Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 45

< Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Allenjambalaya in topic Sólo para Mujeres
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

"Redistricting" our legislative districts articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago146 comments10 people in discussion

I believe i suggested this here a long time ago, but seeing those new legislative district articles now makes splitting the current bundled districts articles more urgent. I am referring to the latest articles like Legislative district of Santa Rosa, Legislative district of General Santos, Legislative district of Calamba, Legislative district of San Jose del Monte and Legislative district of Biñan. I mean these districts don't even follow their provincial ordinal nomenclature anymore, and except for General Santos, the cities those district represent are not even independent or HUCs. And if their articles could be as bare as those of Santa Rosa and Biñan, there is no reason we should keep the district articles grouped together as those are all equal constituencies with equal notabilities and even longer histories than those that have been separated recently. It also bothers me that this template down here makes it appear as though Biñan, Calamba, Laguna and Santa Rosa are four individual districts and we can say the same for the rest. One district, one article for some, in others, two districts in one article. For Laguna, four are hidden in one article. It gets much worse for Cavite, 8 districts in one! And its even listed between two single-district articles, Catanduanes and Ifugao. For transparency and equal representation as what the constitution really intended to achieve for these districts hehe, i am again proposing a wholesale split and produce one article for each district as what they have already accomplished with those new districts.--RioHondo (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • By the way, is there reason to keep the articles together for the numbered provincial districts? If there isn't, my proposal is to follow the French constituencies example as they are named very similarly to our districts. See template below:
How about the case of Dasmariñas, Cavite back then? It was represented on its own for almost a decade (between 2010 to 2019) but remained an integral part of the province and managed to carry its former name "Fourth Legislative District of Cavite." Unless this was a mistake done here, maybe we should merge these articles back to their parent provinces' legislative district article. Correct me if I'm wrong. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Dasmariñas is perfectly fine where it is. This is not an issue on the naming per se, it could stay as "Cavite 4th district" or "Dasmariñas lone district", my point is that these districts should all be given their separate articles, in light of the separation of the other districts from their bundled districts per province articles as i mentioned above. Sorry if i confused you. If the legislative district of Santa Rosa could be separated from Legislative districts of Laguna just because of a cosmetic or superficial change in name, i say we should treat them all as individual legislative districts with their own articles for transparency, accuracy and equal representation in Wikipedia as they should be. So that Biñan lone district, Calamba lone district, Laguna 1st district, Laguna 2nd district, Laguna 3rd district, Laguna 4th district and Santa Rosa lone district would be written out and treated as equals. It's not right to maintain a dedicated article for Biñan, Calamba and Santa Rosa districts while leaving out the rest of Laguna to a cramped list type of article, imo.--RioHondo (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Checking on the US version, they group the congressional districts in one article like California's congressional districts with each district having its own articles for example California's 1st congressional district, California's 2nd congressional district, etc. and for with single representation for example Wyoming's at-large congressional district. I am fine with creating an article for each congressional district. — Emperork (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, congressional districts, constituencies and ridings around the world have their own individual articles. The recent creation of individual districts in the Philippines separated from their provinces shows that this can and should be done. The "Legislative districts of <province name>" will stay to list down and link to the different district articles in that province.--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we should just merge them, because some would probably end up getting outdated as time passes by (like barangay articles). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if you view the House of Representatives of the Philippines as sorta League of Barangays. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The real Legislative districts for the House of Representatives of the Philippines list

Abra lone district, Agusan del Norte 1st district, Agusan del Norte 2nd district, Agusan del Sur 1st district, Agusan del Sur 2nd district, Aklan 1st district, Aklan 2nd district, Albay 1st district, Albay 2nd district, Albay 3rd district, Antipolo 1st district, Antipolo 2nd district, Antique lone district, Apayao lone district, Aurora lone district, Bacolod lone district, Baguio lone district, Basilan lone district, Bataan 1st district, Bataan 2nd district, Batanes lone district, Batangas 1st district, Batangas 2nd district, Batangas 3rd district, Batangas 4th district, Batangas 5th district, Batangas 6th district, Benguet lone district, Biliran lone district, Biñan lone district, Bohol 1st district, Bohol 2nd district, Bohol 3rd district, Bukidnon 1st district, Bukidnon 2nd district, Bukidnon 3rd district, Bukidnon 4th district, Bulacan 1st district, Bulacan 2nd district, Bulacan 3rd district, Bulacan 4th district, Cagayan 1st district, Cagayan 2nd district, Cagayan 3rd district, Cagayan de Oro 1st district, Cagayan de Oro 2nd district, Calamba lone district, Caloocan 1st district, Caloocan 2nd district, Camarines Norte 1st district Camarines Norte 2nd district, Camarines Sur 1st district, Camarines Sur 2nd district, Camarines Sur 3rd district Camarines Sur 4th district, Camarines Sur 5th district, Camiguin lone district, Capiz 1st district, Capiz 2nd district, Catanduanes lone district, Cavite 1st district, Cavite 2nd district, Cavite 3rd district, Cavite 4th district, Cavite 5th district, Cavite 6th district, Cavite 7th district, Cavite 8th district, Cebu 1st district, Cebu 2nd district, Cebu 3rd district, Cebu 4th district, Cebu 5th district, Cebu 6th district, Cebu 7th district, Cebu City 1st district, Cebu City 2nd district, Cotabato 1st district, Cotabato 2nd district, Cotabato 3rd district, Davao City 1st district, Davao City 2nd district, Davao City 3rd district Davao de Oro 1st district, Davao de Oro 2nd district, Davao del Norte 1st district Davao del Norte 2nd district, Davao del Sur lone district, Davao Occidental lone district, Davao Oriental 1st district, Davao Oriental 2nd district, Dinagat Islands lone district, Eastern Samar lone district, General Santos lone district, Guimaras lone district, Ifugao lone district, Iligan lone district, Ilocos Norte 1st district, Ilocos Norte 2nd district, Ilocos Sur 1st district, Ilocos Sur 2nd district, Iloilo 1st district, Iloilo 2nd district, Iloilo 3rd district, Iloilo 4th district, Iloilo 5th district, Iloilo City lone district, Isabela 1st district, Isabela 2nd district, Isabela 3rd district, Isabela 4th district, Isabela 5th district, Isabela 6th district, Kalinga lone district, La Union 1st district, La Union 2nd district, Laguna 1st district, Laguna 2nd district, Laguna 3rd district, Laguna 4th district, Lanao del Norte 1st district, Lanao del Norte 2nd district, Lanao del Sur 1st district, Lanao del Sur 2nd district, Lapu-Lapu lone district, Las Piñas lone district, Leyte 1st district, Leyte 2nd district, Leyte 3rd district, Leyte 4th district, Leyte 5th district, Maguindanao 1st district, Maguindanao 2nd district, Makati 1st district, Makati 2nd district, Malabon lone district, Mandaluyong lone district, Mandaue lone district, Manila 1st district, Manila 2nd district, Manila 3rd district, Manila 4th district, Manila 5th district, Manila 6th district, Marikina 1st district, Marikina 2nd district, Marinduque lone district, Masbate 1st district, Masbate 2nd district, Masbate 3rd district, Misamis Occidental 1st district, Misamis Occidental 2nd district, Misamis Oriental 1st district, Misamis Oriental 2nd district, Mountain Province lone district, Muntinlupa lone district, Navotas lone district, Negros Occidental 1st district, Negros Occidental 2nd district, Negros Occidental 3rd district, Negros Occidental 4th district, Negros Occidental 5th district, Negros Occidental 6th district, Negros Oriental 1st district, Negros Oriental 2nd district, Negros Oriental 3rd district, Northern Samar 1st district, Northern Samar 2nd district, Nueva Ecija 1st district, Nueva Ecija 2nd district, Nueva Ecija 3rd district, Nueva Ecija 4th district, Nueva Vizcaya lone district, Occidental Mindoro lone district, Oriental Mindoro 1st district, Oriental Mindoro 2nd district, Palawan 1st district, Palawan 2nd district, Palawan 3rd district, Pampanga 1st district Pampanga 2nd district, Pampanga 3rd district, Pampanga 4th district, Pangasinan 1st district, Pangasinan 2nd district, Pangasinan 3rd district, Pangasinan 4th district, Pangasinan 5th district, Pangasinan 6th district, Parañaque 1st district, Parañaque 2nd district, Pasay lone district, Pasig lone district, Quezon 1st district, Quezon 2nd district, Quezon 3rd district, Quezon 4th district, Quezon City 1st district, Quezon City 2nd district, Quezon City 3rd district, Quezon City 4th district, Quezon City 5th district, Quezon City 6th district, Quirino lone district, Rizal 1st district, Rizal 2nd district, Romblon lone district, Samar 1st district, Samar 2nd district, San Jose del Monte lone district, San Juan lone district, Santa Rosa lone district, Sarangani lone district, Siquijor lone district, Sorsogon 1st district, Sorsogon 2nd district, South Cotabato 1st district, South Cotabato 2nd district, Southern Leyte 1st district, Southern Leyte 2nd district, Sultan Kudarat 1st district, Sultan Kudarat 2nd district, Sulu 1st district, Sulu 2nd district, Surigao del Norte 1st district, Surigao del Norte 2nd district, Surigao del Sur 1st district, Surigao del Sur 2nd district, Taguig–Pateros 1st district, Taguig–Pateros 2nd district, Tarlac 1st district, Tarlac 2nd district, Tarlac 3rd district, Tawi-Tawi lone district, Valenzuela 1st district, Valenzuela 2nd district, Zambales 1st district, Zambales 2nd district, Zamboanga City 1st district, Zamboanga City 2nd district, Zamboanga del Norte 1st district, Zamboanga del Norte 2nd district, Zamboanga del Norte 3rd district, Zamboanga del Sur 1st district, Zamboanga del Sur 2nd district, Zamboanga Sibugay 1st district, Zamboanga Sibugay 2nd district

If you noticed, only the lone districts have articles on WP. The provincial ordinal districts are all missing. It's like if this were a list of provinces, only the provinces of Luzon would have individual articles and those of the Visayas and Mindanao would have their provinces grouped only under their regional articles. IMO, all legislative districts are important and equally notable, as one of the 200+ congressmen that represent those districts holds the fourth highest position in the country, the speakership. Plus, each district is composed of at least 250,000 constituents or one entire province at least. They are bigger than most of your 146 cities and 1,488 municipalities, each of which we have individual articles. They are certainly more important than your barangays hehe.--RioHondo (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the reason why there are no articles for many of the provincial districts is that there is not much data or info that merits its own article especially for those far flung districts in the provinces. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This was just stated earlier this year, so not all districts are made yet. All national legislatures have list of members for all districts, only the political parties are missing. The legislative districts articles have all congressmen, we'd just be converting those to the new format. Also the provincial districts have long histories it's too tiring to work on those, as compared to the Metro Manila ones which are mostly created just in 1987 so it's easier to create those (for example, Quezon City's 6th congressional district just had one congressman since 2013. We'd have a new one by 2022.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Legislative districts naming convention

