Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

How should we call politicians?

If you live or pass through QC, you should have seen Bong Suntay's name all over the place. Did you know though that his real name is "Jesus C. Suntay"? Now, the question is, what do we call him here at Wikipedia? Should we call him as "Bong Suntay", "Jesus C. Suntay", or some other name. Let's pretend we place his article at "Bong Suntay" because that's undisputed most common name we have for this person; how do we link him in articles? The actual name "Bong Suntay" or his name at the PSA (formerly NSO) e.g. "Jesus C. Suntay"?

I suppose it's common sense to use whatever his name is, and don't pipelink to his NSO name, isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

My instinct would be to use the common names as a default, which aligns best with Wikipedia policy and has precedent elsewhere (eg. Bill Clinton, Mahatma Gandhi). However, that doesn't seem to be the current practice for the most prominent Filipino politicians, with the glaring example being Benigno Aquino Jr.. Benigno Aquino III doesn't even mention "Noynoy" in the lead. Others nonetheless, including Bongbong Marcos, Jinggoy Estrada, and Mar Roxas, are at the common names. CMD (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that for national-level politicians, some "NSO names" are quite well known (see Benigno Jr and III, but not IV; the Benigno Aquino III article was formerly at Noynoy Aquino, FYI). Bongbong, Mar and Jinggoy are probably known for their nicknames; I don't think people would recognize Jose Ejercito Jr. or Jose Estrada Jr. or even Joseph Estrada Jr. for Jinggoy, but you can argue people recognize who Ferdinand Marcos Jr, and to a lesser extent, Manuel Roxas II (probably you'd squint hard enough) are. Let's assume that the current article titles are right. If you're at an article, and you'd have to link to TG Guingona, do you link to TG Guingona w/o pipelinks, or you'd pipelink to "Teofisto Guingona III"? I've been peeved at this widespread practice of pipelinking, and would rather push to use the link as is (unless it's disambiguated), even at instances such as "Richard J. Gordon". If you'd prefer using the NSO name, and the article is at the nickname, I'd push for moving it instead of ugly pipelinking. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Recognition is one key reason behind the commonname policy. On that topic, I suspect far more people would recognize Ninoy Aquino than Benigno Aquino, Jr., and similarly with Noynoy and Cory Aquino (although Cory Aquino is like Mar Roxas very easily guessable). Regarding pipelinks, I agree with you. Given the purpose of article titles is to be a recognizable identifier, it follows that article titles would also be the best way to refer to subjects in most cases. WP:EGG bears consideration too, especially given how different nicknames and legal names might appear to those less familiar with the topic. CMD (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, re: pipelinks. As for the Aquino politicians, I suppose people do know their "NSO" names, at least for those became presidents and was assassinated (but not Bam and Kris). The high school in Makati is called Benigno 'Ninoy' Aquino High School, so people know who Benigno Aquino Jr is; it would require less squinting than say "who is Manuel Roxas II?", where people gasp, "wait, did Manuel Roxas had a similarly named son, and why don't I know about it?" only to realize "Ah, it's Mar Roxas!" For Noynoy, people known him as Ninoy's identically named son, so people don't have to think hard in remembering his NSO name.

Another issue is if people do have an idea of someone's NSO name, which can be totally different from what his WP:NC name is: the best old example for this is Joseph Estrada (Do we list him as "Joseph Ejercito" or as "Joseph Ejercito Estrada" or "Joseph Estrada" in places such as Presidents of the Philippines?), but the best example for now is Isko Moreno, whose name is totally different from "Francisco Domagoso" ("Isko" being a nickname for "Francisco"), as opposed to Erap who is always known as Joseph... or Erap. Do we list Isko Moreno in Mayor of Manila as "Francisco Domagoso"? "Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso"? "Francisco Domagoso Moreno"? There are a few more varieties of this, but I'd always push for good old "Isko Moreno", or wherever his article title is at. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

In re President Noynoy, I decided some boldness was needed. I added his nicknames.[1] MOS:NICKNAMES is clear, I believe this was just an oversight Howard the Duck, and not some binding precedent. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Noynoy was in the lead, until a vandal changed it to "Abnoy", then someone removed it altogether. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the name Benigno Aquino is unknown, just that it is far less common than Ninoy Aquino. (Eg. hundreds of thousands of people who pass through Ninoy Aquino International Airport every day.) Isko Moreno should be referred to as Isko Moreno, as this is the common practice in sources [2][3]. There might be situations however, such as on List of Presidents of the Philippines, where both names could be provided. CMD (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Duterte quotes in Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno

Hello everyone. I recently rewrote (most of? three quarters of? a lot of, in any event) Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno. This rewrite required me to add some Duterte quotes to § Sereno takes leave. I'd appreciate a native speaker's review of my translations of these two quotes:

• Now this time, I'm asking the congressmen and the Speaker: Do it now. Wag ninyong dramahin. [Cut it out with the drama.] Or else, I will do it for you. Ngayon makialam talaga ako. [Now I'm getting involved.] I am asking Congress, what's taking you too long? [...] I will not hesitate to do what is to the best interest of my country. If it calls for your [Sereno's] forced removal, I will do it.
• Me? I’ll go to jail with her [Sereno]. Samahan ko sila, diyan ako sa gitna, de Lima dito pati siya. Kung wala na talagang iba e di… [I'll go with them, me in one corner, de Lima in another, and her. If that's the only way, well...] Putang ina eh sinabi nang 'di ako nakikialam eh. [Fuck you if you say I shouldn't interfere.] Sabihin mo sa kanya [Tell her], let the world know. Talagang [Yes,] I will, makialam ako. [I will interfere.] Ako nagpapasensya lang ako, babae. [My patience with you has run out, woman.]

As far as I can tell, no reliable source has translated these, but that's allowed on Wikipedia. I tried to translate the quotes a bit "naturally", so fuck you if you say... instead of fuck anyone who says.... Thanks for your time, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Psiĥedelisto: One obvious error: gitna means "middle". Therefore: diyan ako sa gitna, de Lima dito pati siya = (lit.) there I [am] in the middle, de Lima also included (or a bit more naturally: "me in the middle and de Lima also there"). And better to translate talagang as "really" in the second bullet. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ITN/C#Maria Ressa conviction

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ITN/C#Maria Ressa conviction. This nomination is about to get stale. Some opinions from those interested in the Philippines might help. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Maria Ressa#Lesbianism

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Maria Ressa#Lesbianism. I'd really appreciate another editor's opinion on this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

AT's of uniquely-named municipalities

Lately, from May up to now, there have been attempts to move the article titles of municipalities bearing unique names to the de facto <cityname> only (I admit I was the one included among such users performing this), in spite of having no final closure at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities, which resulted in some debate and even my reckless flipflops. Almost a month has passed since I took a break from those topics, I became ready. As such I renewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Renewed discussion on articles on uniquely-named municipalities (still the same topic but on a new subsection). I believe that a final closure — like the one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? — will seal this seemingly never-ending debate since 2013. So I invite everyone to participate the renewed discussion. All inputs, comments, and opinions are very welcome. Hope that a final judgment and closure will come very soon. May God bless and guide us always, and stay safe and healthy everyone! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's time to move on. I myself pushed for the "comma convention" for all cities and municipalities inside a province as "Antipolo, Rizal" is arguably recognizable as plain old "Antipolo", with matching consistency across all Philippine LGU articles but non-Filipinos (particularly non-Americans) have a say on this as well and those were firmly on having the <cityname> convention as it is used on other countries followed. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Improvements on the Philippines article and should we submit it for Featured Article Consideration?

Me and Chipmunkdavis has been improving the Philippines article lately by cutting unecessary content as well as supplying good citations to citations needed tags. I am asking if what further improvements, if any do we need, before and to re-nominate the article to featured article status as it was in the past. Also I am here to ask for some help too. I want our article to be FA again.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

PhilAtlas

External links to PhilAtlas and elevation data from PhilAtlas have been added to nearly all LGU articles. But I have strong doubts that [www.philatlas.com/ PhilAtlas] is actually a reliable source. There is nothing on the website about who publishes it and their credentials. It is also poorly referenced. It says that it is a continuing project -- does that mean it is a wiki? Could it be a (partial) mirror of WP?

So, should we even be using this as a source? (Especially elevation data is questionable because the site clearly states that this is estimated.) Does someone have more info about this website? If we can't establish this as a reliable source, we should remove all references to it. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt it too, Lanao del Sur's land area on PhilAtlas is way too big, 13,494.37 km²!? Making it the second largest province in the Philippines, larger than Isabela. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I just realised that it was based from the Philippine Statistics Authority and etc., but I still doubt that it's the only inaccuracy on that site. Pinging @Exec8:. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, much of its data comes from the same sources we already are using. So instead of using PhilAtlas as a source, it would be much better to use the primary or secondary sources themselves (i.e. PSA, DoF, etc.). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICS, it is WP:SELFPUB. At www.philatlas.com/, under Sources, it says: Map utilizes OpenStreetMap data available under the Open Data Commons Open Database License. OpenStreetMap is sort-of like a wiki; the sign-up page there says: "Unlike other maps, OpenStreetMap is completely created by people like you, and it's free for anyone to fix, update, download and use." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that external links section means "further reading", not reference to a text.--Exec8 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Support This is certainly not a reliable source and should be removed from all pages it's on. It might even be warranted to put it on the spam blacklist. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments, or is there already enough consensus to remove all PhilAtlas references? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Support Since it just echoes other primary or secondary sources that are being used already anyway. — Emperork (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: {{PH wikidata|elevation_m}} gets its data from PhilAtlas as seen in its reference URL. My only concern is that if references are to be removed, then the elevation should also be removed to prevent unreferenced elevation claims. Perhaps {{PH wikidata|elevation_m}} can be edited to check if the elevation reference URL is from PhilAtlas, then hide the data from displaying if true.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI all: At my request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § philatlas.com, philatlas.com is now on the spam blacklist, and no one will be able to add it going forwards. It's only on three pages, so once we remove it from them, it's gone, at least here on the English Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Psiĥedelisto. But actually, it is in every LGU article, once as an external link, and once for the elevation in the infobox which is taken from Wikidata and is based on PhilAtlas (which means that we also need to remove it from Wikidata -- don't let the 2nd reference at Wikidata fool you, viewfinderpanoramas.org is not the source). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@P199: Are you sure? I tried to write a SPARQL query but found it too difficult to pick up in minutes so had to ask over at Wikidata: wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat § Why does this very basic query timeout? Kam Solusar replied over there and seems to have proven that the domain isn't in use at all on Wikidata. I looked at a few of our LGU articles and I can't find any that has a reference in the "elevation" section. Am I doing something wrong? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Yes, I'm sure. Maybe we are not looking at the same thing. Just go to any PH municipality article, click on the "Wikidata item" link, find the property "elevation above sea level" and click the references. For example Aborlan:

elevation above sea level:	12.2 metre
	2 references reference URL   https://www.philatlas.com/luzon/mimaropa/palawan/aborlan.html reference URL   http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/dem3.html

