Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 53

Sherwin Meneses

Found this article on the recently created articles section. It seems to have undergone an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherwin Meneses). Not really that familiar with Pinoy sports stuff so can someone take a look if this is speedy delete worthy? --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Automatic: can be deleted as WP:CSD#G4. Undeletion should have been better approach if the article expansion is desired. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Send to CSD. We still don't have articles for pro and college basketball coaches, who are infinitely more well known than this guy, but hey Filipino volleyball editors have their own rules. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this was different from the deleted version, so the CSD was declined. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi need some help with tagging

Hi I recently finished editing the Anniecurtis album (can’t remember the name of the album) page and because she’s Filipino I wanted to add the tag but I not sure how to do it Thank Goldsoldier75 (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Just add this to the talk page of that article:

{{WikiProject Philippines| class= | importance= }}

Then other people here can just fill in the quality scale (class) and importance scale once it's tagged. Thank you! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Creation of congressional district categories

There are still some congressional districts that are not created (the new ones). The next stage is categorizing congressmen. As always, we can follow what the US did. See for example, Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Alabama, where it is subcategorized to per party (but not per district). As our politicians party-switch all the time, I think such Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Abra (province)‎ should be the last categorization unless a lower-level LGU has its own district, whether defunct or current. (For example, Rizal and Antipolo).

As for party-list reps, they should be categorized per party, and not per LGU: an example is Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines for Akbayan. If someone can trace where the politician is from, Category:Politicians from Foo can be added.

There is a little issue though. Prior to the cityhood of the Metro Manila LGUs, some are arbitrarily combined with each other, the sole remnant of that is Taguig-1st and Pateros. You could create a category per district Category:Members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines from Taguig–Pateros–Muntinlupa, or use three categories for Rene Cayetano, one each for Taguig, Pateros and Muntinlupa... or two for Taguig-Pateros and Muntinlupa? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia ESEAP Conference 2022 on November 18-20 in Sydney, Australia

The Wikimedia East, South East Asia and the Pacific also known as ESEAP will be having an in-person conference in Sydney, Australia on November 18-20. ESEAP is a regional collaborative composed of nationalities & Wikimedia affiliates of Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Membership also include nationalities and informal communities of Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, and Timor Leste.

The goals for the conference are:

• Strategic discussions: ESEAP Hub governance, process of moving from an informal group to more formal structure aligned with the Hubs/Minimum Criteria for Pilots
• Partnership, Tools & Skills: Outreach and community collaboration support networks; building a network of skill sets so that communities in the region can provide extra outreach support and collaboration across the region; and
• Leadership development through building networks that encourage new and wider diversity of participants to enable future growth

For more information, please visit the conference page.

Scholarship application (subsidized air fare, accommodation, and relevant fees) is ongoing. You may go to the scholarship page to know more. Deadline for scholarship application is on 24 July (Sunday) at 12:00 UTC (see your local time) .

We also call for volunteers to the following committees:

• Scholarship committee
• Program submissions review committee
• Communications committee
• Onsite & technical volunteers

For inquiries, please reach us at eseap.confwikimedia.org.au.

Thank you! --Exec8 (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Formal name" vs nickname on articles about Philippine politics

There has been inconsistencies when it comes to listing Filipino politician names. It would be better if there is some consensus about this.

The names tend to be presented as:

• Nicknames: "Bongbong Marcos" rather than "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." (tends to be this way if the parent article is named that way)
• Full legal names: "Ma. Esperanza Christina Codilla Frasco" rather than "Christina Frasco" (this is more common in lists in a bid to present info in a more "formal name")
• Concise version of full names (deliberately avoiding nickname): "Christopher Go" rather than "Christopher Lawrence Tesoro Go" or "Bong Go"

I think to make things simple we should rather go with the article name of the political figure's Wikipedia article if it exist or go for the concise version of their name if there is none.