Related topic, each legislative district have thier own Wikidata item and used these for their corresponding representatives. d:Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Philippines/data/Q678545/18th --Bluemask (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Great. Now all we have to do is to redirect them once all these individual articles are in place. Just one observation. "Nth legislative district of X" is a mouthful. Is that how they are officially called? I like how US congressional districts and French constituencies are named, just "X nth district/constituency", i guess following WP:Concise and WP:Precise. I believe those are also their common names, it's just Quezon City 2nd district, sans legislative.--RioHondo (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I’d prefer similar to what US versions are called. It can be “X’s nth legislative district” since there are also other types of districts like for engineering districts, etc. For lone districts, it can be “X’s lone legislative district”. In a sample copy of the law making Iligan as a lone district, it does attach the word “legislative”.— Emperork (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I actually based those article titles from the official congress dot gov dot ph website itself. Take a look at the profiles of each member representative here, except i removed the comma and the unnecessary "City" suffix attached to the LGUs to follow WP:MOSPHIL. And also based on past readings and from watching the news over the years, i probably never heard anyone referred to their district as a "legislative district" but just 1st, 2nd, 3rd district, etc. It's always Pampanga 2nd district Rep. Gloria Arroyo or Albay 1st district representative Edcel Lagman. And "legislative" is very rarely heard. So that's also following WP:COMMONNAME? I guess that's because we have no other electoral districts here other than these legislative districts, unlike in the US where they have state legislative districts and senate districts so the "congressional" is a necessary disambiguation. I know also in the Philippines, many are even more familiar with the colloquial "congressional district" and use it instead of the formaI legislative district. Im not sure about the notability of engineering districts, but like water districts or police districts, i believe they are also never referred to as districts alone unlike the districts in our LGUs which based on common usage in the media have the congressional districts as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? But let's see.--RioHondo (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
For the naming convention, please take into consideration the districts for Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Panlungsod. Some are not coextensive with the legislative districts. --Bluemask (talk)
You mean there are other electoral districts in the Philippines? Haha, i didnt know that. Thanks for pointing that out, and from the looks of it, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Panlungsod are also technically "legislative districts" so we got it all wrong from the start! The legislative districts articles should have been named congressional districts and legislative districts should have linked to both congressional and provincial legislative districts. That's messed up lol.--RioHondo (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Legislative districts as disambiguation pages

So, apparently there are other legislative districts out there, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial legislative districts) and Sangguniang Panlungsod (city legislative districts) which means the House of Representatives districts would have to be diverted somewhere else to give way to all these lists of the different legislative districts in an LGU. For example, the Legislative districts of Zambales would have to be converted into a sort of disambiguation page with links that are listed per type: 1) Congressional districts and 2) Provincial legislative districts or SP districts. Which means we have to create the Zambales 1st congressional district and Zambales 2nd congressional district. Under provincial legislative districts, there's the Zambales 1st provincial legislative district, Zambales 2nd provincial legislative district and Zambales 3rd provincial legislative district. The same goes for legislative districts of cities. The Legislative district of Olongapo would have to be moved to Legislative districts of Olongapo to cover 1) the sole Olongapo congressional district and 2) the 10 city legislative districts or Sangguniang Panlungsod districts in Olongapo. I hope we get it right this time.--RioHondo (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the existing legislative districts in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are contiguous to the existing congressional districts in the House except for these mentioned here. Also, just to clarify, Olongapo doesn't have "10 city legislative districts" but instead it has an "at-large" city legislative district which entitles them to 10 city councilors. Here in Cebu City, we have two city legislative districts (north and south as well call it) which is contiguous to the existing congressional districts in the House and have 8 city councilors for each city legislative districts with a total of 16. — Emperork (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There you go. I am learning all of this for the first time (i was raised abroad), so thank you for those pointers. It doesn't help that the articles are silent on this on a provincial and city level. The creation of individual congressional districts articles and expansion of the existing legislative districts articles to include these provincial board districts and city council districts will certainly be a big help in raising public awareness. I just need to find a good generic format or template to use for all these congressional districts, as well as an appropriate infobox. I'm looking at Ain's 1st constituency and Jonquière (electoral district) as examples of what we can use for our districts (U.S. congressional districts articles are too long and complicated). This hasnt been done here before.--RioHondo (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Going back to the main topic

My POV is to merge all the legislative articles of cities (most esp. those of component cities) to their mother articles like "Legislative districts of x." It might seem not in the Wikipedian POV, but let's face it: maintenance of many more articles will be very hard. Many of Philippines-related articles are being outdated, with fewer edits (sometimes done by vandals). The more articles, the greater the chances of having numerous, unmaintained or lesser maintained Philippines-related articles. Besides, I can notice the inactivity of many Filipino Wikipedians. I admit I might have some occasions in which I'm inactive. So, I agree with @HueMan1:, for such articles to be merged.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My assertion of lesser activity is supported by my monitoring of the topic I started - question about some inconsistencies of the Philippine highway network, and yet only User:HueMan1 and User:Mark Jhomel commented. I presume the topic is now archived with very few responses.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO. These are low maintenance articles like a come and go, create the articles and leave. Then come back after 3 years when election results are out, and leave again. :) What about the Philippine highway network that's inconsistent? I believe i created that article with no problem, that was a come and go thing for me too lol. Afaik, these aren't like your LGU articles or even controversial BLPs that attract the most vandals. Like the other PH politics related articles on my watchlist, i only see increased activities in them only on election years, i think. With regards to merging those new lone districts back to their provinces, i doubt the community will allow it. They are all notable topics, and its better we keep them separated so we can document their individual developments, and see their growth 10-20 years down the line. It also helps us to keep track of how many congressional districts (and district reps.) there are already, cos the way they are bundled per province don't give us no clue, and there's even provincial and city legislative districts that even I have not heard about. Like most people i guess, i only turn to wikipedia for questions on contemporary politics, the lack of articles on representation on the national and local legislatures is imo kind of disturbing.--RioHondo (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Congressional district sample article/template

I created a draft of what I want to see in each congressional district article. See Draft:Iloilo's 2nd congressional district, Draft:Cebu's 1st congressional district and Draft:Manila's 1st congressional district. Please feel free to fine tune it or add whatever you think is important to the district. But those are the basic information that i hope to replicate with all the other districts. The sources i used works for all districts.--RioHondo (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I've went thru the draft articles, I'd go with naming it as Cebu's 1st congressional district and the like same with HTD's suggestion. With the historic representation part, let's start with the 1st Legislature to the current Congress order. — Emperork (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
On the historic representation section, im still trying to figure out how best to present it following HTD's earlier attempt there for Abra. This might take time as i am still trying to wrap my head around all these historical legislatures, bicameral or unicameral, and especially historical constituencies. Where can you view which cities/municipalities formed part of a certain district in a given period? Like for Cebu 1st congressional district, how did we arrive with these municipalities: Bogo, Borbon, Carmen, Catmon, Danao (became city 1961), Pilar, San Francisco, Tabogon, Tudela, Poro (re-established 1909), and Sogod (re-established 1920) for the period 1907–1972? And its current composition dating back to 1987, is this sourced from a website or from a text in a republic act? Haha theres actually more questions than answers now that ive seen HTD's old version.--RioHondo (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Cebu's redistricting was a special case. Cebu has had multiple seats in Congress for the longest time. Previously, the numbering was counter-clockwise starting from Cebu City (those northeast to it is Cebu-1st). In 1987, it was change to clockwise, so those to the southwest of Cebu City is Cebu-1st. That was messed up since they gerrymandered the districts so starting 2019, it's not as simple that anymore. Other provinces/cities added districts when the population grew. The examples from U.S. districts do a good job in denoting this I suggest following that. The version that I did could use more refining, but it should be better than the current setup. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
In Cebu, here’s how it was pre 1987:
  • the current 1st cebu district was the 3rd cebu district
  • the current 2nd cebu district was the 4th cebu district (and some in 5th)
  • the current 3rd cebu district was the 6th cebu district (and some in 7th)
  • the current 4th cebu district was the 1st cebu district (and some in 7th)
  • the current 5th cebu district was the 1st cebu district (and some in 2nd)
  • the current 6th cebu district was the 2nd cebu district
  • the current 7th cebu district was the 5th cebu district
  • cebu city, prior to getting its own charter & 2 districts, was part of the 2nd cebu district

There were some towns which belonged to other former districts. I’m also trying to find a document which laid out the legislative districting pre 1987 but I can’t seem to find it. Unlike in the 1987 constitution ordinance which explicitly mentioned which towns form a specific district. — Emperork (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Good news. I think i cracked the code on how the historical representation section could be presented more clearly, following the earlier draft for Abra. My only problem is sourcing, particularly the political party field for each representative. Anyone who has access to this information, please help by sharing your sources in the drafts I created below:
I also included the boundary changes in the same table but a separate section tackling this may still be created. I just worked on the information available here. Feel free to edit those drafts to include other information, and most importantly sources. All 248 articles are doable, except the political party info is a real drag lol.--RioHondo (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Some comments:
  • Are we using their birth names, or their WP:NC names? I suggest the latter, and use pipelinks solely for disambiguation purposes.
  • The format should be flexible enough in times when the seat is vacated. Which brings me to...
  • The textual notes should be bulleted instead of being boldfaced and italicized at the same time.
  • A separate elections column may be added. For 2010 elections onward, Wikipedia has actual results that you can link to. All special elections starting from 1994 are also available.
  • I suggest completing the dates the term started and ended. The start of terms are unclear though. Did it start at the consitutionally-set term (June 30, starting 1987), or when they swore in their oaths in plenary (4th Saturday of July, starting 1987)? For congressmen who are not elected in the general election, it's always the latter, but how about for those who won the general election?
    • Digging through the the roaster of congressmen, Florencio Vargas, served in the 13th and 14th Congress. Vargas won in 2010 to serve in the 15th Congress, and died on July 22, 2010, after June 30, but before they were sworn in on July 26. It seems that Congress didn't consider Vargas having served in the 15th Congress despite living through until June 30.
  • Dominador Gómez did not sit on the entire 1st Philippine Legislature. Gomez the general election, was prevented from taking his seat by Osmena, the Assembly then vacated the seat (aka "dropped from the rolls"), said he won't contest the decision, ran in the special election, won said special election, then resigned his rights to the seat, triggering a second special election. Details are at 1908 Manila's 1st legislative district special elections. The roster of legislators did show him serving from 1907 to 1908. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, apparently the person who won the second special election (Gomez ran for another position in the 2nd special election), Justo Lukban, won in the 1909 general election, then resigned in 1911 after Gomez protested the election result. So for this seat, it should've started as:
    • 1907-08: Gomez
    • 1908-09: Lukban
    • 1909-11: Gomez
    • 1911-12: Lukban
  • And not just Gomez from 1907 to 1912. Who would've thought early 20th century Philippine politics is as good as the current one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This list though didn't mention a third special election, just that Gomez unseated Lukban via an election protest. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, using Quezon City-6th:

# Name Election Term of office Party Legislature
Redistricted from Quezon City's 2nd legislative district.
1 Kit Belmonte 2013 June 30, 2013–June 30, 2016 Liberal 16th Congress
2016 June 30, 2016–June 30, 2019 17th Congress
2019 June 30, 2019–present 18th Congress

This ensures the number is always included, and is immediately followed by the name. Most political lists always have the name included either in the first column or closest to it. (See Alabama's 1st congressional district).

