Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 6 August 2023 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53

Congressional district table headers

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

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

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

Media circus#Philippines

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

I will try finding sources stating such events are media circuses, and delete them from the list if no sources are available. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
After searching for reliable sources for the events listed there, I had difficulty finding sources stating such events are media circuses or sensationalized (unsurprising since the media probably might not want to place itself in a bad light). I was able to use two better sources (for Manila hostage crisis and Christine Dacera death). Maybe others can help in trimming that list or finding better sources. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

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

Project-independent quality assessments

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

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

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

I support this change. Assessing articles are quite the hassle especially if you're doing it for several wikiprojects. --Lenticel (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it does sound good. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The "Sr." in Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

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

When distinguishing from his son, and we're not using "Bongbong", most people suffix "Sr." (first choice), or use the middle name Edralin (second choice). I'd agree the father is "the Ferdinand Marcos", and the son is either "Bongbong Marcos" or "Ferdinand Marcos Jr." Howard the Duck (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I see that MOS:SR says, "Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.". However, MOS:SAMESURNAME says, "Individuals distinguished with a generational suffix can be written about in Forename Suffix style to disambiguate from other family members in the same article: William Sr., John Jnr, James III. No comma is used in these short constructions.". WP:IAR (a WP:POLICY says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". My take on that is that we should do what makes sense to avoid confusing general readers. For consistancy re the Marcoses, there should probably be some guidance on this in MOS:PH. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
"Ferdinand Marcos" is the father. The son is never almost never referred to as "Ferdinand Marcos" (some foreign media may, though). I dunno how confusing can this be. If we are talking about these two people in the same article, it is best to distinguish the father as "Ferdinand Sr", "the father", "the elder Marcos", etc. It does get confusing if you'd have to discuss the entire Marcos family as several members are notable in their own right. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with having the suffixes when the two are discussed in an article together. Otherwise, stick with Ferdinand Marcos for articles that discusses the father. --Lenticel (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Communist rebellion in the Philippines#Requested move 22 April 2023

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

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

Basis of in-between kilometer markers for PHLint / road intersections table

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

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

WikiProject Asian Australians

Hi,

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

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

Let me know if you are interested!

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

Xilhouete

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

Requested move at Talk:Asin–Nangalisan–San Pascual Road#Requested move 5 May 2023

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

Including the Philippines in Spanish linguistic maps (isoglosses)

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

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

Manila before the 1978

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

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

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

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

@Sanglahi86: Interestingly, the map on page 4 (of the PDF) shows an uncarved province of Rizal. I'm not sure if the National Census and Statistics Office forgot to update the map or if Metro Manila was technically still part of Rizal (and Bulacan) until 1978. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Before PD 879 was signed in 1976, Metropolitan Manila had been under "Region No. 4" (Southern Tagalog) under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. When PD 879 divided Region No. 4 into two ("Region No. 4" and "Region No. 4-A") in 1976, Metropolitan Manila remained under "Region 4". Probably it remained under Region 4 until NCR was created under PD 1396 in 1978. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This explains why most of Metro Manila was still part of Rizal on the Philippine map in the 1975 census report. Besides that, a statement in the report says Except for Valenzuela in Bulacan, all 12 municipalities are within the provincial jurisdiction of Rizal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Philippine labor migration policy

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

We could begin by deleting the outdated statistics tables. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work. The article's tone is uncyclopedic. --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
For context, this and a number of adjacent articles were written by Ateneo de Manila students as part of their Economics classes. If you see that they need work, I would recommend that we work on them. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
That explains the essay-like article. Should that be put somewhere in the talk page? You're welcome to work on it. --Lenticel (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: That being an academic project should have been disclosed in the first place. User who written the article (User:Sunshinestonight) should have done a similar disclosure. Would like to know why there's no talk page notice posted. Also the article looks like it's an orphan (not linked to most other articles).
TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know these articles date back from ~10 years ago. While academic projects don't pose an inherent conflict of interest as they were written for a grade (no money involved), and the students were supervised by an instructor who would be an expert in the article's subject matter, I don't expect them to be totally versed in Wikipedia policy. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sara Duterte's political affiliation