The only issue is using nicknames (not just concise version of legal names) in the infobox such as using "Bong Go" on his infobox. Especially there is a trend of including honorifics in these people's infobox (e.g. Honorable Bong Go)

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, if Bongbong Marcos or Joe Biden is known by everyone as such, so be it. Relatively few people would look for "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." or "Joseph Biden"; that being said, some politicians like let's say Luis Ferrer IV are far better known in their locales as Jon-Jon Ferrer but both names tend to be used interchangeably. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Article title and article text should follow the WP:COMMONNAME. Specific instances, such as their article infobox where the full legal name has its own field, can of course use the full legal name and formal honorifics if applicable. CMD (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This section name says, "on articles about Philippine politics". IMO, that needs clarification. "on articles" appears to imply that it concerns article titles, but it seems to me that such articles where this is a concern would be about Filipino politicians in particular, not about Philippine politics in general. Also, WP:COMMONNAME strikes me as somewhat ambiguous and somewhat of a mismatch with the current situation with the naming the personal article about the current President of the Philippines. WP:COMMOMNAME says that WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". There are at least two problematic ambiguities with "commonly used" there: {1} as of when?, (2) by whom? Also, speaking as a non-Filipino (and most users of the English WP are non-Filipinos), personal naming usages in the Philippines seem a bit quirky. Naming usage preferences among WP editors both in article titles and in the body of articles for the current Philippine president is a bit volatile at present. I imagine that will stabilize in time. Let me offer one example where this seems to have stabilized: in the article on Fidel V. Ramos, the lead sentence opens with the following clarification: "Fidel Valdez Ramos CCLH, GCS, KGCR (Spanish: [fiˈðel βalˈdes ra.mos]; born March 18, 1928), popularly known as FVR and Eddie Ramos, [...]". Eddie Ramos and Fidel Ramos currently redirect to that article, and FVR disambiguates to it. Also, I observe that the WP article for the current Philippine president is currently named Bongbong Marcos and its lead sentence clarifies that as follows: "Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. (Tagalog: [ˈmaɾkɔs], English: /ˈmɑːrkɔːs/ MAR-kawss; born September 13, 1957), commonly referred to as Bongbong Marcos and by the initials BBM or PBBM, [...]. I think that the naming of that article might not have yet reached what will be its eventual stable state but that will happen at some point, and ditto usages of the name of the current president in article content. In the meantime -- getting back to my observation about what seems to a non-Filipino to be a bit of national quirkiness in naming usages in the Philippines, it seems to me that it would be a good idea if the WP Philippines Project would provide some project-level guidance regarding naming of articles about Filipino persons and the usage of names of Filipino persons in articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

1) The most common overall, with a bias towards more recent publications, 2) reliable sources. The Bongbong Marcos lead sentence is fine, Mahatma Gandhi and Bill Clinton do the same. CMD (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I would offer the following articles from what I think are RSs for consideration re this: Reuters, CNN, The Diplomat, The Washington Post, Bloomberg. There's more, of course. Those are just some which came up near the top of this google search. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. @Wtmitchell:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Blakegripling ph:. To clarify "on articles about Philippine politics" refers not just the article titles, but general usage (especially in infoboxes, tables, etc. where the discretion on whether to use the commonname/or a more formal name may look jarring if done wrong). Wtmitchell is on point of needing a "project-level guidance" when it comes to dealing with these naming convention.

As noted there are inconsistencies. Bongbong Marcos is named "Bongbong Marcos". Secretary of Agriculture (Philippines) list his name as "Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.", the President of the Philippines's infobox list Marcos' full name too though "Bongbong Marcos" is mentioned a handful of times in prose.

It gets even messy for politicians who are former police/military officers. Some users find the need to add "Gen." and "Ret." when its arguably irrelevant and just causes clutter. On the other hand it does illustrate the reality of a trend to reappoint these law enforcement officials after they retire from service but I don't know if a similar trend affects foreign politician lists. Filipinos tend to be particular about these credential honorrific/suffix but these often borderline contrary to MOS:CREDENTIAL.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Use the article name at all times on lists, and at least on first reference on articles, then use the surname for succeeding references, except when other people have the same surnames (relevant for the Dutertes and Marcoses of the world). For example, on lists, the current president should be "Bongbong Marcos", the current article name. As I'd always say, if you think this name is wrong, do an WP:RM and don't pipelink.