This data was taken from PhilAtlas, not www.viewfinderpanoramas.org, which doesn't show the data and was added later on. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@P199: Thanks for confirming. Kam Solusar left a further reply over at Wikidata. I'll take a look at this after getting some sleep if Sanglahi86 doesn't get to it first, in re: making the template itself here on enwiki reject PhilAtlas links. It should be possible with an {{#invoke:String|match|...}}. I'm just too out of it right now to trust myself editing such a highly visible template, even using sandboxes/testcases first. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be better and simpler to remove the Wikidata entries for elevation. Once removed from Wikidata, there is no error message in WP if elevation_m = {{PH wikidata|elevation_m}} returns a null value (as I just did for Aborlan). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@P199, Emperork, HueMan1, and Wtmitchell: You all should be aware that ‎Sanglahi86 apparently opposes the consensus here, but instead of discussing it here, they decided to open a section asking that PhilAtlas be unblacklisted: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § PhilAtlas, to which Beetstra told them to ask for certain links to be whitelisted where appropriate. Instead of doing that, Sanglahi86 continues to add PhilAtlas links to articles against consensus using Wikidata as a proxy to get around the spam blacklist, as they just did to Carmona, Cavite. Please stop ‎Sanglahi86. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sanglahi86, as the data is deemed unreliable, the data should either be referenced to a reliable source, or at least tagged (or even, completely removed if no proper source can be found). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, Would you know how to achieve a mass deletion of content over at Wikidata? That seems to be what's needed here, along with blacklisting there too. Would I need to apply for a bot, or...? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, Sanglahi86 has mass deleted the data, contrary to my suggestion (here) to check and find a reliable source for it. I have reported the user to the administrators on WikiData. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I replied there as well, but think the mass removal was justified. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, I'll leave that to WikiData - here we would check and find a reliable source, or remove the reference and add {{citation needed}} before removing it outright. Overall I find the actions rather disruptive. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, Well, in re Wikipedia and {{cn}}, not always. In the case of disputed content, it's up to editor discretion whether or not it's going to be removed outright. But I understand your point, and indeed, the Wikidata admins will need to decide. I don't think it's disruptive, and would have done the same had I known how. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, yes, but the first intention should be to try and preserve the data. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Because this data is of interest to Wikipedia (we have the provision in the infobox), and is often/sometimes correct, one should try to keep the info but find a reliable source. That either means doing that yourself, or tagging it. We would only mass-remove if we know that something is almost always is outright wrong. (I do not know the wrong/right ratio for philatlas, I have only seen remarks that it is regularly wrong and hence that you do not know whether other values are right or wrong). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no evidence provided that the site is "regularly wrong". No one even bothered to fact-check the data. Many merely saw a self-published/"regurgitated site", which led to this faulty consensus that it should be removed.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lanao del Sur's land area is not 13,494.37 km².
• Calabarzon has 20 cities, not 19.
• Batangas has 30 municipalities, not 31.

No faulty consensus here, Sanglahi86. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps still faulty as elevation, which was my primary concern, was not considered. Anyway, I wish to retreat from this issue and discussion now and get back to editing.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sanglahi86: Sorry, this discussion seems to frustrate you; I didn't mean to do that. But if we want WP to be a useful and credible source of info, it is important that we use reliable sources (otherwise there is no point in editing at all!). We are not saying that all data on PhilAtlas is wrong, but as self-published/"regurgitated site", we can't verify that it is! Unfortunately the bottom line is that it fails as a reliable source (not the same as "faulty"). For example elevation, that data is not properly referenced at all on the site. There is no indication where it came from. And if we knew where it came from, then we should be using that source instead. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in from the sidelines, I'd say "See WP:UGC." That seems to be clearly applicable in this case. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding advocacy by users on the anti-terror bill

Just saw this with User:Pandakekok9's user page while I'm logged out, but don't should we tolerate any form of advocacy for or against the recently signed Anti-Terror Bill? I think that would have violated WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POLEMIC, especially with the message I saw on the mentioned user's page. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko:Thanks for the head's up. Putting advocacy in a userpage is fine but when it overflows in editing articles, that's where the violation of the WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POLEMIC applies. Correct me if I'm wrong with this but that's how I see it.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: To add up, user has turned his userpage into a protest page, asking other editors who share their view to join their cause, and to make matters worse, their signature also incorporates a clearly political message of "Junk the Philippine terror bill!" in red letters. I warned the user already about that, except I haven't seen a response yet and undoing the changes to their page and signature.

Following up, user has responded and already edited their page to trim out those advocacy, but hasn't removed the political message on their signature. There's no policy against signatures containing potentially divisive messages, but I think we should have one out of Pandakekok9's case I still think political messages/advocacy should not be included in signatures for civility's sake.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: I was not around during this time, but I thought I read while researching Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 that Wikipedia blacked out in the Philippines in protest of that law, RA 10175. I think maybe you're overreacting, I don't think Pandakekok9 has done anything wrong. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do read about Wikipedia also blacking out for a day in protest of other laws that may affect editors (like the U.S. SOPA/PIPA), but hopefully, there shouldn't be one happening again in protest of controversial sections of the Anti-Terror Bill. Yeah, I've overreacted, but let's better wait what the courts will deal with sections that do have an effect on editors writing on terrorist organizations like the CPP-NPA-NDF, Abu Sayyaf, BIFF, and the like. I don't think grabbing a copy of some terrorist propaganda for encyclopedic purposes would amount to sympathizing with the group in question, but for use, it's just right to question if it will affect our editing. For Pandakekok9, their protest should be better expressed in the subsection of their page (without resorting to blanking) under our user page policy.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo blanked his userpage in memory of Wei Wenhua. Nobody had a problem with that. Sure, he only blanked his page for 24 hours, but that's because he's literally the co-founder of Wikipedia, an important person. I can blank my userpage indefinitely because I don't hold any important role here (e.g. sysop) or on Wikimedia. I only agreed to making my userpage less partial because I want readers to arrive to their own conclusions. Regarding my signature, if at least 5 users on WP:RFD (where I mostly participate) finds my sig annoying and disrupts the discussion, then I will revert my signature back (except the capitalization of my username, I like it when it's lowercase).

It's disturbing that the number of Wikipedians who see free speech as very important is getting smaller. We should always remember that one of Wikipedia's goals is to provide free knowledge to the world, and without freedom of speech, free knowledge is nothing. Knowledge in a world without free speech is restricted. That's not free knowledge. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Users have wide latitude with what they do on their User Pages, and statements of political messages/beliefs there do not violate NOTADVOCY or POLEMIC. Wikipedia users are also not prevented from having or expressing their personal views, so long as it is not disruptive to the encyclopaedia. Blanking a userpage is not disruptive. However, pandakekok9 please note that there is no express right to free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private platform. As for the signature, it does not seem too disruptive to me, but if enough other uses see it as disruptive it would be a courtesy to change it at that point. CMD (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I see it's up for users to add political positions on their pages, but I completely agree with CMD's point that Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech. Pandakekok9, if you feel worried about being singled out for writing about terrorist organizations, let the courts decide on what to excise on that law. You can continue your protest against it until you get what you and others want.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

TagaSanPedroAko, please do not make unfounded assertions about what other editors may or may not be worried about, especially with such highly emotive terminology. CMD (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:49.145.132.180

This IP user has been editing the intros of all the provinces. I don't think his/her English-language skill is very strong because (s)he is creating sentence fragments and sometimes duplication. Can some of you keep a watch on the edits of this user too? (And someone will also need to revert their edit at Zambales, otherwise I will violate the 3RR rule). Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@P199: Looks like HueMan1 (talk · contribs) reverted the IP. Now, HueMan1 (talk · contribs) just needs to give them a {{uw-vandalism4}}. Then, when they vandalize again, you can take them to WP:AIV and get them blocked. Easy peasy. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto and P199: The IP did not stop their disruptive editing after the final warning. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Report them to WP:AIV. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto and P199: As per this edit, my WP:AIV report must have failed. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't consider that particular edit as vandalism. It is somewhat un-encyclopedic in tone and unsourced, but done in good faith. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@P199 and HueMan1: Really? But they're edit warring with no communication at all. Maybe WP:AN3 is the right place? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is not wp:vandalism, AIV is very strict on the definition. 49.145.132.180 (talk · contribs) appears to be a well-intentioned editor who is making mistakes. I actually prefer their order for the province introductions, as the regions are not that important. CMD (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I see—thank you for the clarification. WP:CVU is not my usual contribution area, I find it tedious, but am glad some can put up with it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EDSA Busway

I've created a new article on EDSA Busway, I'm inviting users who specialize on transporation-related articles to contribute since I'm not that familiar with transporation-related technical jargons.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal for two articles regarding a recently defunct TV network

I am asking for a third opinion regarding the merger discussion happening in this article Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#Merger proposal (July 2020). TheHotwiki (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Social Security System (Philippines) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Social Security System (Philippines) to be moved to Social Security System. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject Philippines

List of suggestions and problems:

• Move page from Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines. Or, if retaining the word "Tambayan", it should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines.
• WikiProject page requires cleanup. The page is very hard to navigate and to read, it is also cluttered. And mostly, very hard to navigate and view on mobile version.
• View all the suggestions and problems here.

Links:

• Draft: Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines
• Information about the draft can be seen on its talk page.

