Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Copyright status of PTV4 content?

Hi all. PTV4 is owned and operated by the Philippine government. As works by the Philippine government are "public domain" except for commercial use, what is the copyright status of content by PTV4? Can they be used in Wikimedia commons? Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the template Public Domain Philippines Gov on Wikimedia Commons states: "This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of his regularly prescribed official duties". PTV is a government-owned and controlled corporation. -Object404 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Though of course not all PTV4 programmes are under this, especially for canned programming from let's say overseas and third-parties. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you agree with the above statement in general except for third party shows and content sourced from outside PTV? Thanks! -Object404 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We've had no problems in using RTVM (Radio Television Malacañang) content in Commons. Whether they were broadcast in PTV or IBC or the Philippine Broadcasting Service, as long as the content is from RTVM or PCOO TV, etc theyre all in the public domain.--RioHondo (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What about non-RTVM/PCOO but PTV-itself-branded public interest broadcasts such as senate hearings? -Object404 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, PTV is under the media arm of PCOO... well, you know what I mean I guess :) -Object404 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as the content is clearly the work of PTV (e.g., no news reports showing viral citizen journalism videos), I think the video/media is kosher for Commons as a work of the government. —seav (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine PTV-originating works would be works produced by PTV itself, which will mostly be newscasts or the Philippine Lotto Draw. Would shows where there's a private party involved in its production (like Damayan, where the Philippine Red Cross is involved) be covered under that? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the ongoing discussion on Commons is here: 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. —seav (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikimania Postponed until 2021

It is our regret that the planned August 2020 event was postponed due to the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Details is posted in this letter from Katherine Maher, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation. ----Exec8, Head of Wikimania Communications Committee (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Greater Manila Area

I have doubts with the factuality and accuracy of this article. It seems like it's part of someone's original research or something. I tried to find some sources on the web to support and update its statistics but then I found nothing. I eventually forgot about this thing and left it. Now that I found it again, may I ask everyone's opinion about this? Thank you! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: RioHondo started a discussion here (Talk:Greater Manila Area#What is the Greater Manila Area?). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PHIL discussion started on municipality article titles

Just a heads up in case you are not following Philippine-related move requests (WP:RM) nor have the MOS:PHIL page in your watchlists. JWilz12345 started a move request to change the title of "Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands" to "Cagdianao": Talk:Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands#Requested move 20 March 2020. And as a result of that move request, hueman1 started a discussion proposing to update the current MOS guideline regarding the article titles for municipalities: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities. Your inputs are very much welcome! (For reference, the last time we discussed this particular topic was way back in 2014.) —seav (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've initiated an opinion poll which is based on Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive34, but this opinion poll should not end the centralized discussion in a limbo just like what happened to two centralized discussions before. The link to the section is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles#Straw poll or opinion per user/contributors . Also, I've added a section for the uninterrupted continuation of the discussion if additional insights are needed. Your inputs and stances are highly welcome! Thank you! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Spelling out eponymous road names

I want to see what people think here: should we start spelling out eponymous road names? Given that people often don't know who the roads are named for, myself included, it would be a good idea if we transition to using full names for eponymous roads (roads named after people) in articles about roads and in the tables of intersections that accompany them, as well as addresses generally. The idea, all in all, would be to avoid using abbreviated road names entirely (so United Nations Avenue, not UN Avenue in addresses) to avoid confusion on the part of the reader.

Basically, we'd transition to something like this:

• P. Tuazon Avenue -> Pedro Tuazon Avenue
• F. de la Rosa Street -> Fabian de la Rosa Street
• Sen L. Sumulong Memorial Circle -> Sen. Lorenzo Sumulong Memorial Circle
• T.M. Kalaw Avenue -> Teodoro M. Kalaw Avenue

We'd still keep titles and middle initials abbreviated, but it would make a lot of sense at this point to spell out people's first names. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this include EDSA? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

My position on EDSA has always been that it should be spelled out (because "EDSA" as an acronym can mean different things), and I actually opposed the last time it was moved. But that's a different matter, especially since the idea here is to identify more obscure road names. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would love to have that trend, and I understand this is for Wikipedia article titles for roads? Lately there had been many roads being renamed after recently deceased personalities, for example, numerous roads were officially renamed Eraño G. Manalo Avenue and were often shortened as E. Manalo Avenue. Marikina has in recent years renamed several roads after late mayors and they were named in full, often with their titles. For example, one road was named Mayor Gil Fernando Avenue and was often shortened as Gil Fernando or G. Fernando Avenue.