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

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

Perceptions on Philippine English

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

Is this something that has even been studied academically? Philippine Spanish has empirical data backing it up as being a class symbol; I presume it's been studied as well for Philippine English given that it's basically confirming what we already know to be true, but I wonder what has already been written about this that can be included in the article. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
In the case of perceptions missing in the article, I mean like the common perceptions about the language, especially speakers or its use (especially "straight"/acrolectal forms) being sometimes seen as sosyal. They may be found in academic sources, but these manifest a lot in pop culture.TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: Maybe that's a sociolinguistic aspect. Willing to work of that? We're missing info about how PH English is sometimes perceived, and its common association with formality and class. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
My current focus outside of my normal topic areas at the moment is improving our coverage of Spanish in the Philippines, since I find that to be sorely lacking and incomplete. It also doesn't help that we perpetuate this idea, inadvertently or deliberately, that the language is dead when it isn't, perhaps because we don't have access to sources – sources that now we have access to because I happen to be in a place where, obviously, it's studied extensively and because, as far as I know, I'm one of only a handful of Filipino Wikipedians who can speak the language. Updating that for me is far more pressing at the moment than working on our coverage of English in the Philippines, where sources are far more easily accessible. That said, here are a few journal articles which I found that address the topic if you want to take a crack at it:
I imagine there is more literature out there and while I can help with finding sources, you are more than welcome to touch it given where my current priorities are. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating Metro Manila railway colors

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

Since LRTA is an official source and the current owner and operator of the LRT-2, then I agree that this should signify that the LRT Line 2 article and any references to LRT-2 should be using the purple color. However, I'm not sure about applying this to the MRT Line 3 article and references to it since the same map is not being used on the MRT-3. Although, DOTr-MRT3 does primarily use blue on its branding and on socmed, with only limited references to its yellow color. So for me, that's a strong yes for LRT-2 and a weak yes for MRT-3. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I am very inclined to follow the LRTA's recommendations, but is there an active MRT-3 map available somewhere? (Also, what happened to the discussion we had over how to name lines; now I see "LRT Line 2" is the title for LRT-2 contrary to the discussion we had three years ago?!) --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an included map on the brochure on the MRT-3's website, although I'm not certain when it was last updated. Not sure if there are more updated maps within MRT-3 stations. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 10:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The brochure makes mention of face masks but not face shields so it must have been released around 2020 or 2022 (considering face shields were mandatory for roughly the entirety of 2021). It's also interesting that the line colors are way more different; LRT-1 is yellow, LRT-2 is blue, and MRT-3 is...green?
To confirm, the About page where the brochure is posted at on the Wayback Machine shows many different brochure versions. In some of them, LRT-1 was red, LRT-2 was blue, and MRT-3 was green.
If we base it on the earliest crawl of About page that shows the brochure you posted, it was on February 8, 2023. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Re-titleing the Battle of Balangiga article to Balangiga massacre suggested

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

Academic year#Philippines

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

SCTEx exit 88

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

Seeking advice for a draft pertaining to a Filipino pop band

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

Looks good to me. I think now that the group is closer to their "official" debut it has matured to the point where it should make sense to have an article on them so I don't see any further reason why it would be declined again. You've already cited way more reliable sources than I can muster for some local indie rock groups. I can see you worked hard on this draft so good job and good luck!
BTW, seeing as you have 5000+ edits already with extended confirmed permissions, in the future you can probably just use the Move tool to publish the article to main space yourself if you feel it already passes the notability criteria. PritongKandule-✉️📝 09:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice and the feedback; I greatly appreciate it. EdrianJustine (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Opposing views to Taglish

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

It seems to me that this concerns Filipino more than it concerns Taglish, relating also to the basis of the de jure national language. Some quick searching turned up some possibly useful sources: [1], [2], [3]. There's probably a lot more out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell My primary inspiration to suggest adding a section about criticism or opposition for Taglish (mostly from language educators or regulators) are the articles for Bahasa Rojak (Malay-English code-switching/slang). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh. I wasn't clear on that. Offhand, it seems to me that Taglish is more similar to what is called Business Rojak there than to Bhasa Rojak. I'm neither Filipino nor Malay, though, and that's an offhand opinion based on not very much. In any case, I don't think I have anything else to say here that might be useful. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupations overloading on PH celebrity pages

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

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

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

I don't have anything situationally specific on this, but I notte that the nutshell summary of WP:LEAD says, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Looking at that from the other direction, it seems reasonable to say a claim not weighty enough to merit expansion in a body section does not belong in the lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking into it more, it just seems there isn't an easy way to go about it except to go on a case-by-case. But having at least some mention of a role in the article body seems like a good enough justification for whether or not an role is a valid inclusion in the lede. I'll go start cleaning up some ledes when I have the time but if anyone objects to this just ping me. PritongKandule-✉️📝 06:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing details on Censorship in the Philippines

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

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

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

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

Requested move at Talk:List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus#Requested move 27 June 2023

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

I want opinion if I should upload an SVG file of a municipality logo. . .