Hakumoon (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The recognized content and new pages should probably be moved to subpages due to length. What other changes would you suggest? Wikiproject pages tend to use quite old structures, so I'm not surprised they don't work well on mobiles. CMD (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I will try to create a new update for the WikiProject Philippines page, and I'll wait on our fellow wikipedians to see their comments/feedbacks on what else to improve here. By the way, thank you for replying. Hakumoon (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hakumoon: Please do not remove the word tambayan from the name. I like it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. By the way, the updated WikiProject page is now live, but still, under progress. The progress of the updated page can be seen on its talk page. Here's the updated page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. By the way, everyone can edit the new updated page, if you think you can contribute, please feel free to improve the page. Thank you! Hakumoon (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A separate page is not the right way to go about this. That's confusing duplication, and will not match with the existing ecosystem of templates and categories. It should be moved to draft space to serve as an example for people to look at, and agreed upon changes can be moved to this page. CMD (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hakumoon: Agree Please immediately make Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines into redirects.here, and start Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, so that the community can have a say, before you move Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines and then turn this page into a redirect. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly shifted the Featured and New content out and added tabs to the header. CMD (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved to draftspace. What else to improve here? Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. Hakumoon (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Alerts are probably the most useful functionality of Wikiprojects, it should not be removed. I also think we should have explicit consensus for the changes such as removing social media links, as they are legacy but once quite active. I don't feel the members list was too onerous either, and it adds a bit of color. CMD (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The article alerts are not removed, and it is on the main page. I added the social media links, and changed "more" to "members" in the navigation. Thank you. Hakumoon (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did the header change? Aside from that, I don't see why the design can't be replicated here. I don't think the page should be renamed though, it loses some personality. CMD (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am thinking of designing a new header because the previous one seems old. And for the rename, it doesn't follow the WikiProject naming convention. Hakumoon (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

CMD, please take a look on the new design of the WikiProject, I just uploaded the new banner. I am thinking of putting it here now, even though not renaming the WikiProject. Hakumoon (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not personally attracted more by either design, but the new one doesn't span the screen and has an obvious box around it. CMD (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I am trying to figure out how to make it full width. CSS doesn't even work. If you can help me, I really appreciate it. Hakumoon (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bangsamoro Shari'ah High Court is fake news

Sorry for the provocative title, I wanted to get your attention.

Articles affected:

• Sharia in the Philippines
• Bangsamoro
• Bangsamoro transition period

This court does not exist. I can find no evidence there are any plans of building it. I can find no evidence such a court is needed. I can find no evidence that there are even enough senior Shariah jurists with the required experience enumerated in the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) to constitute such a court.

I know, it seems impossible. But listen: this court has no address. There's no list of judges which sit on it. There's no photos of it. They've had years since the passage of the BBL to establish it and haven't. I did the normal thing: WP:REQFREE. I sent a few messages to every "shari'ah lawyer" or organization for the same on Facebook,(e.g. [4][5]; I sent to seven different pages and got three responses) kindly asking them if they knew of such a court, and what its address is if so, or at least what city it's in, explaining that I'm a Wikipedia editor with concerns about this court's existence. Those who responded gave all the same reply: the court doesn't exist and there's no plan that they know of to make it exist.

Pinging Sky Harbor and P199 as they'll likely know how to handle this. I can't find any articles which say it doesn't exist but am concerned that especially Sharia in the Philippines is perpetuating a WP:HOAX. Is that being dramatic? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The provision for its creation does exist in law, and the articles seem to mostly speak of it as a future creation. Which content do you feel needs to be revised? CMD (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Well, I don't know that there actually is a plan to create it. Is the administration actually doing anything to create it? Those I spoke to said they weren't aware of any future plan, and they'd know, given they actually plead cases before Shari'ah judges. In specific, I think that Sharia in the Philippines needs this line removed: The high court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over sharia districts within the autonomous region. because it makes it seem like, to an uninformed reader, that thinks that this is just out of date (written before BBL passage), that this is already the case because BBL passed. It can be re-added if in the future there's ever evidence the Court exists (let's say the minimum bar of proof is knowing who sits on it and an address where it's located). Bangsamoro has the same problem, in that to an uninformed reader, it feels like it's just WP:DATED and that the Court therefore right now exists. The § Comparisons chart on Bangsamoro transition period is likewise misleading—listing the Court alongside other organizations/offices which do exist is misleading. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What about rewording the relevant information to something along the lines of "Provisions exist within the Bangsamoro Organic Law to create a Shariah High Court, which would take on some roles currently undertaken by the appellate court" or similar. CMD (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: It's better, but this is the same problem I had. It's so hard to think of a wording that doesn't sound WP:DATED. Your wording sounds like it could have been written before the passage of the BBL as well. The challenge is to find a way of putting it that clearly acknowledges the BBL passed and nothing happened. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's tricky to convey that sort of idea, but perhaps that's reflective of life in the Philippines. The Manila Bay article says "Manila Bay and its corresponding resources are considered critical recipients of environmental protection", which on one hand is true, but on the other hand is almost meaningless. Negros was created on paper as a new region but never had regional structures put in place. CMD (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: On further reflection, how about we just slightly rework your idea?

“ Provisions exist within the Bangsamoro Organic Law, which became effective as of August 10, 2018,^[1] to create a Shari'ah High Court, which would, if and when realized, take on some roles currently undertaken by the appellate court.

^[1]: Lalu, Gabriel Pabico (2018-10-30). "Sulu LGU asks SC to junk 'unconstitutional' Bangsamoro law". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 2020-07-25. ”

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no issues with that wording. CMD (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: OK, so that's one out of three settled. For Bangsamoro, I can just copy this there, working around the longer text there. For Bangsamoro transition period, I think all we need is a note. (So, change § References to § Footnotes with subheadings §§ Notes and References.) All good? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 11:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The solution for Bangsamoro transition period would be to remove that unsourced table, or at least cut out everything that's not relevant to the transition. I doubt the Shariah High Court is going to be set up within the transition period. CMD (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Done: [6][7][8] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Shari'ah"

Google News search coughs up 12,800 hits for "sharia", and the word "Philippines". "Shari'ah" and "Philippines" gets 977 results. A ratio of 14:1. If there's a definition of overwhelming usage, this is it. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I think you either posted this on accident, or you meant to use a {{please see}}. In any event—no need to split the discussion—let's discuss this at Template talk:Philippine English § Shari'ah, where we have been, inviting the WikiProject to participate, of course:

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Philippine_English#Shari'ah. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for election and referendum articles

For national elections, it's pretty straight forward:

• "YYYY Philippine general election" for synchronized national presidential (if applicable), congressional and local elections
  • Example: 2016 Philippine general election
• "YYYY Philippine presidential election" for presidential and vice presidential elections
  • Example: 2016 Philippine presidential election
• "YYYY Philippine Senate election" for Senate elections
  • Example: 2016 Philippine Senate election
• "YYYY Philippine House of Representatives elections" for House of Representatives elections (notice the plural elections)
  • Example: 2016 Philippine House of Representatives elections
  • "YYYY Philippine House of Representatives elections in <Region>" for House of Representatives elections in a certain region.
    • Example: 2016 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Metro Manila
  • "YYYY Philippine House of Representatives party-list election" for House of Representatives party-list elections
    • Example: 2016 Philippine House of Representatives party-list election
• "YYYY Philippine local election" for synchronized local elections
  • Example: 2016 Philippine local elections
• "YYYY Philippine barangay elections" for barangay elections
  • Example: 2013 Philippine barangay elections
• "YYYY Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections" for barangay elections with SK elections
  • Example: 2018 Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections
• "YYYY <Place> local elections" for local elections in a certain LGU
  • Example: 2019 Manila local elections
• "YYYY <District> special election" for special congressional elections
  • Example: 2012 Negros Occidental's 5th congressional district special election
• "YYYY <Place> <position> recall election" for recall elections
  • Example: 2015 Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election

For plebiscites and referendums, it gets dicey. Usually, we follow WP:NC-GAL: "Date [adjectival form of country name] type election/referendum". But some WP:IARed this lately:

• Compostela Valley renaming plebiscite was moved here. User:Seav cited WP:NOYEAR, but interestingly I'd argue elections and referendums such as this fall squarely in the "When", "where" and "what" titles. The most significant referendum of the 21st century to date has the year on it: 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. (Granted there was an earlier referendum on this issue.) If no one opposes I'll move it back, but if someone does, we'd do an WP:RM.
• I moved Palawan partition plebiscite, which was previously at 2019 Palawan partition plebiscite to 2020 Palawan division plebiscite. None of the WP:RS describe it as a partition, but a division or splitting. One could argue it's the same thing but why use different words if they mean the same thing. If someone objected to my move, you can do an RM, or you can revert me and I'll do the RM.
• 2019 Bangsamoro autonomy plebiscite goes against the ARMM and CAR plebiscites naming, but I actually like this one, plus it aligns neatly with the other articles at Category:Autonomy referendums. I plan to move the CAR ones to "YYYY Cordillera autonomy plebiscite". I'm stuck on ARMM ones though. Do we move it to "YYYY Muslim Mindanao autonomy plebiscite"? The government purposely didn't give names to the Muslim Mindanao regions until Aquino III conceded on using the "Bangsamoro". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'd also propose moving all constitutional plebiscites to "YYYY Philippine constitutional plebiscite" (or plebiscites if there were multiple ballot questions) instead of the current naming system that we have where the subject of the amendment/revision is included in the title. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO for "Compostela Valley renaming plebiscite," it should have a year indicated (2019 Compostela Valley renaming plebiscite). In accordance with consistency at Category:Referendums in the Philippines. This is the case in which consistency is mandatory for AT's — article titles of plebiscites and referendums. See also 2001 Zamboanga Sibugay creation plebiscite and 2006 Shariff Kabunsuan creation plebiscite. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not just that, but the failed plebiscites in the Philippines all have years on them. I've been checking examples from other countries, and all follow WP:NC-GAL, save for the articles named after the law, amendment, or ballot initiative. Check out Category:Referendums by issue. This is the only one that's "special". Howard the Duck (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support including the year, as this seems standard practice and it is nicely consistent with the election article titles. CMD (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved back ComVal to the one that complies to WP:NC-GAL. I'm still soliciting suggestions though for the naming on the autonomy and constitutional plebiscites. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard for Philippine president navboxes

The templates under Category:President of the Philippines navigational boxes, appears to have several issues. I cannot find significance and relation of "Natural disasters" to the presidency, and this takes too much space. "Domestic incidents/issues" is too vague and is flooded with several links to many isolated incidents, several of which include "Deaths", "Bombings", "Massacres", and "Protests" (particularly from Gloria Arroyo to Rodrigo Duterte). Other foreign presidents templates such as Template:Donald Trump, Template:Vladimir Putin, and Template:Xi Jinping have clean templates that focus on the presidents' policies instead of issues and disasters. Is there a standard for such navboxes to follow?–Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We've been ridding of that navbox of crap for years but someone keeps on adding back same old crap.