This can be a complex issue for others maybe. I would suggest, if any, find sources like maps and legislation documents that a certain road is named after a personality and was named in full, like the examples I mentioned.

Among other personalities whose names were used in naming or renaming roads are Ferdinand Marcos, Benigno Aquino, Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez, and others. In the case of Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez, many roads named after the late Senator were 'colloquially' named either "E. Rodriguez" or "A. Rodriguez". Chitetskoy (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I know this discussion is not about article titles, but it would be logical to follow the principles in WP:COMMONNAME. In short, best to use the common usage. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with WP:COMMONNAME in this context is that, more often than not, people know the name of the street as a whole, but don't know who or what the street is named after. I would be comfortable with abbreviations, let's say, when the road has an article, but in all other instances, spelling out the name is more than appropriate. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Im not a fan of middle initials, or abbreviations in general. IMHO, those are the source of confusion with most street signs ive seen. Like what were those two streets in Manila that bear the same surname but different initials? Its a prevalent practice i think, and its annoying. Im good with spelling out the first name of an eponymous street, but no middle initial and only when needed as a disambiguation. Otherwise, it is always safer to use just the surname following commonname. Like why bother naming Adriatico Street as Macario Adriatico Street or M. Adriatico Street when it could simply and commonly be referred to as Adriatico, but thats just me ;) And then, "Teodoro M. Kalaw"? "T.M. Kalaw"? "T. Kalaw"? "P.M. Kalaw"? Lol. Just call it Kalaw. Can we? --RioHondo (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Surname-only is also equally ambiguous, and presumes most people call the road by just the surname when they don't. On your last example, I mostly hear people say "T.M. Kalaw", not just "Kalaw". There is more than one prominent Kalaw out there (Eva, for one). The same can be argued for Recto, but at least Claro is much more prominent than his progeny. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible Cagayan related-article vandal edits by Jbuigat

Hello everyone! I'm just letting you know that I am in the process of reverting the edits made by Jbuigat (talk · contribs) who once made an article about Niño Kevin D. Baclig and even citing him as a reference in Cagayan-related articles. He also made the article Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society which I believe may contain fabricated information though it might be an existing group. Stay safe! Peace! —Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: "Vandal" is too harsh. It's just good-faith soapboxing for a laudable, but non-notable community-level activity by a group of amateurs. Citing WP:GNG, you can straight go ahead to successfully bring the other page to AfD as well. –Austronesier (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: It was SciPunk (talk · contribs) who discovered it not I (credits to him). Look at his contributions related to Cagayan. I am not being harsh. I am just saying what he did as it is. His creation of Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society is an exception though.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia PH Month: A Call for Collaboration

Hi!

Wikipedia Philippine Month or simply Wikipedia PH Month is a monthly online event inspired by Wikipedia Asian Month that aims to promote Philippine content in Philippine Wikipedia editions and beyond. Each participating local 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. The participating community is not limited to the Philippines. This activity also aims to encourage collaboration among Filipino contributors within the archipelago and in the diaspora and to create linkages among Filipino and non-Filipino contributors who support the main objective.

If you have any thoughts about this project, kindly share it in the talk page. --Filipinayzd 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including one week dedicated to South-South East Asia, which includes the Philippines, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting DYK review

Hello! I recently wrote an article on the Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center, the Philippines' main immigration detention center. I was hoping that perhaps someone from the Tambayan Philippines project could review my DYK, as one of my hooks is a current event, and I don't want it to get too stale. Any other thoughts on the article are appreciated, I think this is my best work since Tagalog profanity. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Metro Manila rapid transit line naming

Just giving a heads up for anyone here, there's an ongoing discussion on naming Metro Manila rapid transit articles at Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System. This has been carrying on since 2019, and your inputs on this is appreciated.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion here

