964). "Hiya". Philippine Studies. 3 (12). Ateneo de Manila University: 424–438 – via Jstor -- and also at Alora, A.T.; Lumitao, J.M. (2001). Beyond a Western Bioethics: Voices from the Developing World. Clinical Medical Ethics series. Georgetown University Press. pp. 10-11. ISBN 978-1-58901-249-3. Retrieved 2022-02-17. Looking at that book source, it strikes me that this could fit into an article on a wider topic about what that book terms Culturally based norms and ambiguities beginning just a bit above the mention of Hiŷa there. See also Bioethics (added: It's probably better to start from page 6 in that book, or page 3); that led me to the following article which I could not preview online: de Castro, Leonardo; Toledano, Sarah Jane (2009). "Bioethics in the Philippines: a Retrospective". Asian Bioethics Review. 1 (4). NUS Press Pte Ltd: 426–444.[...] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Following up on my comment above, perhaps something about this belongs in Culture of the Philippines § Values. I don't think I have enough understanding of this to contribute (though I might try anyway when I have time, hoping for article improvement by more qualified editors). Repeating links to the sources mentioned above and adding a few:

Requested move at Talk:James Reid (actor)#Requested move 18 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James Reid (actor)#Requested move 18 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:PiliPinas Debates 2022#Requested move 24 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:PiliPinas Debates 2022#Requested move 24 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 05:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Archaic town names

Just putting this here. There are some municipality/city articles which lists the old/archaic name in the infobox under the field "other_name". The problem is the field is not meant to be for former names but it does create an impression that the old name is a "native name" of the locality and/or is still widely used. I tried going through many municipality articles but they are simply too many. Exceptions include Rodriguez (Montalban) and General Emilio Aguinaldo, Cavite (Bailen) where the "old name" is still a common name for the place.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably would be helpful to check every town listed on List of renamed cities and municipalities in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Montalban still the WP:AT for the town legally known as "Rodriguez"? I'd imagine some former names are still predominantly used... Howard the Duck (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe create an infobox entry for the archaic name? One example I found is ComVal with its new name Davao De Oro. I'd say do not omit the name from the infobox but rather retain it. --Likhasik (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If reliable sources still refer to certain towns under their old legal name, outside discussion of name change (e.g. X town changed their name to Y in 20XX), then it could be included.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Reliability is independent of publication date; some reliable sources could be old enough to be independent and in conflict with current usage. Also, the notion of "still", if not clarified by e.g., {{as of}}, conflicts with MOS:DATED. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
No, don't add the former name in the infobox, especially really archaic names. That's just more clutter. It is sufficient to mention it in prose format in the history section or introduction. If it is a very recent name change, it is more than likely that the former name is still in use, and then it can be added to other name IMO. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Montalban was renamed into "Rodriguez" in 1982, and still is referred to as "Montalban" in 2022. How long ago is "recent"? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, if the former name (no matter how archaic) is still in common use, it is an other name... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, well, how can we measure if the name is commonly used nowadays? When can we consider if an old name is still being used? It is ambiguous and an undeterminable case. It would be better to still include it in the infobox BUT not as "other names" but rather as another entry. And no, saying that "Oh, locals there still use it" is not verifiable. --Likhasik (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:RS still use the old name. For example, "First national hospital to rise in Montalban, Rizal". I admit this is not as frequently seen as "successful" renamings such as Bigaa/Balagtas, Polo/Valenzuela, Metro Manila (LOL the renaming didn't lead for it to be primary topic) and Opon/Lapu-Lapu City, but there's a few of instances of these. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Kindly hold off changing anything with Montalban/ Rodriguez as House Bill No. 8899 is already up for President's signature. Better make all necessary changes once the referendum is finished. It is highly unlikely that the President will veto the bill. --Exec8 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
for reference --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Protests against Rodrigo Duterte needs massive cleanup

The article is in a very bad shape: there's too much text (e.g.: "Causes of the protests" section has a whopping 109,523 byte count), too many headings, and there might be POV issues with it. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 05:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They also featured the caricatures of Duterte, along with former president and newly installed House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Ferdinand and Bongbong Marcos.

Other groups featured a stack of buckets with the pictures of Duterte, the Marcoses, newly appointed Chief Justice Teresita de Castro and other Duterte's cabinet and allies — parodying the milk brand Alaska, which was then being toppled by the slippers.[355] Some protesters had questioned the inclusion of former President Benigno Aquino III's face in the bucket, to which the organizers said that because of unsolved problems in the country. They later removed Aquino's face in the bucket as a respect.

—Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to remove and shorten some portions of that section since the causes mentioned already had main articles but my edit was reverted. Apparently coverage on main articles doesn't warrant the shortening. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Camp Iranun#Requested move 6 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Camp Iranun#Requested move 6 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you guys find or get the indigenous and native names of places, titles, regions, etc.?

I am baffled by the "how" or the technique namely in translating or getting the native names of place. Example is Sumilao. It has the names Bukid and Higaonon: Banuwa ta Sumilao. Another is the title for Dalagang Bukid and its English translation of Country Maiden. The Pangasinense name of Pag-asa Island is "Ilalo" which up to this day, I can't find a source or citation outside Wikipedia. Maybe my skills are not honed yet in searching but my idea still stands still. Another one is Cabalian Volcano with its Kabalianon translation. How do you decide which is which and getting the native names of these? I assume that no one of ya'll actually is a native or speaker of the language. --Likhasik (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Editors here magically pull text out of thin air without any citations. --Lenticel (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
At least for Tagalog/Filipino, "Municipality of Foo" is "Bayan ng Foo" and "City of" is "Lungsod ng Foo". Though I think that listing the native names of a certain locale when the name of the town itself doesn't differ at all (e.g. Foo and Foien) is exhaustive and unnecessary. For movies, Dalagang Bukid is accurate but it may potentially imply that that official English release is "Country Maiden" and is another perennial problem. For Cabalian Volcano, no comment on that. Also government agencies, some editors add unofficial Tagalog/Filipino names but the reality is organizations don't bother to adopt a Tagalog/Filipino name or barely use it at all (and in some cases not in any publicly available resource which naturally would not satisfy WP:VERIFY_ Feel free to remove unsourced translations.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lenticel: Tell you more? No. You tell me. I literally don't know how do those things happen. I am quite amazed on those being added and found in articles. I am just perplexed on how. I first assume that NONE of those who edits Wikipedia are native speakers of, for example, Kalianon and Bukid or Higaonon. Heck I would also assume that no Pangasinense know that 'Pag-asa island' is called Ilalo. Maybe I am underestimating but I believe there is no super linguist here who knows that thing. The same goes to other names and titles.
For the Dalagang Bukid @Hariboneagle927:, as a native speaker of both languages for years, I can't or would never translate that as Country Maiden. Maybe I lack vocabulary. Cause I would translate it as 'Young Lady of the rural' (yeah kinda stooped vocab). Anyway, I know what you are saying about the municipality of foo part. However what about other languages? For Example, how can you usually translate it into Cebuano, Ilokano, Bikolano, as well as other minority languages like Tausug and Maguindanao. Hecc did you know that Manila is called IBali in the Zambal language? Question is how can someone know that? --Likhasik (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yeah, it was called Country Maiden by sources so that stays. Anyways, if you can't verify the translation then delete it and let the editor who added it in the first place add a ref. If you can't verify it then nuke it. There are decades old crap in Philippine articles. @Likhasik:, don't do your own translations as that is original research and would just add to the already bloated misinformation at en.wiki. --Lenticel (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Likhasik: "Country" in that context mean "rural" area. Though to cut through the chase, I concur that unverified translations shouldn't be included at all.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If we're referring to a young lady from the province (and not the fish), "country maiden" seems to be the best translation. US Filipinos have the penchant for word-for-word translations, so it becomes to lost to translation wholesale. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


I have never understood the value of translating "municipality" or "city" in the opening sentence of LGU's. What value or meaning does it convey??? If this is supposed to indicate local languages, it is superfluous to the infobox which already has native languages listed. It has only led to constant adding and reverting of many languages, and none of it supported by WP:RS. I propose to remove it altogether from LGU articles. Using the example of Sumilao:

Sumilao, officially the Municipality of Sumilao (Bukid and Higaonon: Banuwa ta Sumilao; Cebuano: Lungsod sa Sumilao; Tagalog: Bayan ng Sumilao), is a 4th class municipality in the province of Bukidnon, Philippines.

Becomes:

Sumilao, officially the Municipality of Sumilao, is a 4th class municipality in the province of Bukidnon, Philippines.