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

This is the PNG version of the logo:

File:Bataraza_Palawan.png

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


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

You cannot actually overwrite a file with another file of a different file format. You can upload the SVG file and then replace uses of the PNG file with the SVG file. —seav (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I would recommend uploading the seal on Commons. We should deprecate the uploading of non-architectural Philippine government works locally in favor of Commons since the seals are freely usable anyway. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Need help for Mario Dumaual

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

Update List of power plants in the Philippines

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

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

Schools in List of tourist attractions in the Philippines

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

I agree that it is not appropriate to be included there. Most of them are not even freely accessible by the public making no sense why it is considered as a tourist attraction even though some are considered as a “Historical site”. JETH888 (message) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless they are verified as tourist spots, I think they should be removed. --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I removed the section. Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, historical sites aren't automatically tourist sites. I doubt that Camp Crame for example allows tourists with no official business with the PNP in. Not sure if they have a museum, which is accessible to the public, inside the premise though. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

When to use Filipino or Tagalog, again

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

I don't understand more than a few words in any Philippine language but I think that in articles not focused on the Philippines )i.e., the one exampled) this should be considered from a perspective outside of the Philippines -- a more neutral POV. The "we" whose POV is being catered to should not be just Filipinos, but should be WP's target users. The section at issue in the exampled article focuses on the Philippines. IMO, in such situations, the name of the designated national language should be used unless there is some overriding factors such as timeline considerations or the impact of disputes which need clarification. When such overriding factors are present -- specifically in the case of the Philippines -- this should not be presented considering only two alternative languages or language designations if more than two alternative languages see significant usage in the country (i.e., the designated regional languages or the very numerous other languages spoken in the Philippines). That's how it seems to me, anyhow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC).
I look at it like this:
  • If it has an air of "officiality" to it (so the name of a piece of infrastructure, for example), use "Filipino".
  • If we talk about the language people speak, this was how I treated this subject in Languages spoken by presidents of the Philippines: the term "Filipino" appears only for Corazon Aquino and beyond, since that's when Filipino became a thing. For all presidents before her, I used "Tagalog".
  • There may be cases where "Tagalog/Filipino" might be appropriate. The Philippines section in the storey article seems like one of those cases but it may be a bit clunky.
Unfortunately, there's no hard-and-fast rule for where "Tagalog" ends and where "Filipino" begins, but if we need at least one boundary we could at least use "Filipino" for anything involving government and anything that has an air of officiality as I said earlier. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

List of proposed cities in the Philippines

This concern was first addressed on JWilz12345's talk page earlier this day.

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

I was thinking of somehow replacing this with a list of all local plebiscites instead (maybe an expanded version of Hariboneagle927's Draft:List of cityhood plebiscites in the Philippines that includes all types of local plebiscites, such as renaming and HUC conversion plebiscites). HueMan1 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
That list misses out the biggest plebiscite of all, the Novaliches cityhood plebiscite. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Barangay notability redux

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

The recent When does a place become legal and allowed an article? discussion on that same talk page appears also relevant. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Barangays aren't "administrative units" but are full fledged political units (probably legally recognized, and perhaps even more so than that) with elected executives and assemblies. Now, if such places in the Philippines automatically do have Wikipedia articles is a very complicated question indeed. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How to call commissioners of constitutional commissions

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

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

Hmm...probably "Commissioner of the Commission of ___"? To keep it consistent with the naming for the categories of the chairpersons. I'm partial towards the complete name instead of the acronym because I'm assuming that outside the Philippines, other readers won't know what COMELEC, CSC or COA stands for. (The necessary disclaimer: my grandfather is a former Commissioner of a constitutional commission.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm... off the top of my head, "Commissioner of Elections." I haven't looked into pros vs. cons of this at all, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at Supreme Court cases and the common way the commissioners themselves are addressed are "Commissioner of (position)", as evidenced in court cases involving the COA, the COMELEC, the CSC, the BI, the BOC and the BIR. That said, for the purpose of creating Wikipedia categories I would be fine with using "Commissioners of the (name of commission)" as the standard naming convention. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
As a former National Government Agency employee, I have to say "[a/the ]Commissioner of the (name of commission)" is not actually that uncommon. "(Name of commission) commissioner" is common largely because of media coverage, where there's a premium on space. (Although of course the most common usage is "Commissioner NAME of the (name of commission)." - Batongmalake (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I've created Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Elections (Philippines) and Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (Philippines). I haven't created the CSC counterpart as we don't have articles for any of the commissioners. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict usage

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_50&oldid=1168942773"