  • Ooh, i won't go into the numbering of representatives cos that will crash the whole system hehe. You mentioned Gomez and Lucban as potentially sharing the first term for Manila's 2nd district representation up there and thereby potentially making Lucban as the no. 2 representative. Who knows what other surprises there are in the other districts, so IMO its order by congress number starting with the 1st legislature as recommended by Emperork is more safe and stable. It also makes it easy to insert other members sharing others members terms in office. I use the WP names of representatives for those that do have articles here, otherwise I just go with the names written in those legislative articles. As for election columns, most constituency articles ive seen has this as a separate section as it could crowd the table too much. The terms of reps are exact copies of those in the legislative articles too. Using years in general is safer and makes the least errors, IMO. Ill see what else i can do. In the mean time, i came up with three more drafts. I think im getting the hang of this hehe.
Thanks for your comments.--RioHondo (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
What's with the aversion with numbering representatives? The new ones will only have one, and the old ones won't go into 20. Adding a newly discovered congressman will only have you make minor edits.
Safe and stable? Readers may think it refers to the order of representatives, and not legislatures. I'd say this is feasible if there's a new congressman every election, always, and the numbering doesn't reset if there's a new constitution (e.g. U.S. Congresses are supposed to be 116th now).
Congressmen are inherently notable. I had to fight off an AFD last year on an assemblyman from early 20th century because 21st century internet sources do not exist. These should be named as per WP:NC so we don't have to be editing this once these people start getting articles. (This argument on laziness is actually a better argument than skipping a number column because of laziness!)
District articles elsewhere (the US and UK ones) link election articles in tables. It's a good idea to include these. You can also emphasize a special election happened in the table using "2011 special" instead of just "2011". Our politics-related lists also include elections. This also resolves the ambiguity of congressmen winning the election but died before being sworn in plenary (there's two of them in history).
On an argument on laziness on years, I'm okay with that, as district articles elsewhere do just this. I figured it would be better for the reader if the full dates are included. I also want all politics-related lists (from the list of presidents down to mayors) have consistent table headers, so that's why I'm pushing for the inclusion of columns for numbers and elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I do see that numbering of the position holders similar to lists of Governors (like Governor of Bulacan, Governor of Samar, Governor of Iloilo) and Mayors (Mayor of Manila, Mayor of Baguio, Mayor of Bacolod) are common in political list articles. I see no problem basing the representation on the representative of the said district rather than by legislature number as suggested by HTD. My point re: arranging it from 1st legislature to the current was that in the current district articles that we have, it was displayed as 1987 to present then 1907 to pre-1987. What do you mean though RioHondo that numbering representatives "will crash the whole system"? Or is this an idiom.
Re: proposed template of Howard the Duck, I would suggest putting the party and party color beside the name of the representative. Also, about the start and end dates of the term, as long as there is sufficient source, then that can be added. — Emperork (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not we have numbers, it should still always be in chronological order. If you're not adding a number column, don't add anything that masquerades as one. I'd rather add put the name as the first column if the number column would be ditched.
I'm okay with switching the "Term" and and political party column. Other setups have the party color separate from the party name. If that's the case, it can be added before either the "Name" or "Election" column. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I tried to decipher what grandpa HTD meant with his latest proposals up there. ;) Let's hope we get it right. See updated version of Draft:Manila's 1st congressional district. Hopefully this will be my last reformat as this thing is already ruining my mandatory quarantine leave teehee! I moved the political party column towards the right as i dont see how it is more important than the other info, given the crazy way they operate in PH, with the rampant party switching and all that, unlike in the US. It is my opinion too that the terms of office are second in importance to the actual names of representatives. This takes time but i am learning a lot in the process. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I like this better, and I now recognize the terms of office merged into one column, but I won't push for that at the moment.
AFAIK, there wasn't a 3rd National Assembly; the 2nd Assembly was followed by the 1st Commonwealth Congress. The 2nd Commonwealth Congress co-opted itself to become the 1st Congress.
I'd leave the details of the redistricting to the "Legislative districts of x" article, and would rather link to the actual district articles than the LGUs (this can be lengthy for some reapportionments). I'd also be wary with using "Constituency" as it is British English, and use "District" instead.
I'd also recommend using the material on the Congress website instead of copy-pasting what's in Wikipedia. There are some removals in office that may be missing in the Wikipedia's list. Howard the Duck (talk)
I have already made the label corrections for the commonwealth congress. Thanks. The legislative districts articles have to be rectified too as those that i have worked on consistently mention a "3rd national assembly" in lieu of the 1st commonwealth. As for the word constituency, that is the default description in Template:Infobox constituency that im using, as there is none other available for use in our electoral districts. I thought the word was used in Philippine English too, especially the term constituents to mean the LGUs and their voters in a given district. And district is ambiguous as already mentioned, so constituency is used for precision. Electoral districts in other countries have their own customized infoboxes, but that is something i am still not familiar with so we leave it at that, for now. I have been relying more on the congress website and other online govt documents like official gazette, etc for info on these reps. I realized the terms of office for most of these officials in the congress website and elsewhere follow the dates of their oath taking or start of congress period and not what's prescribed in the laws. From 1907 to 1916, the law states that the terms of office begin on the 16th october following an election as per phil commission act signed by governor general following the 1902 Organic Act. From 1916 to 1935, following passage of Jones Law, the terms of reps began on the date of their election. From 1935 to 1973 following the tydings mcduffie act, the terms of reps began on the 30th december following an election. And of course 1987 to present begins on the 30th june. So unless the congress website mentions a special election or resignation/death for a representative, i try to stick to the above prescribed dates for their terms of office. Anyway, I think a task force here would help speed things up as the political party info for each rep remains a drag. But it's good we have already more or less agreed on the template and table to use. More drafts created below.--RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd say to just say "Manila-1st was redistricted to Manila-2nd" when it lost constituents instead of listing every LGU it lost constituents from. "Constituency" in Philippine and US English mainly refers to people, and is not primarily restricted to electoral districts, such as "the constituents of the Iloilo governor". In British English "constituents" is the word used instead of "electoral district", such as the "constituency of the Isle of Wight" ("the constituency of Manila-2nd" doesn't sound right in PhE, but "the constituents of Manila-2nd" is).
I think the "3rd National Assembly" refers to the National Assembly of the Second Philippine Republic, but I may be wrong. In this legislature, each district had two seats, and we can perhaps use the format that is used in U.S. districts that I used with Abra (a section for periods when the district was represented with one seat, then another when there were two or more).
As for the infobox, the elections Wikiproject probably has to make a single infobox for electoral district articles, just as what was did with infobox settlement. I dunno if we can use the UK or US infobox, but I'd rather use the latter.
As for parties, I guess we can leave this blank if we can't find any information on this. We'd rather have something than be bogged down by this. For a task force, if there are just 2 people, one can start in Abra, then the other can start in Zamboanga Sibugay then work until they meet up in the middle. If there are more than 2 people, perhaps each one can work in a specific region. A specific format should be agreed upon (such as "do we list each and every LGU when it is redistricted? Do we use full dates, or just years? What do we do if a district has more than one seat?) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We can make do of what is currently available to us. Anyway, these cosmetic changes can just be applied later on including our own infobox design that says congressional district and not constituency. I dont think the US congressional districts infobox applies to us, as apart from the information that pertains exclusively to US (ethnicity, median income, cook pvi, etc), we dont want our articles to be categorized under them or for them to be alerted of these articles. Again, i only followed the existing legislative districts articles in actually listing down the LGUS that got redistricted or LGUs that were lost/added to each district. As these articles are supposed to replace the existing lists, i had to include all these information. As for districts that were re-created as multi-member at large districts (and this applies to lone districts only, like Abra), i suggest integrating them to the same table so as not to interrupt the chronological order, but using letters instead in the first column like those in at-large US districts articles. Full dates using the prescribed terms of office unless specified in cong website. I created an example for Abra below to be included in the same table after the 2nd National Assembly reps.--RioHondo (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We can create a new PH electoral district infobox, without the demographic information. It'll be basically be like the Constituency infobox (probably use that as a wrapper?) but uses Philippine English?
"Numbering" multi-seat districts this way screws up, well, numbering. We can ditch the numbers outright or number these as if these are single-seat districts. Showing them one after the other won't cut it, because it implies that they didn't serve concurrently. On two examples that are frequently used (see Westminster (UK Parliament constituency) and Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district, also I haven't checked but I remember the European Parliament districts as well), multiple seat districts are presented side-by-side. (See also the presentation I did for provincial board districts.) The Pennsylvania article splits into sections when the district had one or multiple seats. I'd suggest that's the best foot forward here. An exception can be for the Interim Batasang Pambansa districts as those can be presented one after the other as those are almost certainly more than 2 seats per district, and only the Interim Batasang Pambansa that had this setup of more than 2 seats in a district. Having two or more sections doesn't interrupt the chronological order, unless we'd follow what is done to the current set-up which is more confusing than this one.
Also, I also see instances of the "3rd National Assembly" during the Commonwealth period, and this is all the more reason we should not follow or even base the new articles on the current articles as it stands. The LGU's distract from the chronological order (instead of showing just one list, you'd be presented with at least two!). This can be added to the main legislative districts of Foo article. We'd just say it was "Redistricted to the 2nd district of Foo", for example. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I will leave the at-large district configuration to you, but take note that this is also how it is presented in the roster of legislators in congress website. Maybe it is better to create a separate article for the at-large districts with its own format? TBH, having two separate sections dicussing two different entities is confusing, at least for me as we are dealing with different instances of districts being converted into multi-seat districts in their representation history. Taking them out of their chronologies complicates it even more. And besides, all the congressional districts mention them being dissolved into those districts with no information on them so those at-large district articles can fill those gaps in their histories with individual links to their at-large district. You can give the PH electoral district infobox a shot, let me know how it goes for you.--RioHondo (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer all congressmen who represented the 1st district of Manila, in that name, whether or not it represented Santa Ana, or if it had 1 or more members, in one article. It's not two entities. It's the same "1st district of Manila" that we're talking about (The governors of Samar pre-division were still governors of Samar, for example). We have several FLs where it is still chronological, but is divided into 2 or more sections. This is not rocket science, as long as section prose is at a bare minimum, or if the redistricting is presented in another article or section. Your example below is having multiple sections all but in name, as it interrupts the list with a header that encompasses an entire row.