The top 4 candidates in the last election used nicknames: Bongbong (Ferdinand), Leni (Maria Leonor), Manny (Emmanuel) and Isko (Francisco), with the latter even having a screen surname (there had been an RM about this article!). Other candidates in that election used a nickname on its article name (Leody), have been known with a nickname but we use the birthname because it's widespread as well (Panfilo vs Ping), and the others ostensibly used their birth names because they were too insignificant for us to know them by their nicknames (Norberto Gonzales wanted to be called Bert and Jose Montemayor Jr. wanted to be known as Joey but no one cared enough). On the vice presidential election, we have Tito, Willie, Lito and Manny over Vicente, (does anyone know Willie's birth name? The article reads as if "Willie" is his actual birth name), Jose and Emmanuel. Francis Pangilinan is also called Kiko. Too bad Sara can't be nicknamed further.

Local RS have been switching slowly to referring to BBM by the birth name; my suggestion to the aforementioned BBM RM is to defer and wait for at least a year. Disambiguation and its rules also have to play a part. An analogy is Noynoy Aquino, who won the election his article named that way, then was moved to the more formal name later on during his presidency. The best example is Haitian president Sweet Micky.

We have recent WP:RMs on this matter. Everyone knows the BBM RM, but Richard J. Gordon had an RM, and I wanted it to be moved to "Richard Gordon (politician)". I guess everyone agrees "Richard J. Gordon" was never the COMMONNAME for the person, but apparently there were several politicians named Richard Gordon, so a primary topic claim over a disambiguated title is not allowed as per WP:INCDAB... so we settled on Dick Gordon. But there were still many Dick Gordons, but he apparently is the only politician named as such, so we arrived there.

Personally, here are my rules on the matter. This also applies to other professions, such as basketball players.

1. If the official name is the clear cut COMMONNAME, use that. (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo over Gloria Arroyo, Ate Glo, PGMA or GMA; Fidel V. Ramos vs Fidel Ramos, Eddie or LOL "Eddie Ramos" who calls him that?)
2. If the official and nicknames are both used on somewhat similar levels of magnitude by the WP:RS , use the official name. (Rodrigo Duterte over Rody Duterte, Rody, Digong or PRRD)
3. If the nickname is used by several levels of magnitude over the birth name by the WP:RS, use the nickname. (Bongbong Marcos over Ferdinand Marcos Jr., BBM, Bongbong or PBBM; FWIW, everyone knows his birth name, but most people use the nickname.)
4. If the nickname is generally more well known over the official name, use the nickname. (Joseph Estrada vs Jose Ejercito, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Erap Estrada or Erap; Bong Go over Christopher Lawrence Go, Loren Legarda over Lorna Regina Legarda)
5. There are some exceptions to this:
   1. Generally, presidents have used birth names on article names. (Corazon Aquino over Cory Aquino; #2 also applies here.)
   2. There's also variances on how we surname married women: maiden name in Sara Duterte (incidentally she is also referred to as "Sara Duterte-Carpio", but falls on a variant of #2) vs hyphenated surname in Lucy Torres-Gomez (recently had an RM!) vs married name Cynthia Villar. Notice we don't hyphenate Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Miriam Defensor Santiago for some reason.
6. On WP:RS. Local RS are still RS. The Manila Times will have 20 articles about BBM on a day, while we're lucky if the New York Times will have 1 article about him in a month. My favorite boneheaded RM decisions of all time was moving Libingan ng mga Bayani to its English name because an Indian RS said so. This can get interesting for local politicians tho. Who do you use? Manila RS or provincial RS?