As for the answer in your question, no. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines of WP:NAVBOX set a reasonable bar if you want a guideline to point to:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

At a very basic level, if the article doesn't mention the person, it shouldn't be included in a navbox about them. More rigorously, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, if you wouldn't include the template of the person on the article, that article shouldn't be in the template. CMD (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Something the Philippine templates should take from the other examples is not repeating "XXth" "President of the Philippines" twice again at the bottom of each infobox, given the relevant wikilinks are included at the top of the template. CMD (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your insights. The templates also need reorganization since the Family is situated at the upper portion instead of the Presidency. I will try fixing some of these. Regards.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that it needs clean-up. With around 2 years left from this administration, the template might get longer if no action is taken. — Emperork (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Patikul § Proposed merge of Patikul, Sulu shootout into Patikul

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Patikul § Proposed merge of Patikul, Sulu shootout into Patikul. I made this invitation after AAlertBot somehow removed the entry about this proposed merge discussion I manually added at the Article Alerts (for some unknown reason this proposed request was not automatically added at the list prior to my manual addition). Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Jej Vinson Filipino contestant of The Voice USA

Hello,

I am a new editor and just created this page. I would appreciate any input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jej_Vinson

Thank youStarprincesstools10 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Images of LGU's seals - PD qualified at Commons or not?

Magandang araw po sa lahat! I'd thought that it is better to discuss the true or de facto or de jure copyright status of seals of 1,634 settlement-level LGU's in the Philippines, as well as 81 provinces, here on Tambayan instead of discussing on individual forums elsewhere on enwiki or at Commons. I always noticed the contradiction between image files of such subjects locally stored here and those in the Commons, and I can't avoid noticing such discrepancy. To quote from my message to User:Taivo:

Hello Taivo, I always notice the contradiction of what many Commons files of Philippine city seals to those that are stored on enwiki as non free content, e.g. File:Ph seal ncr taguig.png and File:Bocaue Bulacan.png. I presume now that these seals do not fall under PD-government since these are "elaborate" and "very sensitive subjects." I mean, these seals are protected by a portion of our law. As stated in File:Buenavista Quezon.png of Quezon's Buenavista municipality — "Section 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character." The purpose of Commons is not included among those stated as not needing prior conditions. So I'm concerned that all contents under Commons:Category:Seals of cities and municipalities in the Philippines and even File:Metro Manila Logo Map.jpg violate this part of the law. I'm aware of some recent discussions involving PD-PH government content at Wikipedia Tambayan and at a picture RJ Nieto. Although I presume all photographs created by employees of the Philippine government or its government owned and controlled agencies and corporations pass PD-PH government, I think all city seals do not fall here because of their very official and sensitive nature.

I just accessed this old Tambayan forum dated Dec. 2007–Jan. 2008, and it appears that seals indeed do not comply with Commons' free standards. If this is true, then relevant files currently stored at Commons might need to be migrated back here (or some copied at tlwiki or other PHL editions of Wikipedia) before undergoing deletion requests. Despite this, I might need the opinions and insights of other Wikipedians (and also Commons editors) here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the flags at the Provinces of the Philippines article. Most of these -- save for Batangas's flag -- are tagged as self-made or PD as per Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372. Batangas's is tagged as WP:FU, which is personally (IANAL), should be the tag for all flags, seals, logos, coat of arms and the like of every government instrumentality unless the logo is just a simple text. There's a discussion at Commons:Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov about this and I suggest to wait for the result of that discussion and abide with it. If there's an RFC mechanism at Commons, I suggest on doing that. We've been dealing with this issue for more than a decade now we need a definitive ruling on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: It seems that general consensus which lean towards the acceptable PD status of government works is strong and having basis as per Sky Harbor's inputs at Commons forum. The Commons compatibility of PHL government works has been echoed by Seav and Object404 in two forums here on enwiki and at Commons — Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive44#Copyright status of PTV4 content? and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg. To quote some of his points (courtesy of Sky Harbor)

• for LGUs: "Local governments have no independent legal personality -- the Philippines, after all, is a unitary state. In the previous discussion way back when, it was confirmed by Anyo Niminus, a government lawyer, that local governments are considered part of the "Government of the Philippines", and all their works are considered part of that body. As such, they are also covered under PD per the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code."
• for what is claimed as "non-commercial use": "The provision on non-commercial use is unenforceable: there is no copyright on works of the government of the Philippines, so such permission can only exist outside of copyright." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons discussion at Village pump/Copyright

Good morning everyone. There's an ongoing discussion at Wikimedia Commons that might either involve the members of the Tambayan Pilipinas community or need some inputs of the members of the said community, at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings before 1972. It is all about whether all architectural works - specifically buildings - that were built before 1972 are OK at Wikimedia Commons (including those whose people behind them were dead for less than 50 years). Please discuss or leave your insights there. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mayor of Manila succession

I noticed an IP is changing the numerical succession of Mayors of Manila and related articles (example) without comment. Should be looked into. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This should've been straight up 1-2-3-to whatever Isko is with no parenthesis. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Immier

This user has been adding unverified Baybayin names on LGUs and actors recently; not sure if we have guidelines for incorporating the Baybayin script for non-historical places/figures though. I will be reverting their edits for now. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New "Copyright Rules for the Government" released by IPOPHIL discussion at Commons

To all in Tambayan community: heads up! Howhontanozaz shared to Commons here about the updated copyright rules for the government works, which might affect majority (if not all) files sourced from the government of the Philippines. Your inputs are very much welcome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of city buses in Transportation in Metro Manila and Public transportation in Metro Manila is outdated

Just made a look on those two, I'm seeing problems with how we cover Metro Manila city buses since we've hit by COVID-19. We still give info that is true pre-ECQ, such as that most routes take EDSA. Being no longer an active editor (now mostly a Wikivoyage editor), I'm asking anyone to do these changes:

• Update the bus sections of Transportation in Metro Manila and Public transportation in Metro Manila.
• Add a List of city bus routes in Metro Manila article.
• Add a section and links to the EDSA Busway on the EDSA article.

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Saw this today. I just came back from a really long summer break and hadnt been following the news the whole summer long. ;)Are you referring to the new "rationalized bus routes" system that was started last June? If it is then i started a draft here from the map i found in the PNA link just today. I didnt know we had color coded numbered buses now in the entire Metro Manila! Pls help with the rest of the routes tho and any other updates available before i move this Draft:List of bus routes in Metro Manila to main space. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red Asian women contest

From 1 October to 31 December, Women in Red is running a virtual contest on Asian women. In November, this will coincide with Wikipedia Asian Month. We look forward to strong participation from all those interested in improving coverage of women in the Philippines.--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussions related to the Imelda Marcos article

Hello all! You may be interested about ongoing discussions on Wikipedia noticeboards related to the Imelda Marcos article:

• User:Jtbobwaysf has started a discussion at WP:BLP/N about "POV pushing, WP:RGW, and promotional-ism" and "WP:TOOMUCH ... use of biographies by Ellison, Poloton, and Pedrosa" on the Imelda Marcos article.
• User:Chieharumachi has started a discussion at WP:AN/I against Jtbobwaysf for "uncivil behavior and removal of references" on the Imelda Marcos article and talk page.

Your inputs are welcome! —seav (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested new task force and sub-task forces

Good day!

I'm proposing a new task force under WP:TAMBAY—the Television task force. This could be further divided into sub-task forces for personalities, TV dramas, game shows, etc. I'm actually looking forward to the game shows sub-task force for improving the quality of more Philippine game show articles, just like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Philippine game show)

I also think that there should be sub-task forces for the Transportation task force such as railways, roads, air, etc.

This would allow editors to focus more on topics that they are more interested in. Additionally, a more centralized discussion for a specific topic would be possible in this setup.

Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 20:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FOP Philippines

In case you're not aware, there's a discussion at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP on Wikimedia Commons regarding to the freedom of panorama situation in the country, in light of sudden mass deletion requests targeting various photos of Philippine buildings and monuments, from Batasang Pambansa and CCP to Lapu-Lapu Monument and Makati buildings. deletions like these could drastically affect some of our articles. It is best to leave all of your inputs and insights at that Commons forum and not here. Such inputs and insights are very welcome. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a case of badly-written law. Is there someone at Commons' legal office that can interpret this once and for all? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Update from Howhontanozaz at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines‎#‎New discussion on PHL FoP: Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This changes nothing. The Philippine Competition Commission was completely unaware of an amendment in the Bayanihan to Recover as One Act that basically stripped it of its powers. Who knows what the IPO can do if the PCC didn't even know that a law was amended to strip them of powers.

We still need a ruling Commons' legal or consensus from the users there on what to do with images of the Philippines where FOP is unclear right now, not in the supposed future where all of these are fixed up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The general consensus, as it currently stands, on Commons is that they will be deleted as they are found. That's for any image from a country where FOP doesn't exist, and is not exclusive to the Philippines. I would suggest we keep track of all deletion discussions where FOP has been raised, so that if and when FOP actually becomes a reality, we can request undeletion as expediently as we can. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: all of the no FOP in the Phil.-related DR's are under my watch, and have been categorized under "Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending". However, I can't be sure if someone (other user or some admin?) has filed new no FOP in the Phil. deletion requests, despite the fact that the user who filed mass DR's haven't been active in doing so since they were warned again at Commons:ANU. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Holy Family School of Quezon City, Inc.

An employee of the school moved it from its former location, Holy Family School of Quezon City. I did a quick "Google" search and even after ignoring obviously non-independent sources, the "Inc" name seems to be about as popular as the "plain" version, at least for the first 3 or so pages of Google results.

This may put our guidelines in conflict with each other. On one hand, we go with the "don't use Inc. in the article title" rule, the page needs to be moved back. On the other hand, if we go by "what do reliable sources call it" then we need to investigate further.