This is quite similar to repeating the section headers when the legislature reorganizes itself (PL->NA->CC->C->BP->P). This interrupts the flow akin to making a separate section. I would've preferred labeling it as "1st Legislature, 2nd Legislature..., 1st National Assembly..., 1st Commonwealth Congress, 2nd Commonwealth Congress/1st Congress, etc." instead of just "Philippine Legislature: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. National Assembly: 1st, 2nd, etc." Howard the Duck (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a question to this, though: if an LGU was split into two districts, but then its representation turns an at-large representation for the entire LGU, how should that be presented (theoretical example is if Abra was split into two, then for a time, was represented as an at-large multi-member district)? US usage puts the at-large representation to a separate "at-large district" article. I would personally say to put the "at-large" representation into the first district article on its own section as it has multiple members, the same way we'd be merging the lone districts and the 1st district congressmen in one article, but that's just me. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Umm, English please? Lol i don't know what you are saying anymore. Do you mean that because Santa Ana, Manila was represented as part of a multi-seat district for the whole of Region IV in the Interim BP, that whichever district it is in, say Manila's 1st, should also list its representatives? All 19 of them from all over Metro Manila which was Region IV at the time? How is the Manila 1st district past or present be in any way connected to those at large districts that are basically like senatorial districts in size already? Hehe.--RioHondo (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Santa Ana was a part of Manila-2nd from 1907-49, this is how the Manila-2nd article should look:
  • 1907-41: List of congressmen
  • 1943-44: Redistricted to Manila at-large
  • 1945-49: List of congressmen
  • 1949: Redistricted to Manila-3rd and 4th
  • 1949-72: List of congressmen
  • 1981: Redistricted to Manila at-large, then to Region IV
  • 1987-present: List of congressmen
By 1949, Manila-2nd should not have included congressmen who are representing the Santa Ana area. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if its the virus (i hope not lol) but im finding it hard to follow your line of argument right there. Who are these congressmen representing Santa Ana and vicinity that must be removed from the list? As far as i know, we are only dealing with every member here that represented a "Manila 2nd district" in the past regardless of territory. Or is it the labels or notes that must be removed or changed? Those are very short summaries or key points to explain their redistricting histories of where each constituent ended up in and how it arrived with its current territory. I have no time to create a section by section narration of their boundary changes so i find this approach to be most feasible especially if the aim is to come up with all 250. The way they do it in US congressional district articles is a separate column for district location/counties per representative which I may be able to introduce, but given the very few instances of boundary changes within a district for most articles, this approach might be impractical. But lets see. We should also keep the legislative period labels to a bare minimum, as the main highlights of this section are the representatives in various editions of congress.--RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess Santa Ana is a bad example as it never was included in the 1st district in any form. The point is if a congressman 1) represented the 1st district of Manila, 2) no matter where in Manila it represented, should be listed in an article about Manila's 1st district. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
No doubt about that, and as you can see we have not deviated from how it is presented in the congress website. It's the redistricting of LGUs that I think was problematic from the start, so i decided to just list the components per period in almost exact copy of US congressional tables. See updated version of Draft:Batangas's 1st congressional district. That's for everytime an LGU is added or removed and the changes in congress. I think that's the best solution and it also makes it easy to maintain the lists. Will be working on converting all these drafts to the new and FINAL (!! Lol) format in the coming days, and start migrating them in batches, 1 LGU at a time.--RioHondo (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: Why not have the individual district articles focus solely on the current fifth republic? And then use the current "merged" style to talk about pre-1987 districts? (In the future we can have further individual articles for the various pre-5th republic districts once everything is stable and we get more information and references.) I think this would make things easier to maintain. —seav (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That is actually the current setup in our legislative district articles. Most articles begin with 1987 to present representation. I believe the majority of these districts were also created in the 5th Republic. But as suggested by Emperork and HTD, the lists should be in a chronological order from 1st legislature down to the present, and include even a numbering scheme. This is also the approach in US districts. As i would like to keep things to a bare minimum to be able to accomplish more, i opted this merged approach all throughout but lets see if this could be improved. I dont see the need to create historical districts articles, except for the multi-seat at-large districts of course which are not covered in all but the lone district articles. Their pre-1987 incarnations are still covered by their individual representation histories as they should be.--RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer congressmen from the Malolos Congress down to the current Congress, from each district, both extant and extinct to have individual articles. The presidency of the Philippines did not just start in 1986, neither did Congress. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Well for example, looking at France (since the US and UK have had stable legislatures spanning multiple centuries), it has had departments (roughly equivalent to our provinces) since 1790 (most were created during the French Revolution). And these departments have elected representatives to their lower house (currently the National Assembly) for most of the republican history of France. Yet their individual constituency articles only show the history since the start of the 5th Republic in 1958 (see Ain's 1st constituency for an example, also the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia). For their other historical constituencies, so far there are no detailed information, only summaries (see National Assembly (French Fourth Republic)). Even their aggregated/merged article for all of the constituencies of the department of Ain in the French Wikipedia only starts in 1958 too: fr:Liste des circonscriptions législatives de l'Ain. —seav (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, as HTD said, the Philippine presidency did not start with Corazon Aquino ;). Speaking of Malolos Congress, those delegados or diputados also represented at-large districts with i think two from each province. That's why I suggested creating at-large district articles to cover all these multi-member districts, from the Malolos Congress, the National Assembly (2nd Republic), Interim Batasan and Regular Batasan. We dont need to split them into different articles, it's one at-large district article per province/city covering all these, just like were doing only one article for each numbered district covering all the different congress editions they were in.--RioHondo (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not okay with starting from 1987; that's even worse from the current setup where we start from 1987 to present, then is followed by 1907 (or the earliest) up to 1971. I'd be okay with skipping the political parties if they cannot be found, but cells have to be left blank for these for later edits. I'm okay with creating separate articles for at-large districts that encompass entire regions/provinces. I'm not sure if there were at-large representations for individual districts though (such as how it's being done for local legislatures).
I'm mostly fine with the current proposal, just that adding individual LGUs to the table distracts to the information of a list of congressmen, when a simpler "Redistricted to "the 2nd congressional district of Manila" shall suffice. For example, in Draft:Manila's 2nd congressional district, the table is interrupted multiple times by rows of 2 or more line breaks when the district is created, dissolved, then re-created. The National Assembly of the Second Philippine Republic existed concurrently (in theory) with the Commonwealth Congresses, and is improper to say that its districts have been redistricted from the Commonwealth Congress; the Commonwealth Congress will argue that its districts were never redistricted at all. (This is analogous in saying that Jose P. Laurel didn't succeed Manuel L. Quezon to the presidency.) I'm thinking of another way to word this in a pithy manner where it can fit in one line break. As for other instances, it could have been presented as follows:
# Member Term of office Congress Party Electoral history
Start End
Manila's 2nd district for the House of Representatives of the Philippines
8 Hermenegildo Atienza May 25, 1946 December 30, 1949 1st Liberal Elected in 1946.
Redistricted to Manila's 3rd and 4th districts, and from Manila's 1st district.
9 Arsenio Lacson December 30, 1949 January 1, 1952 2nd Nacionalista Elected in 1949.
Resigned on election as mayor of Manila.
...
Redistricted to Region IV at-large parliamentary district, then to Manila's at-large parliamentary district.
Redistricted from Manila's at-large parliamentary district.
11 Jaime C. Lopez June 30, 1987 June 30, 1998 8th PDP–Laban Elected in 1987.
If this would be changed to the simpler one, I'd be helping in creating articles for each district. This is one of the failings of the current presentation where you'd be distracted with a list of LGUs first, then a table of congressmen, then we you get to the most current one, you'd see another section of "ooops, here are other congressmen you may have heard about)." I'd love the details for the redistricting, along with the laws/ordinances where it was based upon, be presented on the the general legislative districts articles.
For example, for legislatures in/that represented Manila, we'd have these articles:
Creation of the city council districts can be skipped for now, unless somebody wants to work on those.
For places that used to have one district, then was split into two or more (example: Cavite), The "lone district" congressmen should be at the "1st district" article, with subsequent districts starting with "Originally part of the "Cavite's 1st congressional district. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Do what you can and I can help with the constituent columns later. Im fine with using redistricted instead of re-created. But really, i am not used to not seeing which LGUs went to which representative so Im afraid i have to include them like the way it is beautifully presented in California's 2nd congressional district hehe. Please allow me to do this part. ;) Lets do the articles on a per province or LGU basis. As i already started with Manila, Cebu, Iloilo, Batangas and Pampanga, will focus on completing the rest of their districts. By the way, before we migrate any articles to the main space, we must first come up with this--> Congressional districts of the Philippines as separate article from this --> Legislative districts of the Philippines. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What's really not acceptable for me is that the constituent LGUs is not on its own column, and the cells it is sitting on doesn't correspond to the table headers. If it would be on its separate column like what is used in the California article, I would have no problem with that. If we'd be doing that, I'd suggest merging the "Term of office" columns as it would still wrap into two lines anyway while taking up a lot less space, and we won't have to use the wonky "Redistricted to/from, Constituency created/dissolved/re-created" when redistricting happens. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops, i have not updated the Manila draft articles. But you can see how i did it in Draft:Batangas's 1st congressional district, Draft:Pampanga's 1st congressional district, Draft:Cebu's 1st congressional district, Draft:Cebu's 2nd congressional district, Draft:Iloilo's 1st congressional district and Draft:Iloilo's 2nd congressional district.--RioHondo (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer that, but would rather split into one table/section instead of multiple sections/table, and remove "1935–1941" for the constituent LGUs, use "Constituent LGUs" instead of "Constituents", and for newly-created LGUs, use "since 1955" (or a footnote) so the almost-identical list won't have to be repeated. (This is one aspect that I liked in the current presentation.) Once the "Term of office" columns are merged into one we'd have more space for the constituent LGUs. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Multi-seat at-large district table format proposal