Having seen an echo chamber situation on the article talk page, I am moving the discussion here for anyone to see. Some points we've talked about so far are:

• @Korean Rail Fan: and @Koressha: is in support of Line [number] (Manila [system]) scheme.
• @Sky Harbor:, @Truflip99:, me, @Howard the Duck:, @RioHondo: support name based on the most recognizable names: "[system]-number, [system] Line [number], and Manila [system] Line [number], with the exception for the Metro Manila Subway and Makati Intra-City Subway.
• Proposal to create a Rapid transit in the Greater Manila Area to provide an in-depth discussion on rapid transit in Metro Manila or the GMA, and merge the Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System articles, and articles for the MRT-4, LRT-5, LRT-6, and MRT-8.

Back on the naming issue that is the main topic of the talks that have been carrying on since 2019, consensus has not been reached. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to any merger of system articles. Let's not jump the gun here: the LRT and MRT operate independently, despite the LRTA being an attached agency of the DOTr and despite there being a common line numbering system. I'm fine with making an overview article but there is no need for merging anything: my goal, more than anything, is addressing the line naming issue. Frankly, the system articles work fine the way they are. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm considering soliciting the opinions of a few other users, like @Seav:, @Hariboneagle927:, @HueMan1:, @JWilz12345:, and @P199:. Based on what's going on now, I see much support for line naming based on WP:COMMONNAME. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I also invite other members of the Tambayan Philippines community as well as lurkers to pitch in the discussion. Thanks! Korean Rail Fan 06:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Initiate an RM. That's where the discussion should be at, not here. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: That's what I thought in retrospect, but @Truflip99: has said earlier back on the MRT talk page, it would be too soon. Aside from the concern about naming, there is also proposal to delete the articles for the proposed LRT-4/5/6 and MRT-8 (PNR East-West), where one of the possible outcomes which I believe would be a merge into the new article for MM/GMA rapid transit. I hope someone's working that out already, especially the guys who got that idea like @RioHondo: and @Sky Harbor:. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose for articles that don't exist, their creation can be planned here, but for deletions, discussions, page moves, etc., it's a lot better to discuss it on the talk page of that article or elsewhere via the usual processes. We'd just waste time here. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I initiated a bundle AfD for the Line 4, 6, and 8 stations. So let's start with that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirona station. Please provide feedback. Thanks. --truflip99 (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Question. Does anyone else here think that this Manila Light Rail Transit System supposedly covering both the LRMC Line 1 and LRTA Line 2 systems may be WP:OR? Or that this Manila Metro Rail Transit System is a separate network that covers all the other independently run or financed rails and projects with the name "MRT" on it? This thing has been bothering me for quite some time now, and i still dont get why the 4 rail firms and their individual lines are being lumped into those two "systems" based on name only. AFAIK, LRMC, LRTA, MRTC and SMC-MRT7 Inc. are their own systems within this one rail network under the DOTr that we still dont have an article on. I dunno but from all the rail networks ive seen, transit systems are based on the company or entity that operates them. If LRMC decides to pursue LRT 6, it would have two rail lines under it (its own system) and not this three lines under a supposed unified system of all rail lines named LRT. Same goes for MRTC and SMC-MRT7 Inc. How are they supposed to share the same system or be even remotely related apart from the name?--RioHondo (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I see the LRT as one network for the meantime, even where we can say LRT-1 is different due to it being PPPed to a joint venture by the Ayala and Pangilinan conglomerates, but for the MRT, I would say no, and that's where creating an article for the MM/GMA rapid transit should be considered. We may retain the LRT system article at present, but remove all those for the MRT provided your reasons above. If the other lines with the LRT prefix gets built, but is not under the LRTA or a company they've made the concessionaire, go delete them and merge the content into the new dedicated MM/GMA rapid transit page. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Uh, it was the LRTA who PPP-ed the line out to LRMC. LRMC merely operates the line; the ultimate owner is the LRTA, as mentioned earlier. The LRTA had run the network (both LRT-1 and LRT/MRT-2) on its own between 2000 (when the METRO Inc. contract lapsed) and 2015, and before Beep was introduced stored-value tickets were interchangeable on either line, so I'm surprised we're even having this discussion if both lines have been together for quite a long time now. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate owner of all these rail lines is the DOTr. LRTA is just an operator and an attached agency under the DOTr. So 2015, its been 5 years since the privatization of LRT 1. Why haven't we updated the article? To say that the Manila Light Rail Transit System is a defunct rail system, or its contents be merged to the Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 which is the only remaining line under this LRTA system? Why are we keeping this article when it is no longer true that the LRT 1 and LRT 2 form one network or system under the same operator? The way it is presented in this Template:Urban Rail Transit in ASEAN is worse than fake news IMHO. All the LRT lines under LRTA and MRT lines under DOTr? Says who? Again, we have 4 players or operators of rail systems in MM. Not two. PATH is by Port Authority and NYC Subway is by MTA. Two systems according to operator, which together with LIRR, SIR, etc form New Yorks rail network. Tokyo Metro is by private firm, Toei Subway is by state entity. Again two systems from two operators forming the Tokyo subway network. In our case, we have four systems by four operators forming our rail network, all operating or financing a single line each at this moment. Only the PNR (once its north commuter line and clark express is complete) will be the only legit transit system of multiple lines.--RioHondo (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RioHondo: We might have gotten into a short break, but if you're saying we better merge the LRT and MRT system articles from the way things are going now, go. We used to cover that under the Arroyo-era SRTS, but now, I agree we need to revisit the idea of a dedicated overview article, modeling it after the examples you've mentioned like those in Tokyo, New York, and (back in the MRT system talk) Bangkok. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we can't just merge articles here without their owner's approval can we? Lol. As much as I wanted to be WP:Bold and correct this major error, my mind is still on another project im trying to finish up there. You can start with your research and make the necessary merger with a draft, easy peasy. Use the MM Dream Plan article as your guide. Will help out when im done. But id still defer to Sky Harbor's expertise regarding the article's technical contents most defo. ;) Right now, we need more writers than talkers on PH WP.--RioHondo (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly in off-doses here, so I think SH can handle this, but if I can, I can help with the draft. I've also started another discussion with the naming of stations below (that's also another issue, since to my experience, the "Station" suffix is often capitalized). --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working on a major revamp of the Philippine Airlines article (starting first in Spanish, then moving those changes to English), but I can contribute to an overview article if there is one. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