I'm hoping there are people here familiar with either that school or the practice of using "Inc." in the names of church-run schools who can help figure out what name this institution is most commonly called by reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the employee's edits and moved the article back to its original title. The employee may have violated the WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN policies based from what I read on his edit summary. -WayKurat (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband

Can someone help me find sources for Phil Younghusband's goals against Timor-Leste and Brunei in November 2006? Please continue the discussion at Talk:List of international goals scored by Phil Younghusband#Goals in November 2006.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

General Antonio Luna Avenue

Please help to improve this stub with citations. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Poverty

I'm looking at a table from PSA, called "City and Municipal-level Small Area Poverty Estimates_ 2009, 2012 and 2015_0". I'm sure it tells us something important, but there are no labels to say what we're looking at. Anyone know? And is it easily converted to HDI for instance?

Whatever, I think we should add a new Q-item on wikidata, such as "Poverty Index" (or incidence / estimates / gap) depending on what the numbers are. Also it should be easy (but not by me!) to populate the three years numbers at municipal level.

Not Samuel Pepys (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw this on my watchlist, and it led me to this. I didn't see definitions of "Level 1", etc. there, so I looked further and came up with this, where that is defined on page 15. That info may be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(17 October, United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty)

As far as I can understand, the value is the number of people / households at municipal level, i.e. each is binary, yes or no. Two decimal digits are much too precise, PSA's 5 levels is quite enough. We could mimic similar. HDI is only given at nations, or maybe large regions such as Brazil.

{| style="width:300px;border:black solid thin;margin:0 5em;"
| style="width:35%;background-color:blue;font-color:white;text-align:center;padding:0 0 0 2em;height:1.2em;" |
| style="width:*;" |
|}

Not Samuel Pepys (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Poverty Incidence wikidata found. (P8843) --Exec8 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

House Bill 8062

Update from @Howhontanozaz: posted on my Commons talk page: "User:JWilz12345 Hi! Just want to give you a heads up on this new bill filed last Nov. 23 by Reps. Garin & de Venecia seeking to revise the Intellectual Property Code & is currently pending before the Committee on Trade & Industry. (pdf file here). No FOP provision though but still a substantial proposal, 136 pages long! Thinking of maybe persuading Wiki Philippines to send a rep. when deliberations start, though I believe that won't happen anytime soon with the committee swamped by COVID-19 recovery bills." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Question on the inclusion of some agencies in the Cabinet of the Philippines article

Copied from my question in Talk:Cabinet_of_the_Philippines:
Hi! What is the basis for including the following agencies in the list of Cabinet-level offices?Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I culled this letter-by-letter copy from the talk page. We don't need simultaneous discussions of the same thing. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessment Request

Hello, I have updated and improved the stub article Bicol Express and I would like it to be reassessed, please? I believe it has improved to at least a start or C-class quality as I've expanded current information, included new content and added several references. Thank you! --RibbaSky (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I was about to do it, but HueMan1 beat me to it. pandakekok9 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: Oof, sorry. I was just passing by. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to update RibbaSky here. ;) Btw, shouldn't the article's first line in the source code be {{Use Philippine English}}, not {{Use American English}}? Or am I missing something here? pandakekok9 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I did that to save my progress. I was afraid that my edits will fall into the abyss (an edit conflict). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello hueman1 and pandakekok9, thank you so much for reviewing my article! Please provide me with any advice in improving my article from a C-class to a higher quality scale, thank you! --RibbaSky (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to explain better the differences between the vegetarian and vegan versions. Other than that, looks good to me, nice work! I'm not experienced in writing articles, so I can't help you with improving the article to a higher class like B. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Line #" for trains is still everywhere

Half a year after we supposedly fixed up that mess, they're still everywhere, and they cannot be easily edited away. For prose, I suppose it's easy, but for some which are tucked away in templates, these are a lot harder to edit out, more so if the templates are locked. For example, in North Avenue Grand Central Station, in the infobox for lines, these are still in the old nomenclature. Can somebody with mop tools fix these up? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia PH Month Project

Major Philippine ethnolinguistic groups

Hello Everyone,

Wikipedia Philippine Month or simply Wikipedia PH Month is a monthly editing activity inspired by Wikipedia Asian Month. It aims to bridge knowledge gaps on Philippine content in Philippine language editions of Wikipedia and beyond. The participating community is not limited to the Philippines and is open to all Wikipedia editions! This activity also aims to encourage collaboration among Filipino contributors within the archipelago and in the diaspora, and create linkages among Filipino and non-Filipino contributors who support the main objective.

How to Participate in the Activity

As an Editor

• Find the language edition of Wikipedia you would like to build on.
• Register an account if you have not done so.
• Choose articles about the Topic of the Month, but NOT from YOUR NATIVE LOCALITY, and start creating or improving articles.
• Write in the summary box the hashtag #WikiPHmonth before saving your work.

As an Organizer

• Set up and run the contest on a local level within your language community. (e.g. bcl:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Philippine Month 2021)
• If your local Wikipedia is already participating, ask if you can help judge articles if you are interested.
• Engage local editors and aim for maximum participation.
• Organize online and offline events for contest promotion and increase in participation.
• If you have expertise or skills in public relations, then you can help us get media coverage.

Topics

Traditional homelands of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines

Each participating local Wikipedia community runs a monthly online edit-a-thon, which promotes the creation or improvement of the Wikipedia content about a particular group or groups of people in the Philippines and the region they represent.

• JANUARY - The Visayans (Region VI, Region VII, Region VIII, Romblon) are a metaethnicity race native to the whole Visayas, to the southernmost islands of Luzon (MIMAROPA Region and Masbate) and the northern and eastern coastal parts of Mindanao. They are speakers of one or more Visayan languages, the most widely spoken being Cebuano, Hiligaynon and Waray-Waray. They comprise the largest ethnic group in the nation.
• February - Wiki Loves Love; Chinese New Year - Filipino-Chinese heritage
• March - WikiGap; Women's Month - Filipina
• APRIL - The Tagalogs (NCR, Region IV-A, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Marinduque) are the most widespread ethnic group in the Philippines. They predominate the entirety of the Manila and mainland southern Luzon regions, with a plurality in Central Luzon (mainly in its southeastern portion, as well as parts of Zambales and Bataan provinces except for Pampanga and Tarlac) and coastal parts of Mindoro. The Tagalog language was chosen as an official language of the Philippines in 1935. Today, Filipino, a de facto version of Tagalog, is taught throughout the archipelago.
• MAY - Heritage Month - Highland Ethnolinguistic Nations (Cordilleras), Mangyan (in central Mindoro island), Suludnon (in central Panay island, and Negritos (in remote areas throughout Luzon, Panay, Negros islands, and Mindanao). The Igorots/Cordillerans live in the highlands of Luzon. They are primarily located in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Caraballo Mountains, and Sierra Madre. Mangyan is the generic name for the eight indigenous groups found on the island of Mindoro, southwest of the island of Luzon in the Philippines, each with its own tribal name, language, and customs. They occupy nearly the whole of the interior of the island of Mindoro. The Negrito are several Australo-Melanesian groups who inhabit isolated parts of Southeast Asia. They all live in remote areas throughout the islands in the Philippines. The Suludnon, also known as the Tumandok, Sulod, Panay-Bukidnon, or Panayanon Sulud, are an indigenous Visayan group of people who reside in the Capiz-Lambunao mountainous area and the Antique-Iloilo mountain area of central Panay in the Visayan islands of the Philippines.
• June - Filipino-Spanish Friendship Day - Filipino-Spanish heritage
• JULY - The Ilocanos and minorities in Lowland Ethnolinguistic Nations in Cagayan Valley Region (Region I, Region II) are predominantly Christian group who reside within the lowlands and coastal areas of northwestern Luzon. Other Ilocanos are also found in Cordillera Administrative Region and Cagayan Valley. The Ivatan (also spelled as Ibatan) are the predominant ethnolinguistic group in the Batanes islands of the Philippines. They have close cultural links with the Taiwanese aborigines, especially the Yami/Tao people of Orchid Island under jurisdiction of Taiwan. The Ibanags are a predominantly Christian lowland ethnic group numbering around half a million people and who primarily inhabit the provinces of Cagayan and Isabela in the Cagayan Valley of northern Luzon. The Itawes/Itawis/Itawit are among the earliest inhabitants of the Cagayan Valley in northern Luzon. The Gaddang number about 25,000. They are known to have inhabited the upper Cagayan Valley and the Magat valley below Aritao in Nueva Vizcaya and in Isabela since before the Spanish arrived.
• AUGUST - Indigenous Month - Highland Ethnolinguistic Nations (Tribal Palaweño, and Lumad) and Lowland Ethnolinguistic Nations (Bangsamoro). The peoples and tribes of Palawan are a diverse group of both indigenous tribes and lowland groups that historically migrated to the island of Palawan and its outlying islands. The Lumad are the un-Islamized and un-Christianized indigenous Austronesian peoples of Mindanao. They include several ethnolinguistic nations such as the Manobo, the Tasaday, the Mamanwa, the Mandaya, the B'laan, the T'boli, and the Kalagan. They primarily inhabit the eastern parts of Mindanao such as the Caraga, and Davao Regions. The collective term Moro or Bangsamoro people refers to the, at least 13, islamicized ethnolinguistic groups of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. The Muslim Moros originally had a few independent states such as the Maguindanao Sultanate, the Lanao Sultanates, and the Sulu Sultanate. The Sultanate of Sulu once exercised sovereignty over the present day provinces of Basilan, Palawan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, the eastern part of the Malaysian state of Sabah (formerly North Borneo) and North Kalimantan in Indonesia.
• SEPTEMBER - The Bikolanos and Masbateños (Region V) are a predominantly Roman Catholic ethnic group that originates from the Bicol Region in Southern Luzon. They are the fifth-largest ethnolinguistic group in the Philippines. Masbateños live in Masbate province of the Philippines. Masbateños may be considered Visayans by language but are Bicolanos by region.
• OCTOBER - The Pangasinan and Bolinaos (Pangasinan) are the eighth-largest ethnolinguistic group in the Philippines. They predominate in the northwestern portion of Central Luzon (entire Pangasinan, northern Tarlac, northwestern Nueva Ecija and northern Zambales), as well as southwestern parts of La Union and Benguet. The Bolinao people live in Bolinao and Anda, Pangasinan. They speak the Bolinao language or Binubolinao, which is the second most widely spoken Sambalic language in Pangasinan (after Sambal).
• November - Wikipedia Asian Month - Asian Heritage
• DECEMBER - The Kapampangans and Sambals (Pampanga, Zambales, Tarlac) are the seventh-largest ethnic group in the Philippines. They primarily use the Kapampangan language, which is spoken by more than 1.4 million individuals. The Sambals are the inhabitants of the province of Zambales, including the independent city of Olongapo. They are also found in the municipalities of Bolinao and Anda in northwestern Pangasinan. Sambals currently make up a large proportion of the population in the Zambales municipalities of north of Iba, the provincial capital. Their language, Sambal, is related to Kapampangan.