# Member Term of office National
Assembly 		Party Electoral history
Start End
Abra's at-large district for the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic)
A Quintín Paredes Jr. September 25, 1943 February 2, 1944 1st KALIBAPI Elected in 1943.
B Juan C. Brillantes
# Member Term of office Common
wealth
Congress 		Party Electoral history
Start End
Abra's lone district for the House of Representatives of the Philippines
5 Jesús Paredes June 9, 1945 May 25, 1946 1st Liberal Elected in 1941.

Updated congressional district drafts

Wait, hold on...

Before we jump into naming conventions and stuff, to name a few, what exactly is the definition of "equal" here? Aren't San Jose del Monte, Biñan, Calamba, and Santa Rosa (despite being an integral part of Bulacan and Laguna, respectively) represented separately from their parent provinces? Like the case of Dasmariñas back then until it was reverted by a republic act. Then why do congressional districts need separate articles for them? Let's put it this way: Provincial legislative districts (the current ones) is level 1, and then HUCs and ICCs (if there are any, haven't checked) with separate legislative districts are also level 1, so their subdivisions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd.. are level 2. But then there are component cities with separate legislative districts, doesn't that make it level 1 too? Yes it does, even if you like or not. So in a nutshell, provinces = HUCs and ICCs w/ separate legislative districts = component cities w/ separate legislative districts (1 = 1 = 1). Am I making any sense here? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. As HTD pointed out below, there are issues that have to be resolved here and i am only starting to familiarize myself with these districts. As for individual congressional district articles, why not if it helps to educate and get people like myself acquainted with those districts. Afaik, there are no levels for the constituencies in the House, and they're supposed to be of roughly equal population. I am trying to correct the perceptions here and give a full picture of the representation in Congress. We cant do that if we insist on the current setup where the districts remain hidden under each province while the single district cities and HUCs have their own. Even HTD is in agreement that the legislative districts articles are flawed and the only reason i started this discussion is because i needed clarity and guidance on how I can start building these district articles. Once i find the right template to use and the appropriate WP:AT from everyone's inputs, these articles will be coming out from their home quarantines. :) Are you questioning the notability of the districts? Or concerned about having too much to monitor? Lol. Don't worry, you dont have to if it doesnt interest you, like i dont even monitor what goes on in the millions of Pinoy entertainment articles, from the local celebrities to the shows and movies, they have their own fans doing the monitoring ;).--RioHondo (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Leaning support: Okay, you got me. So when do we start? I wanna make maps for these articles, does that sound good? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course, we will need all the help we can get to get these articles up and running before the much awaited 2022 national elections hehe. Thanks for volunteering, this is really a collaborative undertaking given the scope, that's 243 congressional districts all in all. With Santa Rosa and General Santos going to the polls this 2022, that makes it 245 total. But the good thing is there's already existing information here we can use, and even a few district maps that have already been created. Maybe you can follow through on those. I also noticed the district map design is somewhat different from the provincial and city locator maps we use (see: Draft:Cebu 1st congressional district so you can investigate that too. As i said below, we can only start mass production of articles once weve received everyone's inputs. Im waiting for good old Howard, Bluemask, Emperork and the rest to approve the draft or decide what other information to include in those articles. The naming convention hasnt been decided too.--RioHondo (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


I tried doing this in 2018 but no one was quarantined

See Abra's lone congressional district (You may have to see the history as it was redirected). Ideally there should be five types of legislative district articles, each district talking about one district only except for the last one:

Barangay council districts are coextensive to barangays and should probably be merged with the barangay articles. The individual provincial board articles (if existing) should have its per district lists sent to individual provincial board districts, then leave the ex officio members. The list for vice governors can be left there, merged to the governors list, or its own article.

As for legislative districts that are coextensive to a barangay/municipality/city, but is not independent of a province, the best solution is name it as Dasmarinas's lone congressional district, then redirect Cavite's 4th congressional district to that article. If a barangay gets its own district we'd call it as Barangay 176, Caloocan's long congressional district. (Caloocan's Barangay 176 is the most populous barangay, with 250k people).

Current legislative districts are hard to navigate with, disjointed and needs improvement. The current format has to go. If new articles are to be made, I strongly suggest on ditching the old format in favor of a new one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: question only in this case, will the traditional general/collective articles of "Legislative districts of x" (exempli gratia: Legislative districts of Bulacan and Legislative districts of Tarlac) be "annihilated" completely should the new format - based on what my school call specific, individual concepts (in this case, congressional district articles), be favored? You're saying they're hard to navigate, although I say they're much easier to maintain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Legislative districts of Bulacan will still exist, but not in its current form. Its list of congressmen will go to the individual congressional district articles. The current articles will be converted to a historical discussion of how the districts of Bulacan's representations to the national legislature and on its provincial legislature existed from the 1907 up to the present, and links to every congressional and provincial board district.
It is hard to navigate. Each individual Legislative districts of Cebu starts with Congress that started in 1987 (fair enough), then for every Congress thereafter. Pretty straightforward, until you get into the current one, where the section ends, then the next item, on the next section, starts at 1907(!) up to 1972. The current format is lacking that if you need to explain something, you'd have to use footnotes all the time, making navigation all the more difficult. A better presentation is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Haha. I was busy partying cos I knew the apocalypse was coming and we were all going to be isolated and confined to our computers for months ;) Anyway, I think i know now why i didn't learn about these other local legislative districts earlier. I used to ignore articles not written in English hehe. Can we not rename Sangguniang Panlalawigan to Provincial Board (Philippines) and Sangguniang Panlungsod to City Council (Philippines)? Just kidding. @HTD your expertise is needed here. Check out my drafts and see if I covered all the basics. I don't think I have enough resources to write about their individual histories, i only have those sources there and the rest were taken from the legislative districts articles themselves and a few election articles (only 2010 to 2019). The aim is to create a standard to be used for all articles, so that all 243 articles can be completed by just changing their fields. It sucks that Commelec does not have the total electorate figures per district except for cities, i had to compute them manually hehe. Let me know if you find other sources that can be used for all articles, or take a shot at those drafts. I will only start mass producing and moving them to main space once those drafts have been finalized. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There were RMs to have the general sanggunian articles moved to English and the individual sanggunians conform to whatever the general article is at but currently we're stuck in the current nomenclature. I'm actually okay with the current setup for naming for the most part save for the ghastly "Barangay councils in the Philippines".
COMELEC has data for 2010 elections up to the present time. Perhaps the local Wikimedia chapter can ask them to publish historical figures in their website if they can. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I tried asking COMELEC via Twitter for historical results from 1992 to 2007 but was referred to email statistics at comelec dot gov dot ph. That was last year and tried to follow up but still got no response. This was to help me in supplying necessary info for Cebu City local election results. I only managed to make 2001, 2004 and 2007 for election results before 2010 with online resources like web archive and Open Data Philippines. Re: naming of local legislative bodies as Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan, I'd say we keep it as it is. — Emperork (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
We can't just ask COMELEC; they should publish it. Publishing it ourselves won't cut WP:RS. Each individual legislature is in English (Abra Provincial Board, Manila City Council), while the local legislatures in general are in Tagalog (Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panglungsod, Sangguniang Bayan except for the aforementioned Barangay councils in the Philippines).
Old ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly and the upcoming Bangsamoro Parliament districts should also have articles too, like Basilan's 1st Bangsamoro Parliament district. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
COMELEC used to have election results up to 2004 in their 2015 website and up to 2001 in their 2010 website but mostly are just votes already of the winners and not including those who didn't made the cut. The historical election results section was shelved prior to the 2016 elections and they only had the 2016 and 2019 automated elections results available on the site. Should there be an effort to ask COMELEC to publish the historical election results online, I'd go for it. — Emperork (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
On Provincial boards of provinces, only 27/81 articles have been up so far. More work (and updating) needs to be done on this. I'll try to work on some of those which are available online. — Emperork (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I leave the historical pre-2010 election results to you experts. :) What's important is to get these articles off the ground even with just the bare essentials. We can also worry about renaming those Sangguniang articles to follow their common provincial board or city council usage later. For now, i have questions for you up there, and we can also discuss the naming convention cos there might be issues with using those possessive apostrophes particularly for LGU names ending in s. Some prefer Batangas's 4th congressional district or Dasmariñas's lone congressional district as you mentioned above while others would insist on Batangas' 4th congressional district and Dasmariñas' lone congressional district thereby potentially making this naming convention unstable.--RioHondo (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Be guided with MOS:POSS. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Samples are Illinois's 1st congressional district, Massachusetts's 1st congressional district and Texas's 1st congressional district — Emperork (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Copy that.--RioHondo (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Continuity of districts

I generally have no strong opinion regarding whether congressional districts should be grouped into one article per province/HUC or separated. However, I do have an ontological concern regarding talking about each district as if they are the same entity throughout Philippine history. To give an example, Cavite's 2nd district is currently Bacoor. But before 2010, the 2nd district encompassed a completely different set of Cavite LGUs. The danger therefore with splitting into individual articles is that you would mix together the history/timeline of how various Cavite LGUs have been represented. At least with the current solution (merged articles), you are able to tackle the history of redistricting in a holistic manner. Part of me thinks that if you want a split solution, you should also split across "redistricting" events except if there is a clear aim to maintain continuity (e.g., Cavite's 1st district has generally been the "same" location since 1987).

Anyway, as I said, I have no strong opinion because of this concern. I would prefer to just concentrate on documenting these in Wikidata where you can go really granular (you can have articles on individual district per congressional session) and then just link them to each other (follows/followed by) to establish continuity as needed. —seav (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We will include all those district's redistricting histories, and how their current district boundaries have changed from their previous components or districting schemes, just like how they do it in the U.S. (because we like giving U.S. examples lol. New York's 2nd congressional district and Florida's 5th congressional district). Okay, for a change, even Mexico (ex. Fourth Federal Electoral District of the Federal District and Third Federal Electoral District of Aguascalientes) Notice how all their original territories or constituents are not anymore components of their current districts. Some have even switched district numbers. Anyway, i am still working on the presentation of the boundary changes in the drafts and most importantly their sourcing. I wish there was a website where you can view all the boundary changes and redistricting years per district. But all i see are republic acts hehe. I guess i would just have to trust what's written on these articles as i have no time to check each R.A. citation lol.--RioHondo (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Are we waiting for more consensus? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Task Force Congressional Districts

Anyone interested in this PH Wikiproject to create articles for our 250 congressional districts as discussed above and below ;), please affix your signature below. Thanks!!--RioHondo (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: By the end of the 2-months long virus lockdown in PH, we have accomplished 105 articles. Not bad eh? But there's still 138 more to go! Thanks for you guys's participation here. And for updating the figures also.--RioHondo (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. RioHondo (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Jmsay (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Locator maps

Can I upload some prototype locator maps dedicated only for congressional districts and etc? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hueman, you are welcome to contribute district maps for all 243. You can also modify the few district maps available to your new prototype. Thank you! The district locator and province/city locator maps must be of the same design, like the maps used in French constituency articles (see for ex: Ain's 1st constituency). Also there are cities (particularly HUCs in Metro Manila) that have no locator maps showing their location within the country, only their location within the region, like Metro Manila/NCR. As these are districts for the entire PH congress, we should show those districts locations in the same country map. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@RioHondo: I'll be uploading some maps later. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 
Ph locator congress manila 1st