Comments, thoughts, agree? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Even better, aside from that, remove also "officially, the municipality/city of Foo." Trois-Rivières and Limerick (countries that are English speaking, but have significant non-English speaking populations) don't do this. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd also recommend removing income classification in the lead. This is just boosterism (just as municipality and more importantly, "CITY OF FOO") and should be buried in an economy section. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that income classification should be removed from the lead. I think we should only use the "officially, ... " for "Science City of Munoz" and "Island Garden City of Samal". However, I think Filipino language ("{{langx|fil|Bayan ng ...}}") should be retained since it is one of the two official languages of the Philippines.—Sanglahi86 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with just Filipino language only (since it is official) and exceptions where necessary. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, for cases such as "IGaCoS", "Science City of Muñoz", but I don't see other countries mention "officially, City of Manila" in the articles about their cities. Ditch that entirely in the article and income classification in the lead, then we're good to go. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll second ditching the income classifications in lede (though I'm no longer interested with editing here). I don't find such thing in articles about cities or towns anywhere. Listing income class is much like the Filipino penchant to add "City" when referring to cities. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Largely because of the limited scope I inferred from its title, I haven't been following this discussion. However, the mention of Income Classification (which I purposefully capitalized there) caught my eye, and I see that the scope is wider than I thought. I'll just mention a couple of points here and not go much into the detail behind them. All of the following is "per my understanding of the Local Government Code (LGC)" (see Book I: here).
  • In the RP, the LGUs called Barangay, Municipality, Province, and City differ from one another and have a rank hierarchy in terms of self-sufficiency (LGC Section 17) in the order I have listed them (note subsect 17-4).
  • Ranking in this hierarchy is determined by three factors: Income, Population, and Land Area (LGC Section 7). Income Classification is no less important than the other two factors.
... unless I misunderstand, that is, and I don't think I do. For a bit more re Income Classification, see e.g. this (may not be the most recent). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

PSGC will be transitioned from 9 digits to 10 digits

Heads up! PSA will be revising the Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC) which we extensively use in our Wikipedia articles and Wikidata entries for LGUs (regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays), from a 9-digit ID to a 10-digit ID:

  1. The province code portion will now be 3 digits instead of 2 digits
  2. HUCs will have their own "province" code

This was approved May 2021 and there is a 3-year transition period. —seav (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Seav I never knew this. How come did you know about this announcement? Did the PSA post it in FB? I am just curious. --Likhasik (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/kmcd/PSA%20Board%20Resolution%20No.%2007%20Series%20of%202021_Approving%20and%20Adopting%20the%20Philippine%20Standard%20Geographic%20Code%20Revision%201.pdf

More info, the December 2021 PSGC document of PSA already has the 10-digit codes: https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/downloads/2_PSGC%204Q-2021-Publication-Datafile_vjfa_ema%20(1).xlsx —seav (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The 10-digit ID is also now visible on their respective PSGC pages, but its URL still uses the 9-digit ID for now. Trying to use the 10-digit ID so far doesn't work yet.
[13]https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/provinces/130000000 Ganmatthew (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Updated map of rationalized bus routes in Metro Manila

Is there a more up-to-date official map of the bus routes in Metro Manila provided by the LTFRB or DOTr? The one on the Wikipedia page is dated May 2020 and may be outdated with the changes over the last 2 years. Ganmatthew (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Durian

I have nominated Durian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 17:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Edits by IP editor adding wrong and undue info (again)

A disruptive IP editor started again adding repetitive info and unnecessary plug for San Fernando, Pampanga, to LGU articles in Bataan, usually with totally wrong distances to this city. Besides the wrong info and bad grammar, there is no significance to adding this info, it is purely undue promo for this city -- see Balanga, Abucay, Bagac, Dinalupihan, Hermosa, Limay, Mariveles, Morong, Orani, Orion, Pilar, Samal. This has happened in the past, SO I'm asking other Tambayan members to monitor and revert 24.143.224.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (now even adding San Fernando info to LGU articles outside of its region!). Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up "List of bus companies of the Philippines"

The List of bus companies of the Philippines article is kind of a mess, there are a lot of unsourced material elaborating on what each bus company is supposedly known for. As someone stated on the talk page years back, should there be criteria on what bus companies fall under the article list? Ganmatthew (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the relevant guideline is WP:SOURCELIST. In my opinion, if something can be verified and sourced then I keep the item on the list. If not then they get nuked. --Lenticel (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
A very long dataset of bus operators as of 2015 provided by the data.gov.ph is available (CSV download link). Removing duplicate operator names will reduce the operators to 835. Maybe someone would want to use that source to add citations for and update the article as I do not have enough time to do it. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Language lists for subnational entities

This edit caught my eye. I don't have a specific comment about it, but it triggered some more general thoughts.

  1. Since this is one of a number of subnational entities, should not the national and official languages listed in the infobox of Languages of the Philippines also be listed as such in the infoboxes for those entities?
  2. Might it not be better for these to be collected into a template, maintained centrally there, and one of several alternative lists supported there selected for inclusion (perhaps with a simple switch/case, perhaps with something more complicated)?
  3. It strikes me that, in general, this might apply to entities below or other than the island-group level (e.g., individual islands, individual provinces, individual cities). Perhaps that needs some thought.