Thank you! --Filipinayzd 12:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bikol Wiktionary is hatched from Incubator

13 years after a Philippine language-based Wikimedia project hatched from the incubator, a new one was approved. Congratulations to the community members who made it happen especially @Brazal.dang: & @Kunokuno:.

Approval link. Phabricator:T270274 The link will eventually be bcl.wiktionary.org

The Bikol Wiktionary development by the two community members was independent to PhilWiki's initiatives. --Exec8 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Exec8: Congratulations to the Bikol Community. Let us also acknowledge @Sky Harbor: for formalizing the request of @Filipinayzd: to have a Bikol Wiktionary in 2007. They started it all. Incidentally, Filipinayzd heads PhilWiki. ;-) --Jojit (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to Bikol Wiktionary and to the whole Bikol community :) JinJian (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Congrats bcl.wiktionary.org. Official birthday is 16:50 UTC 11 January 2021 or 12:50 AM Philippine time 12 January 2021 Exec8 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway

Please see Talk:Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway#Expressway 4. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Luzon

An IP editor keeps on adding a list of provinces and cities to the Luzon article that is redundant to the table in the geography section and the template:Largest_cities_in_Luzon in the Cities section. I have reverted this twice but I don't want to violate the 3RR rule. Are there any other editors thinking that this is redundant? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@P199: The article is now protected but some disruptive edits still slipped through before its protection. Other editors have edited the page since then so we might need to remove those edits manually. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor is doing it again, this time with Negros Island. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@P199: They are doing it on several other articles as well. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Repartition Philippine History template?

See Template:History of the Philippines. Comment at Template talk:History of the Philippines#Repartition?, please. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

List of De La Salle University people

Please note that List of De La Salle University people is under consideration for delisting as a Featured List. Comments can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of De La Salle University people/archive1. CMD (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Wiki Society of the Philippines

Hello, folks. On behalf of seav and myself, and the many other Wikipedians we've been working and engaging with, we're glad to announce to the wider Wikipedia community here the more-or-less-official launch of the Wiki Society of the Philippines (WikiSocPH), the replacement organization for the now-defunct Wikimedia Philippines chapter.

Although WMPH was derecognized in 2017, we've nonetheless kept busy with activities that quietly make a meaningful impact in spreading the promise of Wikipedia and Wikimedia's advocacy throughout the Philippines. From establishing Southeast Asia's first Wikipedian in Residence program to promoting Philippine heritage to fighting disinformation, we still believe in the impact the projects can make. Building the nation through Wikipedia and Wikimedia remains our promise. And we'd love to share our work with all of you, and invite you to join us if you believe in the work we do.

We just launched our official website yesterday, and you can take a look at our activities over the last three years, which have also been covered by media outlets as diverse as FHM, The Guardian and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. You're definitely more than welcome to reach out to seav or myself should you wish to be involved in our activities, or if you have any suggestions for what you think we should do and run.

In everything we do, we want our success to also be your success, and we look forward to continuing the hard work of representing our community, building the nation and working for the public trust. It would be an honor and a great privilege to do our part in building our community together, no matter where in the Philippines you may be, and we have every intention to do right by our community, one editor at a time. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

PMA Classes?

A question, Sirs. Is there any reason there is not yet a List of Philippine Military Academy Classes? I wish to make one, but I am not sure how to navigate the issues of Notability. My alternative is to expand and sort the List of Philippine Military Academy alumni into an article that performs the same function. I believe this information should be widely available as it provides insight into the education of our AFP officers. I believe there should at least be articles covering: Sinagtala Class '86, which produced many of the top brass of the Duterte era; Maalab Class 93, which was the first to have femele cadets; and Marilag Class '95, which includes some of the most prominent members of the Magdalo group. Please advise on best course of action. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest expanding the List of Philippine Military Academy alumni article to avoid the hassle of creating something which would only be deleted and merged later on. Im not sure ive seen an alumni list article that lists its graduates by year. Theyre usually sorted by industry or profession. You can copy the table format from List of United States Military Academy alumni and List of Ateneo de Manila University alumni that have the sortable class year columns. Notability-wise, you can include every peeemayer that has a wikiarticle here, and for those that dont, you can still add them if their individual notabilities can be supported by reliable sources, lots of citations. Good luck--RioHondo (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sir/Madam. I will consider. Now I realize, however, that I wanted to execute it so that each class would get a redirect to a section, or at least so the class name would show up on search. I will think more about this before I take further action. Thank you! - MistahPeemayer (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible online meeting with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama (and possibly government-published images)

Good evening po sa lahat! I emailed Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) yesterday (January 26, 2021) about freedom of panorama matter and the matter on Philippine government-published images. In their response, they made a reference to an email by @Higad Rail Fan: regarding freedom of panorama issues that was sent last October 30, 2020. Though there was no response or reply on that email. Now, IPOPHL is extending the same invitation for a Zoom meeting in the second week of February this year (2021). Though the invitation was addressed to me, I may not be available due to hectic school schedule and personal reasons.

I'm humbly requesting any interested users and/or parties in the Tambayan community (yes, "any") who are willing to participate that meeting with IPOPHL. It is the only chance to have freedom of panorama introduced in the Philippines, at least gradually. We are facing more than 300 pending deletion requests on Wikimedia Commons, majority targeting modern buildings and sculptures, and perhaps those case pages involve hundreds of images. Through this dialogue, freedom of panorama may hopefully be introduced in the Philippines (perhaps through exchange of ideas and proposals and suggestions).

May I also request that those who would like to participate in this meeting with IPOPHL to please indicate after this message your willingness to attend.

The email address to IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights is copyright@ipophil.gov.ph. Hopefully many (or at least several) will attend, for the benefit of all Wikipedians here in the Philippines. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I will listen in and contribute to the conversation but only if necessary. The forthcoming audience with IPOPhil will provide us much-needed clarifications about effective FOP regulations in the Philippines or their lack thereof. But ultimately, talk will be a bargain there unless we seek professional legal papers to be authored, moving forward. Buszmail (talk) 12:15, 03 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JWilz12345! I am interested to attend. carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IPOPHL cannot do anything. You guys should be lobbying Congress, instead. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: at least this will serve as a "bridge" to the representatives there. At least the two sponsors of the House Bill 8062 (Reps. Garin and de Venecia) which will amend Republic Act No. 8293 (to keep up with the challenges of intellectual property enforcement in the digital and new media age, but still the proposed bill has no FOP provisions). @Howhontanozaz: told me about this proposed bill on my Commons talk page last December 1, 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't need bridges; we should be way past that. We've had this issue for years now. How sure are we that any bill that has FOP will at least get out of committee? None of the bills resolve the issue, and plenty of pictures in the Philippines will be rightfully deleted.

If anything, we'd need an exact phrase that can be added as an amendment to the current bills that will ensure FOP. Otherwise, almost all of the Commons images that are tagged would have to be deleted. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a Zoom meeting with whom? Just the IPO? Or is this more a public forum-type of thing? Pinging Seav as well so we can make ourselves available if they've set a date.

And to respond to Howard, I'm of the opinion that the relevant government agency can influence the legislation that would regulate it. At least it gets us somewhere as opposed to us having to wait for the politicians to respond. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested too in attending. I hope it's not a Thursday or Friday though, I have online classes on those days. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: perhaps you may want to join Philippine Wikimedia Kapihan Group, the recognized FB equivalent of Tambayan (you may comment on my post there providing link to this Tambayan thread, and in this way other Filipino Wikipedians who have recently contacted IPOPHL by email can inform you and, if in case, send you the relevant Zoom link) regarding the meeting. Thanks po sa response. :) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to see there is actual collaboration in real life among WPPH editors. I think i recognize some of the members in that FB group. Is Berniemack an active contributor here too? Lol. Thanks for that link and good luck with the FOP dialogue.--RioHondo (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Berniemack has a Wikimedia account but he hasn't edited in any project since 2016: [9]. —seav (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Seav! I used to collaborate with him and a few others here and in the PH for a different information website back in college, like 15 years ago, shucks im getting old lol ;) This virtual meeting would be a good start, just keep in mind there are far more pressing matters this govt is dealing with, like its sinking economy and vax issues, so participants need to manage their expectations from this dialogue. Have fun nevertheless ;)--RioHondo (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I may have a virtual sit-in considering the copyright situation here in the Philippines, assuming I have ample time to listen and perhaps offer my own two cents as I am a content creator concerned with fair use and parody provisions in the country. 02:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have done my part in this process. Details of this invitation is on the Kapihan Facebook group. Meeting via zoom will happen Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 10:00 AM PhST. I also extended communication to PhilWiki as well. I will not directly participate in this meeting as I have day job commitments being an OFW. --Exec8 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Some points from the dialogue

Here are some points, according to some Filipino Wikimedians I talked to on Messenger:

• There is now a pending bill at the Congress (House Bill 8620, authored by Congressman Deputy Speaker Wes Gatchalian) which contains a freedom of panorama provision at Section 184.1, (m). This FOP provision is modelled after Section 65(2) of the Australian copyright law (hence based on Australian freedom of panorama).
• However, while the bill is pending, the current status for the Philippines is "no freedom of panorama", as there is no suitable provision under Sectiom 184.1 that is equivalent to an FOP provision. Currently, request of permission and license from the copyright holder of a certain work (e.g. a building or a public sculpture or monument) is required before uploading an image of a work here on Wikimedia.
• FOP cannot be established by means of legal interpretation, as the copyright laws are statutory rights. FOP must be indicated and defined.
• The only option now is to give support to the pending bill, perhaps sending a letter of support, or to submit position papers to the HOR. On how freedom of panorama will benefit the Wikimedia community (more so here in the Philippines) and the general public.
• If ever the bill is passed into law and the FOP provision is now inserted in the IP Code of the Philippines, an accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations will also be formulated to better define the rules for the future Philippine FOP. Relevant stakeholders will also be invited, and it is highly encouraged that some representatives from the Filipino Wikimedians will participate in the drafting of the IRR.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

FOP Updates

• February 24, 2021: IPOPHL lauds consolidation of House bills to modernize IP Code, identifies 17 priority areas for amendment (article by IPOPHL). "On copyright and related rights, Barba stressed the priority for including clear-cut rules on orphan works; recognizing extended collective licensing, by which collective management organizations can extend the license they issue to works of non-members; expanding the limitations for copyright; and centralizing the registration and deposit of copyright works in IPOPHL to avoid confusion among stakeholders."