I have some suggestions, why don't we keep Seav and TheCoffee's locator map design/colours instead of this? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, i didnt see this. I like this design. Maybe you can even start redesigning all provincial locator maps as those are so old already and have been overused and abused even in other websites too (govt sites and media outlets that have been relying on WP info for the last decade and a half). Best time to build or rebuild is now while the whole world is under quarantine ;)--RioHondo (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, but at this point of time, when I'm already halfway there and I gave all my time and effort, I don't really know what to say. Maybe in the near future. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Which map are you referring to? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This one. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: I'm on it. This map has been sitting on my computer for a year or less now. Should I use the same style I used for Category:SVG labeled maps of the Congress of the Philippines? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest using whatever style, as long as we'd be consistent with it. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck and RioHondo: Should I make maps for territorial changes as well? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You can as some redistrictings were totally different from one Congress to another. Then these can be added to the individual articles just like US articles are. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Congressional districts of the Philippines

Hey Howard the Duck, Emperork and other interested Wikipedians, the main congressional districts article is now up. I have spent several days doing all those electorate, population and area numbers for each district to make it easy to transfer those data to their individual articles. Will be needing your help to integrate the article to the project, and the gradual completion of all 243 district articles. Anyway, we have 2 years before the next election cycle hehe. The drafts except for Manila are also already up on main space. Will take care of cosmetic changes later. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Last suggestion: I'd prefer using "lone district" for single-seat districts (will be added to the 1st district list if ever the district is split up). We can also add the defunct ones such as the Senate districts and Olongapo's district. If you have resource materials, you can list it also here so that other people can do the work. We'd have to make sure everyone's doing the exact same thing so we won't have to make mass edits if someone deviated from the norm. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please do attach the references. May also need help with the table formatting as well. Thanks for this! — Emperork (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And also, on where we can find their party affiliations. — Emperork (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Btw, I'm not sure if the template for the table has been finalized but I would like to suggest if we can put table headers (Member, Term of office, Congress, Party, etc.) in the bottom part of the table as well for easier navigation. — Emperork (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Re: lone vs. at-large. I thought they were one and the same thing. And we agreed to combine the two like you did for Abra. I was aiming to streamline the representation histories of each district so that we have only one article for the numbered districts in all the various congress editions they were in from 1907, and one article for the at-large districts in all the different congresses they were represented as a whole. We have to agree on the generic title for these districts (seeing as the definition of lone district is nowhere to be found here, and is only mentioned in the at-large article, i opted for the latter.) Unless we actually plan on having a separate article for Cavite's lone congressional district, the province's representation from 1907 to 1972, and another article for Cavite's at-large congressional district to cover the province's representation in Malolos Congress, National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) and Regular Batasang Pambansa? But you already did one article combining all those representation histories for Abra, and the use of at-large is basically just following the generic or default description for them in Wikipedia, as again the US congressional districts also use exclusively for lone, single and at-large state districts. So we need to decide. @Emperork, the party affiliations for each representative are mostly found at the 18th Congress of the Philippines article and some of the other historical congresses articles. For party affiliations of pre-war representatives, i relied on philippine commission reports and other documents from the US war department on google books. Those district articles already up on main space are their final versions, i just need to insert their area figures. As for table headers, those are placed at the beginning of each congress edition, as you can see there's like 4 for each district that was represented since 1907. Give it a try and ill help with the final layout to match our template.--RioHondo (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, lone and at-large representations should be in one article: If that place has been consistently represented by just one district, it can be a <Place>'s lone congressional district, and if has since been split into two or more districts, the list should be at <Place>'s 1st congressional district. I made the concession of these being discussed in another article as I understood that RioHondo doesn't want splitting into two or more subsections, as other articles where a specific place was represented by one, then by two or more people (and vice versa) presented it this way (such as UK constituencies). I haven't checked for many examples, but U.S. usage may have placed congressional lists of states that hadn't been divided into two or more districts under the at-large district e.g. Wyoming's at-large congressional district. I prefer "lone district" as this is the term that we are using as of now. I'm flexible with having separate "at-large" for multiple seat districts, and "lone districts" for single-seat districts, including for places that used to have just one district but has since been divided. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
So we are in agreement that lone and at-large mean basically the same thing. If lone is what at-large districts are commonly known now, can we say the same for the historical "lone districts"? Anyway, at this point, i dont want to be thinking of splitting articles that havent even been created LOL. Their common names can easily be mentioned in the articles lead or vice versa, the generic being used to describe the commonname. Will focus on creating numbered districts first. A number of these articles can be done by just moving the single-legislative district articles to the naming convention, and of course by introducing the new format.--RioHondo (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In the current presentation, "at-large" districts are just multi-member districts. Lone districts are basically numbered districts only that they represent the LGU at-large, and that they're at-large districts as how it is defined. I dunno if there ever were at-large representations for numbered districts. We should make a presentation on how this would be presented so that we won't make mass edits if someone raises a stink on this later on. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's a traw poll:

Hmm. Is splitting lone from at-large districts really necessary? TBH I am confused on where each representation would end up in if this were the case and we pursue an actual split. Going back to our example for Abra, will the at-large district only apply to the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) representation for the province which was composed of two seats? And the Malolos Congress and Regular Batasang Pambansa representations will be included in the lone district article? Take note that in the Malolos and Batasang Pambansa, Abra was represented at-large by only one member also. These are things that can easily be remedied by merging all at-large forms regardless of number of seats, IMO.--RioHondo (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Splitting lone and at-large lists are just an option. "Lone districts" are just how we call "at-large" districts here, if there were multiple seats involved. I don't know how single-member at-large districts were referred to in the old days. We can put these in a single article called "Abra's lone congressional district" but we may have to get creative in terms of presentation if there were multiple seats (hence I suggested using sections in instances that there were multiple seats, and when there was just one). Howard the Duck (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In the 1970 Philippine Constitutional Convention election, it was via districts at that time, and all districts were multi-member seats. This is not an election to Congress, but as you can see, "at-large" elections were also done per district. I'd rather not have separate articles for "at-large districts" that had multiple members, just separate sections on lone/numbered districts, still in chronological order as what I've originally suggested. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@RioHondo and Howard the Duck: side comment: wait should Batangas's 1st congressional district be at Batangas' 1st congressional district? Grammar - possessive case reason. Feel free to comment. _JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please be guided with MOS:POSS. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I created a page for this task (You can check it out here) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck, RioHondo, and HueMan1: Excerpt from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives "For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings)...Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital or St. Thomas Hospital, even for consistency.) Forcing to use Batangas's is not good in long term, and will cause further criticism to Wikipedia by many educators. I admit all of my English teachers are conservative and always discourage the use of "Philippine" claiming it is very wrong in the first place. However, to prevent further debate, I propose better suggestions: 1st Congressional District of Batangas or First Congressional District of Batangas, using magic words {{DEFAULTSORT:Batangas, 1st}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:Batangas, First}} when warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
If the article name is Batangas' Basketball Association, we'd keep the name as per MOS:POSS. If is a descriptive name like Batangas's 1st congressional district (take note that the entire article name is not a proper noun), we'd follow correct grammar as per MOS:POSS. See also other examples in that section for your perusal.
Numbered electoral districts are named this way. See for example, Texas's 1st congressional district. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments After having already created a few of these district articles, i came to realize we must come up with only one article for the at-large/lone districts each. It is not the number of seats that we are dealing with here, not the representation by how many individuals per se, but the contiguous and compact territories that are represented. And therefore, a territorial entity can have different leadership configurations, but it remains one single entity, which in this case, can only either be one entity for one province/city (lone or at-large), or the LGUs being splitted up into different territories (numbered district). Having said that, i am not in favor of merging the lone/at-large districts to the 1st district of provinces/cities because those are completely different territorial entities. For every numbered district, we must only include histories for that specific number in a province or city. The same should apply to lone/at-large districts. So the only question we need to settle here is what to call those province/city-wide districts. Because of the confusion with the term "lone" (to mean either an at-large district or a single-member district which brought us to this dilemma in the first place), i would choose accuracy over common name in this case. At-large districts dont just refer to lone or single-member districts, but districts that encompass an entire LGU territory. Other than that issue, I have seen some discrepancies on political party labels for representatives between those in the numbered congress articles and those election templates. As for Batangas's, that has already been discussed and resolved here. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Numbered districts are not always the same either, but the point is that they represented the people of the "1st district of Foo", whatever that may be. For at large districts, for the most part, it is always the same LGU as it existed, but not always. For the Rizal at-large's representation for the 2nd Republic, it had more LGUs as compared to its Interim Batasang Pambansa version, where the western LGUs were partitioned to form Metro Manila. This is because of this reasoning that I'm in favor of putting the at-large representations to the 1st district (if necessary), but I'm okay with having those separate.
As for political parties, politicians are known to switch parties both before an election, and after it, so for some cases, it will not be the same to what the party was during the election. I'd recommend on using the party that was last used before the politician left office. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@RioHondo: I just have a question for you if you don't mind, my draft for Ilocos Norte's 1st congressional district is taking forever to finish because I have no idea which party where the representatives were/are part of and how did their term lengths varied. Can you teach me how to speed up my progress with my draft (and these articles)? I am so disappointed with my draft honestly. Thank you in advance! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 19:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. Just focus on creating the district maps hehe. I take my time researching on the individual reps of each district, comparing documents from Phil Commission, War Dept, Commonwealth reports, and a few Congress pdfs also, both in English and Spanish for their party affiliations. You can start making all 243 maps so i can include them already as i try to finish the harder ones first (those that started all the way from 1st Legis). The rest will be easy, like maybe half of them that were created only after 1987. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the boldfaced text for the years on top of the LGUs redundant to the start/end terms columns? Can that be removed? It saves one extra line break. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Maps -- are you able to make a new national map to replace the one we've been using since 2010?

So I considered on making some easy to-do ones (those which are relatively new). I want to make sure we're doing all the same thing:

  • In Congressional districts of the Philippines, lone districts are called "at-large" districts. Is this what are we calling these as I prefer using the more popular term of "lone district".
  • Are we still having section titles inside tables? I think WP:MOS frowns on this, but I could be wrong.
  • Boldfaced years on "Constituent LGUs" column are redundant as explained above.
  • Are we using their birth names as piped links, or are we using whatever the article name is, excluding parenthetical disambiguators (i.e. Emmanuel D. Pacquiao vs. Manny Pacquiao)?
  • Are we wikilinking those who have articles as of now?
  • Are we italicizing non-English party names? See for example Asenso Manileño in Manila's 6th congressional district.