Let's use my personal rules on senators:

1. Sonny Angara. Seems about right. I guess nobody uses Juan Edgardo Angara who people may know and RS may refer to him as such. Clear cut case of #3.
2. Nancy Binay. Is anyone surprised her birth name is "Maria Lourdes"? I am! Clear cut case of #4.
3. Alan Peter Cayetano. A decade ago he tried to rebrand himself as "Alan Cayetano" in vain. Clear cut case of #1.
4. Pia Cayetano. No one on his right mind would suggest to move her article to "Lady Pilar Juliana Cayetano," but I may be wrong... Clear cut case of #4.
5. Ronald dela Rosa. See #2, We know him as "Bato" but RS still refers to him by his birth name.
6. JV Ejercito. I remember this being at Joseph Victor Ejercito but common sense won at the day it was moved. Clear cut case of #3.
7. Francis Escudero. This is murky. People know him as Chiz. Even RS refers to him by that name. But it's reasonable to expect that people know his name is "Francis" (but not "Francis Joseph") and RS still refer to him as such. I guess this borderline #2 and #3.
8. Jinggoy Estrada. I'm excited for the RM suggesting this to be moved to "Jose Ejercito Jr." Clear cut case of #4.
9. Win Gatchalian. Now, personally, this is wrongly named. This is a clear cut case of #2. People know and RS refer to him as Sherwin.
10. Bong Go. Clear cut case of #4.
11. Risa Hontiveros Clear cut case of #4.
12. Lito Lapid. Clear cut case of #4.
13. Loren Legarda. Clear cut case of #4.
14. Imee Marcos. Unlike Bongbong who the people know and the RS may refer to as "Ferdinand", not too many know her real name is "Maria Imelda Josefa". Clear cut case of #4.
15. Robin Padilla. I was really amused when I knew his name as "Robinhood". Clear cut case of #4.
16. Koko Pimentel. Sherwin Gatchalian situation. People know and RS refer to him as "Aquilino Pimentel III." This is actually a clear cut case of #2.
17. Grace Poe. Clear cut case of #1... well not "Mary Grace", that's a bakery.
18. Bong Revilla. This is actually amusing. "Bong Revilla" is actually his surname(!). When he was an actor he was referred to as "Ramon 'Bong' Revilla Jr." (similar to "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr."), but when he became a senator he started to be plainly known as "Bong Revilla". Even on his acting credits, he still goes by as ""Ramon 'Bong' Revilla Jr." (see this movie poster) This is a clear cut case of using "Bong Revilla", but neither of the "rules"... I guess #2.
19. Francis Tolentino. Sorry, we won't call you "Tol" here. Clear cut case of #1.
20. Raffy Tulfo. Nobody knows his official name is "Rafael" but I guess most people can guess correctly. Clear cut case of #4.
21. Joel Villanueva. "Emmanuel Joel Jose", nope. "Joel" is fine. This is #1, but not exactly clear cut.
22. Cynthia Villar. Nope, we won't call you Hanepbuhay. Clear cut case of #1.
23. Mark Villar. Nope, we won't call you Markabuhayan either. Clear cut case of #1.
24. Juan Miguel Zubiri. Clear cut case of #2. We know him as "Migz" but "Juan Miguel" is fine.

Howard the Duck (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Would just like to say that "PBBM" isn't even a common term for him among the general public. For his propaganda arm maybe, like with Duterte and "PRRD" vs. the more common "Du30" (also used by DDS anyway). At least remove "PBBM". 114.108.219.199 (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we spell out "Ma."?

"Ma." is a common abbreviated form for "Maria" for Filipino names. My edit on Christina Frasco was reverted back to "Ma. Esperanza" from "Maria Esperanza" on the grounds that its her legal name. The question is should we be be spelling it? I am pretty confident that this abbreviation is a Philippine-only phenomenon. MOS:INITIALS may apply? An alternate is to retain "Ma." in the lead add a hatnote and succeeding instances should spell out "Maria"? But I think its less controversial for people with a WP:COMMONNAME with "Maria" in their name, even if their legal name shorthand that part of their name to "Ma." since a good amount of WP:RS will tend to spell out the name. Laying it out here for wider consensus and not just in the Christina Frasco article. Also pinging @Jollibinay: who disputed my edit on said article for input/feedback. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If the prose is referring to the legal name, spell it how the PSA does. Now, if the WP:NC name (for purposes of the article name and infobox and category sorting) spells it as "Ma.", spell it as such on those parts of the article.