Additional remarks: all pending bills aiming to amend the copyright law are being consolidated (e.g. House Bill 8062 by Reps. De Venecia and Garin, House Bill 1597 by Rep. Romero, and House Bill 8620 by Rep. Gatchalian, with the last-mentioned containing the FOP provision), with the consolidation being conducted by the "Technical Working Group (TWG) created earlier this month by the House Committee on Trade and Industry." (based on IPOPHL article). This update added to Tambayan by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like our little WPPH community is starting to attract the attention of a few our lawmakers. Who here is actually working for any of those reps? Or are actually those reps editting here anonymously? Lol. Reminds me of an encounter i had with this contributor making conflict of interest edits for a certain senator's blp. He/she said that senator was a colleague. I know people lurking and engaging in tug of war editting in Marcos, Arroyo and Duterte-related articles are from a close circle of partisan members as they are the same people visible in those opposition politicians' blps and in that little project to create individual articles for each of the supposed hukbalahap "heroes and martyrs." ;) Anyways, this is a good development that is definitely nonpartisan. Thanks for that update and more collaboration of this kind here in WPPH please ;).--RioHondo (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I'm more of a bridge/"news man" hehe. I'm not directly involved here, though I'm promoting this FOP on Facebook using a certain hashtag. But I don't want to be aggressive in such posts because these might be treated by the stupid FB algorithm (sorry for my term) as "spam posts". Hmm, for the FOP. Actually, per the dialogue (relayed to me by a few Filipino Wikimedians on Messenger), IPOPHL said that the Bureau of Copyright was just created in 2019, and last year (2020) FOP was already being considered as one of the potential additions to our copyright law. It's just that the bureau which is relevant to copyright matters was just "born" in 2019, so it took some years from the time of the first deletion on Wikimedia/Wikipedia (due to no FOP in the Philippines, was that around 2010/2011?) before FOP was truly realized. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:XZora

Can someone verify this user's edits? I saw some of his edits claiming that the People Power Revolution was a communist one. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not Communist-led, otherwise we'd have a different form of government without Cory. But if the question is whether the CPP participated in or mixed in with the crowd during that demonstration, what do the sources say? You can even type in Filipino anarchists as among the participants so long as they are supported by sources hehe. The Mendiola massacre that followed People Power was more associated with the CPP though ;). But again its all about the sources, and their prominence vis-a-vis other sources. If no sources provided, remove immediately.--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Electorate and population data

Need help with codifying those latest electorate (number of registered voters) and population statistics in each of the congressional district articles created thus far. I know these numbers are embedded in each LGU article, although the electorate data still arent. See Congressional districts of the Philippines for the sources. 2020 PSA data is coming up soon while comelec will release their updated figures after next year's elections. That way these numbers get automatically updated in all those 200+ articles. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Maybe we should add the electorate data on Wikidata (if we haven't already) and then use {{PH wikidata}}? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing. I dont know how any of these works lol. No idea what those links are or what they can do, but i know Exec8 and P199 can help you on this? Thanks in advance.--RioHondo (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I'll fire up AutoWikiBrowser real quick to see what I can do. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hue, but take note those existing population figures in wikidata only works for at-large congressional districts. So on top of the electorate figures, we also still have to codify those of the numbered districts per province or city.--RioHondo (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Working on it. You can see the progress here: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force congressional districts/Wikidata. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything you cant do? Lol, thanks for this and for your effort in creating district maps as well. I look forward to seeing both! Btw, the representatives names dont need to be included in the data, only cos they change more often, like electoral protest, vacancy from death or resignation, etc so better to leave this flexible and changeable anytime hehe.--RioHondo (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

San Jose del Monte

An IP editor (or maybe a group of IP editors) is vandalizing San Jose del Monte by changing the official name and adding speculation of unsafe water. The references used to support these statements are clearly wrongly applied and misused. In order to avoid WP:3R, can some more editors keep an eye on this? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Regional autonomy plebiscites

Have you ever noticed that "2019 Bangsamoro autonomy plebiscite" is such a pithy article title? Now, consider its cousins: "2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite", "1998 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite", etc. Why not rename these to:

• 1990 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite -> 1990 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite
• 1998 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite -> 1998 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite
• 2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite -> 2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite

These would also rename red links into:

• 1977 Southern Philippines autonomous region creation plebiscite -> 1977 Southern Philippines autonomy plebiscite
• 1989 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao creation plebiscite -> 1989 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite

If there's unanimity here I'd move these myself but if someone opposes here let's put it through an RM. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: That seems to be a nice idea. But shouldn't it be "Muslim Mindanao" instead of just "Mindanao"? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Notice the proposition "in". In 1989, there was no "Muslim Mindanao" to speak of. Also, the organic laws referred to an "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao", implying that there may be parts of "Muslim Mindanao" not included in the autonomous region, arguing that no plebiscite can ever be inclusive. So they settled in on that name instead of say a more definitive "Muslim Mindanao Autonomous Region" or even "Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: There was, the reason why these plebiscites were held in the first place is because the 1987 Constitution mandated them: "There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Notice "in" before "Muslim Mindanao". The usage of "in" is very telling. It tells you the constitution is putting it to the hands of the people if "Muslim Mindanao" existed. Notice "United States of America" vs. "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the Cordillera changes, they seem appropriate and in keeping with the 1990 article sources. However, I'm also unsure about Mindanao. In addition to not covering all of Mindanao, the 2001 plebiscite also included Palawan. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's put these on an RM, then. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Talk:1990 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite#Requested move 18 March 2021
• Talk:2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite#Requested move 18 March 2021

These are the RMs for the three articles. I've grouped the Cordillera plebiscites into one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:PH wikidata

I left a message at Template talk:PH wikidata#Something is not working properly. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

First Mass in the Philippines

The 500th anniversary of this is coming soon, so if you guys want to fix this up for WP:OTD, please do so. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

LGU Maps

Hi. Have you had seen the UP NOAH website? here I think it is a good source for accurate provincial, municipal/city and barangay boundaries. (tested it myself a day ago) The tab for the boundaries is at the left side and it says that data are from the PSA and the UI is great, too. I think it would be great to be applied in LGU locator/location maps, especially the town/city maps because some of the lines at present maps are soggy and are surely inaccurate. And most of these I believe are outdated. Thanks. Crear2000 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is indeed accurate, then it proves that Isabela's 4th congressional district is contiguous only as much as you can consider that a quadripoint on the summit of Mount Dos Hermanos means two jurisdictions border each other if they "face" (Utah-New Mexico or Arizona-Colorado) each other. Our current maps don't show this quadripoint, instead showing Echague separating Dinapigue from the rest of its district. Would be an interesting court case if someone brings it up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, it also shows that Santiago-Cordon does not border Jones-San Agustin. This was a bad gerrymander. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Like HTD says, hopefully it is accurate. If so, I agree that it would be nice to update all the maps of the 1634 LGU's and 120 provinces. Big task though, we'll need some volunteers with good graphic skills. Unfortunately, I have no time to take that on... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is accurate at least in places I know where there are welcome arches or signages separating political entities, and some usual border conventions that I am aware of. It is also noteworthy that, according to these maps, much of the political boundaries up to the barangay level are shared with waterways and rivers or at least run near the said water courses. I am just unsure why PSA didn't "explicitly" publish the maps. Well, yeah, it'll need much time to update the maps here. Crear2000 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, most of the boundaries in the Philippines are unofficial based on the fact that these have not been surveyed yet, especially on mountainous areas. There are still court cases with LGUs disputing barangays. If we're following the U.S. precedence, the actual surveyed boundary will be the boundary instead of what was in the law, which was supposed to guide surveyors. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be very much willing to help make these maps since I've already been doing it for about two years now (maybe even three). Unfortunately, Felipe Aira's PhlMapCit.svg, the basemap that I used for my projects, came out to be inaccurate so I had no choice but to halt the rest of the project and make a new map out of scratch (it's right here). Though, it is worth mentioning that I did "finish" all regional/provincial locator maps but they were only used for a brief moment and were replaced by the ones we're currently using. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It says in the NOAH municipal borders maps that those were based on both PSA and NAMRIA, which is again where we should be basing all our maps from, the central mapping agency no less. i doubt PSA makes maps other than demographic so my guess is they also rely on NAMRIA. Hows the progress on our district maps and new more accurate province locator maps? :) The current ones we use are fine, i like that they are plain and without labels or too many colors making their locations stand out. Although i would suggest adding like zoomed insets for those really small provinces like Camiguin, Siquijor, Biliran, Guimaras, Romblon, Batanes, etc. They are barely noticeable in those maps :)--RioHondo (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is my experienced opinion. The barangay boundaries used by UP NOAH and displayed on their maps was compiled in 2015–2016 as part of the efforts of Information Management Technical Working Group (IMTWG) of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). The boundaries are derived from the internal dataset used by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in conducting their census and have been cleaned up to be consistent with NAMRIA's coastlines and added with PSGC IDs. This dataset is considered indicative at best and quite inaccurate at worst (see the boundary of Post Proper Southside and Post Proper Northside in Makati, and the barangays in Las Piñas with weird exclaves, for examples). I know that PSA strongly discourages the use of their dataset outside of humanitarian contexts and without the express permission of PSA (despite the Intellectual Property Code). (Source: I personally know people in NOAH who worked on the dataset and I attended several of the IMTWG meetings as a representative of the OpenStreetMap Philippines community.)