Howard the Duck (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So I created Quezon City's 1st congressional district, and I guess we should hardcode table widths as well. The list of barangays for QC districts can be lengthy. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Yo! Thanks for helping out, i say we stick to whatever has been made first and then lets see after we are done making all 243 whatever improvements can still be made. It's tough to introduce cosmetic changes to the table template now because we will lose our momentum hehe! Again, i use the article title to link to representatives that do have a wiki page. (Its more transparent and easier to recognize that way, i.e, noone knows Emmanuel D Pacquaio lol). But for the rest with no articles, i use the full names as they appear in the congress roster site. As for section titles, see Quezon's 1st congressional district to see how it works for Manuel Quezon hehe. And the years are exactly how they are presented in US cong district articles. Anyway, just continue ;) Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It's easier for us to stick with a template that we'd all be using so that we don't do mass edits later on. These are just 81 provincial articles; these are 243+ articles and it's not worth it to do minor edits on all 243+. We'd have to settle on a format. I do see the use of the boldfaced years though upon seeing it on US articles. We'd still need guidance on:
  • Wikilinking: I say wikilink all, and use the names as if they had Wikipedia articles already, and no pipelinking unless disambiguating.
  • Section titles: Looking at Quezon's 1st congressional district, I still think this is not MOS-compliant, and we could've presented the renaming better with "Elected in 1946; province named to "Quezon" in September 7, 1946.". (I don't think this is even necessary.) If we're using subsections, the table has to end and a new one has to start on the next section. I'll ask someone who knows the MOS if this is right.
  • Widths: We'd have to hardcode this into the template.
  • Boldfaced/italicized numbers: I think this is also not compliant with MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. I suggest using simply "1." and "(2.)".
  • Election results: U.S. articles present this chronologically. FWIW, MOS prefers chronological order.
  • 2nd Republic National Assembly: The districts that were existing at that time were not dissolved, it's just that there were 2 legislatures at this time (in the same way that there were 2 presidents). Saying that "District dissolved into the two-seat Tayabas's at-large district for the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic)." is incorrect.
Again, the reason why I'm nitpicking on these is that it's time confusing and wasteful to change all 243 articles on minor edits such as this one. We'd have to settle on something, then work from there. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I linked Manuel Quezon's page to the Tayabas's 1st district section of Quezon's 1st congressional district article to show how it can be useful. But i wont be bothered if eventually it will be replaced by a better approach. I am leaving the amendments open for when I find time to do major reformat, after im done with what i have been doing and gotten used to, of course. Feel free to introduce your amendments little by little and ill catch up with them later. Add: with regards to districts being dissolved into the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic), see Congress of the Philippines#Commonwealth and Second Republic era which reads "The invading Japanese set up the Second Philippine Republic and convened its own National Assembly. With the Japanese defeat in 1945, the Commonwealth and its Congress was restored." Again, i am only following whats written in our articles. My understanding is that the districts were restored and the 1943 constitution of the Japanese sponsored govt that created the at-large districts was repealed in 1945. If something was restored or re-created then it must have been abolished or dissolved first lol. Again, do what you think is helpful and will try to adjust later after weve weighed all the pros and cons.--RioHondo (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
So I'd just wait until everyone's ready so that we can sort out stuff. I can't be doing "A", when somebody else is doing "B", while you're doing "C". We all have to do the same thing.
In theory, the Commonwealth never went defunct, it just went on exile. There were two legislatures at that time, but only the 2nd Republic one was in the country and was making laws. The Commonwealth Congress, which was supposedly to meet in 1942, didn't meet until 1945, and its districts never went defunct. "Restored" refers to restoration in the Philippines. See 1st Congress of the Commonwealth of the Philippines to details on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
For guidance on lists where chronological order is an option, it is the only option as per WP:SALORDER. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It's funny how in that article you posted, it has an entire section that talks about a reestablishment of government and congress--> 1st Congress of the Commonwealth of the Philippines#Reestablishment of Commonwealth Government. I dont know what they teach you in the Philippines about this episode in history but to me, that article and all the other sources ive seen do suggest that there was indeed a temporary abolishment or dissolution of the Commonwealth govt and congress, replaced by the de facto 2nd Phil Republic and assembly through the ratification of a 1943 constitution and subsequent election. For how could there be two existing legislatures at that time when from going through the roster, prolly half of those that participated in the Commonwealth National Assembly also participated in the 2nd Phil Republic Assembly, for example José Laurel Jr. of Batangas, Quintín Paredes of Abra, Gil Montilla of Negros Occidental, Benigno Aquino Sr. of Tarlac, Tomas Dizon of Laguna, and others with no wikiarticles. Were Laurel and Aquino holding two offices or positions? They were commonwealth representatives elected in 1941 when govt was abolished, participated in 1943 assembly elections and won under the japanese sponsor govt, and returned in 1945 when their earlier position was restored in a reestablished Commonwealth govt. The fact that they participated in 1943 elections means the office they were elected to earlier in 1941 was no longer in existence, and they had bills to pay haha, even León Guinto, a cabinet secretary of the commonwealth president Quezon, joined this new government and also served as a member of the 1943 national assembly for Manila. What i can probably do is to insert the word de-facto in the articles to indicate that the districts were dissolved into those de-facto at-large districts for the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic).--RioHondo (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That article does explain that the Commonwealth Congress wasn't dissolved/abolished/became defunct/whatever word that is used to mean that it does not longer exist. The 1st Commonwealth Congress existed from 1941 to 1946. Saying electoral districts were dissolved is flat out wrong. The best explanation is that another legislature was in operation when Congress can't convene; saying it is abolished or similar wording to that is wrong. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Table styling

@RioHondo: Thank you for creating Cavite's at-large congressional district! But I noticed that you didn't apply boldfaces to subsections anymore. Was the initial application of this (boldface) for emphasis only? Should we ditch the rest? @Howard the Duck and Emperork: what are your opinions about this topic? One more thing, I added a container to the table a while ago as a provisional edit; maybe we should decrease the table's font size to 90% to save up some space? I just find it weird staring to a whitespace with "Seats eliminated" in the middle of it. Am I the only one who find it weird? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we're having sections already, I would've preferred to split the table per section (1 table:1 section), instead of the current setup where we have one table with multiple sections. This may be against WP:MOS, and a 1:1 ratio also makes for having multiple seats better presented without having adjusting for other time that it had one seat. See for example Delaware's at-large congressional district and Manchester (UK Parliament constituency); I prefer the British way of presenting it, which is I see which is how the Cavite district aimed for.
I'm also of the opinion that boldfacing and italicizing numbers in the "#" column is against WP:MOS. (See MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. The boldfacing and italicizing isn't readily explained. (I figured out what it meant though... maybe.) Howard the Duck (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Kansas's at-large congressional district and Alabama's at-large congressional district were my models for this table format. At least it's a big improvement from what we have been discussing and suggesting above lol. We can worry about MOS and other formatting issues later, right now im really just more concerned on getting these articles off the ground. Boldfaced #s in tables are common (see List of mayors of London, List of presidents of France, List of presidents of India). If you need to introduce changes, make sure to apply them to all articles created thus far. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There are 245 articles to do. I'd rather have to do it right for the first time, then make minor edits on all 243. That's wasteful usage of resources. This is not just 80 provinces. MOS is expected to be followed all the time, unless there's an especially good reason not to do so. Getting 243 articles off the ground disregarding MOS then fix these up later isn't exactly a good reason to do so. How can you simply edit these up? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Well now that you mentioned it, I'll do things my way. Those sections inside tables are especially hideous either way, MOS compliance be damned. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This brings to mind
This has bothered me for some time, though I have not been moved to spend much time trying to normalize things. I occasionally drop in here and make a comment about some particular point, but I'm not a regular working member of the project. I don't know whether advice and guidance on table formatting for articles under the purview of a WikiProject for articles on the Philippines exists or, if it does, where it might be found (this didn't help); it seems to me, though, that it ought to exist and ought not to be difficult to locate. Just a drive-by comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I would defer to whatever the universal MOS is, unless there's a good reason not to (such as using Philippine English, for example.
I don't know about you, but for numbering, we should number each person as a new entry. For example, Trump is the 44th person to be POTUS, but he is the 45th president, since Grover Cleveland had non-consecutive terms. I see Cabinet secretaries already do this.
The table style for Philippine cabinets are horrendous though, aside from almost certainly not conforming with the MOS. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not really an expert with table styling but maybe my feedback was that when I checked the Cavite's at-large congressional district article, I wasn't able to notice Seat C and Seat D until I saw a scrollbar at the bottom of the table. I also tried to preview by reducing the table font to 85% but still misses the Seat D column. — Emperork (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, didnt see this. Anyone else has the same problem of not being able to see all seat columns in those tables? Because it works fine in my mobile and laptop. Let me know how this can be improved or you can make the improvements directly. These articles are free for all to edit of course. So long as any change in one article is applied to all then we're good here.--RioHondo (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

For the people who first created these articles, can you guys create a custom infobox for Philippine usage, while still using {{Infobox constituency}}? I always screw up this part of the article, and it'll be great if we can at least have the same infobox for all 243 current distrits+all abolished districts. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Maybe we can add this to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force congressional districts? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Infobox constituency
|name = Foo's 1th congressional district
|parl_name = [[House of Representatives of the Philippines]]
|image = Ph locator foo foo.svg
|caption = Boundary of Foo's 1th congressional district in [[Foo]]
|image2 = Ph locator foo.svg
|caption2 = Location of Foo within the [[Philippines]]
|district_label = Province
|district = [[Foo]]
|region_label = Region
|region = [[Foo]]
|population = 0 (2015)<ref name="psa">{{cite web|url=http://rsso03.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Philippines%2520-%2520Population%2520of%2520Legislative%2520Districts%2520by%2520Region_Province_and%2520Selected%2520Highly%2520Urbanized%2520or%2520Component%2520City.xlsx |title=TABLE 1. Population of legislative districts by Region, Province, and selected Highly Urbanized/Component City : 2015 |publisher=[[Philippine Statistics Authority]] |accessdate=May 3, 2020}}</ref>
|electorate = 0 (2016)<ref name="comelec">{{cite web|url=https://www.comelec.gov.ph/php-tpls-attachments/2016NLE/Statistics/Philippine2016VotersProfile/Philippine_2016_Voter_Profile_by_Provinces_and_Cities_or_Municipalities_including_Districts.xlsx |title=Philippines 2016 Voters Profile |publisher=[[Commission on Elections (Philippines)]] |accessdate=May 3, 2020}}</ref>
|area = 0 km²
|towns = [[Foo|Foo]]
|year = 1900
|members_label = Representative
|members = [[Foo|Foo]]
|blank1_name = Political party
|blank1_info = {{Color box|{{party color|Foo}}|border=darkgray}} [[Foo|Foo]]
|blank2_name = Congressional bloc
|blank2_info = Majority
}}
You guys can make {{Infobox Philippine legislative districts}} wrapping {{Infobox constituency}} that can be used for senatorial, congressional, Bangsamoro, provincial board and city council districts.
@Howard the Duck: What should we add/remove to {{Infobox Philippine legislative districts}}? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Just use the {{Infobox constituency}} as a wrapper on the parameters that we are already using, and probably localize the terms (so instead of "Towns", use "LGUs". I was going to do this myself but Template:Infobox constituency/doc isn't very helpful. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Btw, @Howard the Duck and RioHondo: File:18th Congress of the Philippines party standings.png is now available in SVG. See File:Ph congress 18 party standings.svg. I'll be working on older congresses/legislatures soon. Cheers! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems that we still have an issue with mapping for Isabela. The southernmost district is supposed to be contiguous, with Echague not separating Dinapigue from the rest of the district. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: This is the closest we could get to the NAMRIA's hazard maps for Isabela. The local government of Isabela also uses a map similar to this one. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck, HueMan1, and RioHondo: the issue on mapping of congressional districts specifically for Isabela is tied to an old debate before. Maybe you (RTD) participated here before: Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Task_force_LGU#Isabela_province_mapping. I don't know what are the best, reliable references for such maps. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I presented a map at Talk:Isabela (province) that solves this, but is unofficial as it came from a blog. Looks legit, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I keep getting pinged in like every discussion here and in different talk pages. Again, talkers are boring. There should be a rule here that wont allow you to participate in project discussions if you have not created a single article in the last month. ;) peace! No idea how to customize infoboxes til now though. Will leave it to HueMan or whoever is into this article designs and maps.;)--RioHondo (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Philippines's 1st senatorial district