It's probably clear from the above that this is an off-the-cuff reaction. I thought to mention it here as food for thought. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

National languages should not be listed in the infoboxes of subnational entities, as it gives the impression languages are regulated at that level (which they are in some countries) and/or that all national languages apply the same to all entities. If languages are to be listed, I would suggest they reflect a source such as PSA specific to that entity/region. CMD (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be useful for some uniform project-level stance on this to be articulated, and compliance encouraged. I'm not active on the project, just a sometime editor of Philippines-related articles, and that's not a suggestion -- just a comment. I note that some articles on sub-national geographic and/or political entities of the Philippines do include a list of languages in their infoboxes (e.g., Aklan, Eastern Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula -- I just picked those out of a hat to check). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Standards and documentation for using RouteBox, Rail-interchange, and station list tables

To consolidate a place for these to be standardized across PH-related articles, I wrote some standards and guidelines for using RouteBox and Rail-interchange templates and station list tables for public transportation articles based on some of the recent work on MRT, LRT, and bus articles at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force Transportation#Guidelines.

Feel free to contribute and revise as needed. Thank you! Ganmatthew (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Article requests

Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I found that usage in an official source at Philippines (1916). "Registration of Titles, Province of Palawan, Court of the First Instance, Case No. 3 G.L.R.O. Record No. 9596". Official Gazette. 14 (1): 482. Retrieved 2022-04-20. Also, Mindat.org calls it one of several alternative names here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
For reference, he's talking about "Puerto Princesa Bay," but I'm not sure which body of water the references point to. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm confused, but it seems to me the first listed item refers to this body of water when asking whether there's a bay named after the city and saying that Google Maps does not have a name for it. I note that Google Maps does name Honda Bay and Ulugan bay here (you may need to zoom in to see the name for Ulugan Bay). The 1916 Official Gazette page I cited describes a piece of property "situated in the Township of Puerto Princesa, Province of Palawan, P.I. Bounded on [...] the SW. by [other items] and Puerto Princesa Bay; and on the NW. by Puerto Princesa Bay". It seems clear to me that refers to the same body of water by name, at least semi-officially, as "Puerto Princesa Bay." That's probably OR, but I'm just trying to be helpful with a question on a talk page here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
If it's the body of water to the west of the main settlement, it is not Honda nor Ulugan bays. An article can be created about this if someone wants to. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck This map from NAMRIA labels the bay located near the city center as the "Puerto Princesa Bay". howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
For reference, the primary settlement of Puerto Princesa is a peninsula, so it is surrounded by water on three sides. If the body of water being referred to is the one to the west of the main settlement, then that's not Honda Bay and most likely be the one being referred to. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
There's also one request for a "Philippine Public Private Partnership Projects Infobox". Do we need that one? Ganmatthew (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there an infobox for infrastructure projects? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at most infra project pages, there isn't. Though I don't think there is a need to create such an infobox for them anyway, other than to bundle which projects are PPPs and provide some box with links to them.
It would also be the same case for Build Build Build, if ever someone comes up with the idea of an infobox for that as well. Ganmatthew (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I suppose there's an infobox for architectural structures; those can be used, which means we can remove this request. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pantayong Pananaw is a major paradigm in the telling of Philippine History, an approach whose heydey was in the late 1980s through to the early 2000s. To my knowledge, it is still taught in university Philippine History courses, although it has not been as popular lately, partly I think because it was put forward by Zeus Salazar, who has quite a few critics. There's a Tagalog wikipedia article, but its four references are not inline. Feels like it'd take a lot of work. In the past I would have just made a stub using a translation of the Tagalog entry, and let the community just expand on it. But people seem to frown on that now? So I dunno. - Batongmalake (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not being a Tagalog speaker, I looked at the translation of Pantayong Pananaw in Google Translate (result: Horizontal Perspective) before looking at a rendering of the that article on the Tagalog WP ([14]} rendered into English. I then looked at the Zeus A. Salazar article here, then at this. This area is pretty far off the beaten path for me but, since I didn't find anything directly relevant in WP (I may have missed something) it seems to me that expansion of the Sociological theory article to include this, and possibly, a detail article about Vertical and Horizontal perspectives would be more useful than an article titled Pantayong Pananaw and focused on the prevalence of horizontal perspective thinking in the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, my understanding is that it's more of a specific approach to historiography, and specifically in the writing of Philippine history texts, rather than a subset of Sociological theory. (It's certainly not "horizontal perspective thinking in the Philippines" in the generic sense.) So I'm thinking maybe it belongs in Historiography of the Philippines instead, as a subset of the "critical historiography tradition" section? But I am still very uncertain, having only read Salazar's paper on this once, decades ago in College. - Batongmalake (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems so, from a quick look at Claudio, Lisandro E. "Postcolonial Fissures and the Contingent Nation An Antinationalist Critique of Philippine Historiography". Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints. 61 (1): 45–75. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:José Corazón de Jesús#Requested move 27 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:José Corazón de Jesús#Requested move 27 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy editing