BTW, contrary to expectations, NAMRIA isn't the authoritative agency for PH boundaries; that would be the Land Management Bureau under the DENR. AFAIK, the LMB doesn't have a complete dataset of boundaries down to the barangay level because the work of delimiting the boundaries and resolving disputes is still not finished.

Bohol's 2nd district

P.S. Isabela isn't even the most egregious in terms of non-contiguous districts. That honor would go to Bohol's 2nd district (illustrated). —seav (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The exclave seems to be San Isidro, Bohol. On the new Bohol political map, it has a 90 degree border with Clarin, Bohol, so you can argue it's connected to one point in space. The Isabela district still takes the cake though as it has 3 exclaves of roughly equal size; this just has two.

Also, as per my expectations, there still isn't definitive dataset. We hope there's one soon. I'm also quite surprised that an agency of the DENR is doing this; I thought this was the DPWH as they have their municipal boundary markers all over the place; maybe those are for their own usages only and is still not official.

Has anyone seen PAGASA's municipal maps? Recently, their storm signals are now down to per town, instead of the vague "northern Camarines Sur" that we were used to. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I saw a NAMRIA map that shows a quadripoint of Echague, Dinapigue, Maddela (in Quirino), and Jones. Echague is not touching Aurora's northernmost municipality, Dilasag. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I love how that district's contiguousness still isn't resolved. You know a province is held by one family if no one sued this for its constitutionality. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I found that NAMRIA map here: https://data.humdata.org/m/dataset/philippines-administrative-levels-0-to-3. I wonder what I could do with these... —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of maps, the map of the Philippines in Provinces of the Philippines#List has an error. As of today, when clicking the Pangasinan area for instance, it will send you to Northern Samar/Eastern Samar articles. Thank you. Crear2000 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crear2000: Someone messed it up on Wikimedia Commons (File:Labelled map of the Philippines - Provinces and Regions.png). It should be fine by now. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crear2000: actually it is full of errors. When clicked on Cavite it will land you to the article Surigao del Sur. When clicking the name (name, not the pointer) of Central Luzon in the WPS it will lead you to Negros Occidental. You are also sent to Capiz if you click an area of the sea to the west of Zambales. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Zambales is also at the point where Marikina and Rizal is at the inset of the map. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Technical specifications" and "Features" sections in expressway articles

Alongside adapting consistent use of expressway name abbreviations, I think it's time we should get rid of the "Technical specifications" and "Features" on our expressway pages. Well, our expressway articles now mostly follow the standard used in North American highway articles, but we still have "Technical specifications" and "Features" sections which are a holdover from the early forms of those articles and seems to violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Most toll road articles I have read (such as those of American tollways, e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike) don't contain sections about features or technical info (vertical clearances, lanes), and if there are (such as lane counts), are covered in "Route description". TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

TagaSanPedroAko I agree. In fact, I already removed all of the said sections in the Tagalog Wikipedia equivalent articles (though much of them were added by me during my translation works around late 2016–2017). Like tl:Subic Freeport Expressway. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I've already done away with those subsections on NLEX, SLEX, Skyway, and STAR Toll. I'm busy with Canada articles now (mostly adding redirects that use two-letter postal abbreviations for various articles of cities, towns and villages throughout Canada), so you can do away with the others. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: right now, my focus is on Commons. Perhaps other editors may help. Ping @RioHondo and HueMan1:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko and JWilz12345:  Done! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't completely removed those at NLEX (at "Technical information"). Would do a final sweep. Content in question is already covered elsewhere in the NLEX article.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry im still on my annual sabbatical and have been traveling so i cant contribute much to any article for now. But i believe the only important technical information as far as roads are concerned are their length and number of lanes which could be mentioned in the lede or in their history section where you can lay out their expansion and progress in technical terms so long as they are supported. For toll roads, the number of exits and toll plazas are important technical info as well but i believe they have their own dedicated sections already. The number of service centers/areas and their location might also require improvements.--RioHondo (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, one reason why we should get rid of those because they are redundant with other sections. Road length is important info, but these go to the infobox and lede, Lanes go to “Route description”. For exits, toll plazas, and service areas, these belong to the “Exits” table (detail of service areas can be covered in “Services”) and we don’t have to count them all (except service areas).

On the “Features” sections, that so far only existed with NLEX and TPLEX just before some newbie added that section to every expressway page we have, these are mostly standard and we don’t have to mention it at every page. Street lighting, green destination signage, patrol vehicles, and speedcams are a staple of expressways and don’t have to be repeated. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Expressway name abbreviations

It has been years since we improved our article on expressways by adapting the article structure observed by WP:USRD, WP:CARD and WP:HIGHWAYS, but one remaining problem is how we should writing abbreviations of expressway names (i.e. NLEX vs NLEx, NAIAX vs NAIAx). So far, in my experience, with the exception of MCX, STAR, SEMME, the usual way of writing them is all caps and the concessionaires themselves also use them (e.g. NLEX Corporation). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For NLEX, SLEX, SCTEX, TPLEX, MCX and NAIAX, overwhelming practice is ALLCAPS. Isn't STAR Tollway spelled that way? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The STAR is all caps as the acronym of its longer name, but not the Tollway suffix; in addition, the article should have been named STAR Tollway, not the little-used full form of STAR. Have you looked at all the expressway or highway articles that still use the forms with small x (i.e. NLEx, SLEx, CAVITEx, SCTEx, TPLEx, NAIAx, CLLEx, SFEx, CALAx/CALAEx, CCLEx)? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "STAR Tollway", yes that's how it is exactly spelled. People are apprehensive with moving to acronyms on roads (see EDSA (road)) but I'd support STAR Tollway.

Re: Small "x". I'm not sure, but in the old days it was actually "NLE", then "NLEx", then the "x" just grew up. People still use "SSH" for "South Superhighway". I suppose saying that "it's wrong to use 'NLE'/'NLEx'," may be stretching it, and you can say that either is a variant that's sometimes used. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, but the main problem with our articles is that existing articles may contain one of those variations. We may mention the various abbreviations of the North Luzon Expressway in the lede, for example, but we should choose the best form for use in the rest of the prose, as well as junction lists or tables in other articles.—TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus on expressways and highways is for spelling out those acronyms and using their full names to make them recognizable even to people not very familiar with these roads. Another argument for this is the inconsistency in acronyms and abbreviations as you demonstrated above with those examples. The north and south Luzon expressways spell Expressway as EX or Ex whereas the Muntinlupa–Cavite and NAIA expressways spell it as just X, as in MCX and NAIAX not MCEX and NAIAEX? As for STAR, the official logo itself does not carry the suffix Tollway so might be better to stick to this base name of just STAR. I agree with the mention of all known abbreviations, acronyms and nicknames in the lede, but as for the standard abbrev to use in tables across the project, we must first determine the most widely used ones for each expressway. I have a feeling it's those in allcaps too. Then you can also add these title and abbreviation conventions once finalized as a supplement to our WP:MOSPHIL or as a separate guideline page similar to WP:NCAURD or WP:USSH.--RioHondo (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest using whatever abbreviation is used by the WP:RS that is being used to cite that statement. Pre-Noynoy, "North Luzon Expressway" was just "NLE". So for those cases, use "NLE", then use "NLEX" whenever it started to be used. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that use of small 'x' still floats around: the Inquirer did it just a few months ago, and its use of small 'x' and big 'X' is inconsistent. That said, I would think that we can point this in the lead, and then use an agreed-to version everywhere else. I personally use small 'x', but the difference between this and big 'X' is pretty much inconsequential. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That PDI article uses NLEx and NLex, all on the same article. This seems to be a business story, so I presume their MOS says "use the branding™ whenever possible", so that either means, the official branding, at least for NLEX, is "NLEx", or they just don't want capitalizing everything because "we're the business section we have standards here." I haven't checked, but the sports section should be using "NLEX" with the capital "X" when referring to the NLEX Road Warriors basketball team. I presume though that "NLEX" with the capital "X" is now predominant usage so I guess there won't be issues if we use that consistently, at least for 2010 usages and after. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Massive cleanup in Filipinos page

Can anybody check Filipinos article? There are text remnants from multiple revisions by an IP address that added a large amount of text relating to Japan. Much of the content, particularly the Pottery and Fishing technologies sections, seems to be undue weight, and most of the text was directly copied from the cited source:

<ref name="seapots">{{cite web|url=http://www.seapots.com/home/index.php/production-centers-pottery-groups/philippines |title=Philippines |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316020850/http://www.seapots.com/home/index.php/production-centers-pottery-groups/philippines |archive-date=2014-10-19 }}</ref>

Another source used multiple times appears to be unreliable:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hadrianmendozapottery.com/philippines/|title=Cerramic Artist|publisher=hadrianmendozapottery}}</ref>

Additionally, some sources are incomplete without links and/or page numbers, which warrants verification, among them are:

<ref>Worcester, Dean C. (1906). "The Non-Christian Tribes of Northern Luzon". The Philippine Journal of Science. National Science Development Board</ref> <ref>{{Cite book|title=A History of Pangasinan, 1572–1800|last=Cortes|first=Rosario Mendoza|publisher=New Day|year=1991}}</ref>

I have already done some cleanup, but perhaps someone can help in the page cleanup.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the IP addition as an unattributed copyvio of Japanese in the Philippines, which seemed markedly unrelated to the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Template for Philippine sports events by month

The usual universal template does not work for Philippine sports events by month, but the template as used for Category:November 2020 sports events in the Philippines is quick to use as it does not require editing for month or year. Note that the universal template as used for say Category:March 2016 events in the Philippines does work for the Philippines though. NB: the universal template as used for Category:January 2010 sports events in South Korea does not work for the Philippines as it sees the year as "2016 in Filipino sport" not "2016 in Philippine sport". Hugo999 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Po and opo article?

Shouldn't the Po and opo section in Mano (gesture) be a separate article, as it is only loosely related to the hand gesture? –Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Yeah or maybe move it somewhere else since it's very short. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps someone experienced with moving a page can move the page? If the article is too short, maybe move it to a new article like Etiquette in the Philippines, like what Etiquette in Indonesia had done? –Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Since you suggested a new article that would go by the name "Etiquette in the Philippines", why don't we move the article Mano (gesture) there instead? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1:: Yes, I think that would be a better idea as we could just expand the article to cover more social customs/norms. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)