Comments before i proceed with the rest? Individual district maps would also be appreciated here. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: Done with all twelve. Please dont update the electorate and population figures in the main article Senatorial districts of the Philippines as those are historical entities, hence the use of historical figures right before they were abolished. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Communist Rebellion" should be moved to "NPA Rebellion"

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone. This is to flag that a foreigner has moved Communist rebellion in the Philippines to just "Communist rebellion," which is something that should probably be undone. But maybe I should take this opportunity to bring a question up with the community. I have previously suggested that the page should be at "CPP-NPA-NDF Rebellion" as discussed here, but I am now convinced it should actually be at NPA Rebellion. At the very least, it will make the page very specific; the vagueness of the title "Communist Rebellion" encourages wild moves like the one performed by the foreigner I just mentioned. On the other hand, I don't want to be the one to propose this move, and even if I were to be the one to do it, I don't want to do it without first consulting everyone in this group. I've learned my lesson from the last time I did that. So there. What does everyone think? - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Someone undid it already. But still, does anyone else think a move to "NPA rebellion" is a good idea? - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think NPA rebellion is a good name to describe the conflict between the communists and the government. It sounds like the NPA is leading the rebellion, when in fact it is the CPP that leads the army and the united front. The new title also reduces the importance of the NDFP (which I say is very important for their propaganda and peace negotiations with the government). I still prefer that the new title of the article should be Maoist rebellion in the Philippines, since they are the only active Maoist group operating in the country. While I am okay with Communist rebellion in the Philippines (1969–present), it's a bit too long IMO. Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this isn't helpful, but wow, this article is a naming headache. - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
In Tagalog language WP:RS, the NPA are either called "rebeldeng NPA" (NPA rebels), or "rebeldeng komunista" (communist rebels). In English it's the same thing, but "NPA rebels" is just called "NPA". The best solution is the current name Communist rebellion in the Philippines, as the original communist rebellion is conveniently at Hukbalahap Rebellion. If you talk about "communist rebellion in the Philippines" in 2020, 99 times out of 100 you'd be referring to the New People's Army. "Communist rebellion" may mean a ton of other things aside from the current rebellion of the NPA.
I also thought of calling it Maoist rebellion, but that's for political science-insider stuff and is not WP:NC-compliant. IMHO, that's technically the correct term to use here.
This was also at NPA–CPP–NDF rebellion and that article name as so bad I moved it to where it is now. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so it was named to something else, but I couldn't be bothered to look for it. That's how bad it was named before. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(Alert: "foreigner" comment) I agree with Howard the Duck. Although the CPP-NPA insurgency is not the only "Communist rebellion" in Philippine history, it is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for present-day readers, so adding "(1969–present)" would be unnecessary long-ish, and would also create the need for a dab page. –Austronesier (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Improving Template:Provinces of the Philippines image map

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The image map polygons in Template:Provinces of the Philippines image map has lots of "holes", especially for large complex marine waterbodies. These are evident when right-clicking on some of these polygons. Back then, I used Inkscape bucket tool to fill the raw PNG image province borders with colors to extract the polygons as SVG paths. The marine waterbodies were manually created.

Just a while back, I have converted the image map to SVG in an attempt to "fill" these holes using Inkscape. However, I am not very familiar with using Inkscape to fill these holes with ease. May I request other more capable editors to fill these holes? I will place the details and the SVG code in the template talk page if anyone is interested in fixing it. After these holes are filled, we shall convert the SVG back to wiki syntax.

Alternative solution might be to simply remove all waterbodies and Malaysia polygons, and retain only the province (including Metro Manila, Isabela City, Cotabato City, and Zamboanga City) polygons. Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with alternate solution. As per template title, this map is for provinces. Waterbodies and geographic features outside PH are irrelevant to this map. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential impacts of the new anti-terror law

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I want to ask people here: how are we affected by the new anti-terror law? Given that people are saying it can stifle free speech, do people here think our work might be imperiled by it? --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: I don't know that this changes things much for editors. Due to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, I'd say most editors should be very careful to protect their identities if they live in Philippines and write about anything contentious related to the country or its citizens. It's just another draconian law to worry about, but things were already very bad before its passage. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: Very sorry to double ping you, I just wanted to inform you that I discovered that my response to you made no sense at all because Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was so out of date and included intentional seven year old fake news about how the Department of Justice was going to drop cyberlibel. I assumed wrongly that the article was correct due to that beautiful infobox. Clearly it hadn't gotten any TLC in a while, I've rectified that. Please see Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 § Cyberlibel. Also, I hope that you don't mind that I as a foreigner comment here and write about your country, I speak Tagalog (run a blog about it actually...) and lived in Philippines for six years. Unfortunately had to leave due to a cyber libel case, ( ) so this issue is close to my heart, but I of course know the rules of Wikipedia and didn't push any POV in my update. (Or so I hope, feel free to review.) I also hope you don't think I'm being too dismissive, it's just, when people can already go to jail for journalism, or calling the president "crazy", I don't know that things can get much worse. I do agree that this new law is an abridgment of freedom, and would love to write about it if I find the time. Other articles I'm planning to write (or rewrite) are mostly in the theme of Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center: Quezon City Jail, Special Intensive Care Area and Metro Manila District Jail are high on my priority list, as is seeing if I can get New Bilibid Prison up to WP:GA. Salamat po kayo sa pagbabasa ang aking mahabang at "rambling" mensahe. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I also just created Disini v. Secretary of Justice as there's more than enough sources for it, and if this were an American case of this level of importance it would have had an article in 2014. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: The double-tagging is fine — the Cybercrime Prevention Act's passage has worried me greatly and continues to do so, and it should worry anyone who has extensive dealings with the Philippines, whether they may be Filipino or a foreigner. (I was the one who wrote the legal provisions section for that article, by the way. The law's universal jurisdiction provision still worries me, but nonetheless, it is our responsibility to not remain silent nor be silenced in the face of threats to our work, no matter how grave.)
That being said, I do think it's important that people are aware of what's going on, and how this can affect the work we do. I know I'll be fine especially now that I'm back in the U.S., but I especially worry for those in the Philippines who are in more precarious positions than we are. While Wikimedians aren't journalists, and cyberlibel hangs over our heads, I worry that those who are afraid of the truth will lash out on those who make Wikipedia work in the Philippines: after all, if, as it is, people are trying to change narratives on here, what more when they have the full backing of state power behind them that could reinforce their narrative? --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sky Harbor: Absolutely. On further reflection, I apologize for my first comment. I did not mean to be overly dismissive of your concerns, I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the situation before this law. You obviously are, and you have helped me improve its article and the article on Disini immensely. I awarded you a talkpage kitten. I would have gone with the Philippine barnstar, but I don't know if it's appropriate for a foreigner to give out one of those. Thank you for all you do! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading this article which is about the old Human Security Act 2007 versus the Anti-Terror Bill 2020 in a nutshell.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: This analysis by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines might interest you. I hadn't realized that it gives the Anti-Money Laundering Council new powers as well, beyond creating a new "Anti-Terror Council". "Incitement to terrorism" is also worrying. I'm still not sure if it's more likely to affect Wikipedia editors than the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, though. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My Royal Young

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to remind everyone not to feed this troll. At Silang, Cavite, trolling has occurred today. Thank you, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mitsado

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Mechado is by far the most common name. Shouldn't it be moved? It's irritating. Now according to the edit history someone moved it to conform with Tagalog orthography, but while you could argue that "mitsado" (never seen it spelled that way before) is a Tagalog loanword adapted from Spanish, "mechado" is a Filipino loanword direct from Spanish. Don't we favor Filipino over Tagalog? Same with lechon over litson, chicharon over tsitsaron. Do we have a food naming style guide? Asado (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Asado: (This is just one foreign Tagalog speaker/student's opinion.) I don't know if you're correctly differentiating Filipino and Tagalog. The UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, which I often use as a source, e.g. in Tagalog profanity, contains only letson and not lechon. It contains in this case metsado, so that's what I'd prefer. I'd say that if the editors of the UPDF have "ruled" on this issue, we ought to follow their guidance as the premier dictionary of the language, similar to the Oxford English Dictionary. In the entries, they clearly mark lechaon and mechado as Esp, a not so subtle hint (in my opinion!) that they don't recognize it as valid. I wish I had Father Leo James English's T-E dictionary handy right now, as I'm interested in what he decided. Alas, I only have the E-T... Perhaps if you have it the T-E you can take a peek! Now, in the case of lechon, that's not only a Filipino dish, so it makes sense to put it under the Spanish title as the different country's lechones are similar. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. Whatever the UP dictionary calls it is immaterial. What matters is what it is called in English.
I've moved it back to mechado. It was there since 2008, until somebody moved it in 2019, because "this is how it should be spelled in Tagalog". I'd probably agree if this was in the Tagalog Wikipedia, and that's how the overwhelming spelling for that language (it most probably isn't), but we aren't there. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more that Mechado should be the name of the article. PerWP:NCUE, if an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. --ERAMnc 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Great points ERAMnc and Howard the Duck. Indeed, you are both correct and I am not—this is not the Tagalog Wikipedia. I focused far too much on whether or not this was a Filipino–Tagalog difference, and far too little on how the word is actually typically used in Engish. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Filipino communism

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite you to participate in this RfD (permalink) for this redirect. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Quo warranto in the Philippines

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Quo warranto. It relates to whether there should be a new article about quo warranto as it works in the Philippines, or if the global article should be re-organized to be able to accept country-level content. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sólo para Mujeres

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone confirm the information added by multiple IPs way back 2018? I'm pretty sure these are false information as I'm not aware of any films with such casts. - SUBWAY 15:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Diffs? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
1 2 these are just some of it. Even a quick google search does not bring up any upcoming films with that title. - SUBWAY 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
These are as real as President Hillary Clinton. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Just removed the vandals.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_45&oldid=1110443625"