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so apologies if this is not the right place to ask, but could someone check 2021–2022 Philippines sabungeros disappearance? I did some copy editing, so would it be good enough to remove the copy edit warning box? AzureEclipse (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've copy-edited the article to fix some missed grammar issues and I also added some additional context to the article. I noticed that the article seems to lack sides towards the issue and is way too summarized. In doing so, it also seemed to omit information that would provide better context, such as Duterte initially rejecting calls to suspend e-sabong due to the revenue loss it would bring. Ganmatthew (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bongbong Marcos#Requested move 19 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bongbong Marcos#Requested move 19 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding a sports and recreational angle to Cycling in the Philippines

So the article that I wrote on a general view of bicycles and cycling in the country was written mainly from my knowledge as a cyclist and from the topical nature of cycling as a booming mode of transport since the pandemic.

However, since cycling activity here is not just limited to a mode of transport alone, with bicycle races such as the Tour de Filipinas and many cliques into recreational cycling in both rural and urban areas, the former which I am less familiar with, I would like to ask if anyone can help add an angle for cycling as a sport and as a recreational activity for the article. Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Labor Party Philippines#Requested move 23 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Labor Party Philippines#Requested move 23 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CMD (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Two articles

Hello. There are articles named Jun Chipeco and Joaquin Chipeco Jr. wherein the contents are almost the same. I move that a redirect must be placed on one of the pages that I cited. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. —seav (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have opened a conversation in one of the pages that were cited. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Request expansion of Filipinas dentro de cien años

This article was prodded and then deprodded recently. Anyways, I've added English sources for the article but I think most of the references for this article are in Spanish. Perhaps someone can expand the articles with those Spanish references? Thanks. --Lenticel (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lenticel I will try to add more. Can you please send or add the Spanish articles? BTW I have removed the lit. translation since it is not literal but an overview translation given by a writer. --Isalay (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's what I think looks like interesting Spanish articles from my Google Scholar search:

--Lenticel (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the more popular name for this work, at least in the 21st century is its English translation "The Philippines a Century Hence"? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Both titles have roughly the same hits in GScholar. I usually see both terms in the same article. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Benigno Aquino Jr.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Benigno Aquino Jr.#Requested move 5 July 2022, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chlod (say hi!) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Uncategorized people article requests

Hi, I've finished subcategorizing all article requests under the People category. However, there are seven names that I cannot verify either the person or occupation of.

I would appreciate if anyone can identify them or determine if they are even notable for drafting. Thank you! Ganmatthew (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I reccomend removal of these links in the requested article page. I've performed GSearch for all of them and they seem to be non notable people. Some of the hits actually points back to the Tambayan page. --Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be removing them from the list. Thanks. Ganmatthew (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Help in congressional district article creation

Hello, I've created a userspace draft on the 3rd congressional district of Caloocan and I'm requesting your input in connection to concerns that I encountered while creating the draft: [1] The elected representative switched parties between the proclamation of winners and the opening of the 19th Congress and [2] population and electorate data (Population can be extrapolated using data from PSA while the most recent electoral statistics (2019) only show data for the 1st congressional district as the 3rd district has yet to be created at that point. Given those concerns, what changes can I do so that the relevant information can be presented? -Ian Lopez @ 11:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. This occurs rather frequently. If the current party can be identified, that's the one that'll be shown in the "List" section. If there'd be an "Elecitons" section, the party as it appeared on the ballot is used.
  2. We can't really do anything unless we have per barangay electorate data.
Howard the Duck (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Legazpi-Urdaneta Expedition?

I see that 3 different articles refer to the Legazpi-Urdaneta Expedition, and some discuss it at length, but there isn't a page for it. I created Draft:Legazpi-Urdaneta Expedition but don't know much about it. The other articles are Miguel López de Legazpi, Andrés de Urdaneta, and Lope Martín. 173.79.50.41 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@173.79.50.41 Can you please create an account? I would try to add more info to the article. Please ping me if you have any questions regarding the article creation. Thank you for the heads up. --Isalay (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
No, sorry. I have an old account but couldn't deal with the harassment. 173.79.50.41 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_48&oldid=1256238245"