RM initiated. Please discuss Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3#Requested move 5 May 2020. Thanks! --truflip99 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Philippine Railways

Good day. I have set up a proposal for the creation of WikiProject Philippine Railways. This proposed WikiProject aims to oversee all Philippine railway-related articles. Your support is greatly appreciated. —Hiwilms (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Train station names again

It's been around 2 years since we agreed to use the "[name] station" scheme for train stations, but I think we should be capitalizing the "station" as what's been done for Japanese (or also, Korean) train stations. I see we normally capitalize the "Station" suffix in writing, so for example Araneta Center–Cubao station (LRT Line 2) should be named "Araneta Center–Cubao Station (LRT Line 2)", and Tutuban station "Tutuban Station". TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest making an WP:RM on one line's station, have it stated that whatever the result of it applies to other lines, then we'll see it from there.

FWIW, usages among WP:RS slightly leans towards Sentence case vs. Title Case, but only just for the LRT station at Blumentritt: Blumentritt Station, Blumentritt Station, Blumentritt station, Blumentritt station, Blumentritt station. Usage varies even on the same source. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the current naming disambiguation and case is fine, based on title names history (and editing as an unregistered editor before) the case of NAME Station was changed to NAME station as universally it uses the "stn" syntax (example: Monumento)) in the articles. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I still stick with having the "Station" suffix capitalized. We have a 50:50 situation provided HTD's evidence, but I still believe the names in title case (like those adopted in MOS:JP, e.g. "Blumentritt Station") are the most common usage even if we find mixed usage in sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TagaSanPedroAko (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And to add up to all the mess with PH train station names, I still see others with the "railway station" suffix. Only those around Metro Manila got renamed to have the "station" suffix. Back on the topic, I strongly agree we follow the same scheme as done with those in Japan, though I still believe "station" without caps is fine for now.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Move request started for PNR stations, see Talk:Tutuban station (PNR)#Requested move 12 May 2020. Please discuss!--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)