Some people actually use "Ma." on their PSA birth certificates, so it's not always clear cut. (See for example, "Mae" is the short form of "Mary".)

Another is "Saint" and "St." St. Scholastica's College, Manila, even legally, uses "St." (see their logo) and not the full "Saint" such as Saint Jude College. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I recall that in high school I had classmates who used either system. Some used Maria, and some used Ma. And in fact, some used Ma in their formal name, but spoke their names out loud as "Maria," but at least one actually used "Ma" when speaking her name out loud. So I feel strange about wiki imposing a convention on this particular matter.- Batongmalake (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion @Hariboneagle927:. Firstly, I don't think this is a Philippine-only phenomenon, since it's mentioned in the article Spanish naming customs. In my opinion, if the person's legal name is spelled "Ma." then that's what we use in the article but we should put the pronunciation [maˈɾi.a] in parentheses after the first mention and before the birth & death dates. This is needed for those unfamiliar with the abbreviation i.e. those not really exposed to Filipino and Spanish. Anyway, many people with "Ma." in their names don't include it in the name by which they are most commonly known. Jollibinay (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Maria Rosario Vergere wants a word with you. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

de facto first lady

Can we look if there is a de facto first lady? Because I saw that President Cory's daughter Ballsy is de facto first lady. Noobguy33 ^{(user talk)} 07:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this office not official anyway, so all "officeholders" are de facto by definition? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Max Laurel (actor)

Hi, I was wondering if any of you had any sources about Max Laurel (the guy who acted as Zuma in Zuma (comics). I've been trying to find sources but all I could find some news articles about his death, an IMDB page (which I can't really use) and some posts from my grandma (Max Laurel's wife). If you guys could help me, I'd appreciate it. Here's the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Max_Laurel Zgbean (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a few articles mentioning him in the Google newspaper archive. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tropical Hut article up for deletion

The Tropical Hut article has been nominated for deletion for being "non-notable". Deletion discussion here. As the 7th-oldest food chain in the Philippines, I would say that it's pretty notable and historic.

Thoughts? -Object404 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, being the xth-oldest whatever in wherever won't cut it. What's needed is for it to pass GNG or SNG such as NCORP. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Expand Mercury, its parent company, instead with the references that you found so far. I made a newspaper archive search and didn't see anything good enough for references. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone makes a lengthy enough expansion of the Tropical Hut section in Mercury Drug, would that require a WP:SPLIT... which places us to where we are right now.

Either the restaurant chain is notable right now or not. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback to prematurely split Cycling in the Philippines

Hi! I'm currently doing research to expand the article and there are two concerns I want to seek clarification on:

Firstly, the way I wrote much of the contemporary era of the History section seems mostly oriented towards developments of bike lanes being opened, establishments offering bike parking, or the LRT/MRT allowing foldable bikes onboard. I feel like this might come to a point where it might violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially if in case such developments aren't really too notable, so I would like to ask if it's appropriate to write about such developments in the history section. What other aspects do you think I should focus on?

Secondly, I feel like the Bicycle use and ownership section, which mainly just explains or transcribes the Social Weather Stations surveys on bicycle use and ownership could be laid out in a more comprehensive way. Should I shorten it and try to explain it through a chart or graph instead?

Any other feedback is well appreciated. Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ganmatthew: It appears the Bicycle use and ownership section has too much statistics that may be tedious to read. Perhaps it may help if its subsections were consolidated into a single section and mentions of motorcycles, tricycles, and cars in the statistics are removed. A chart showing bicycle ownership throughout the years based on the SWS surveys may also be considered. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some edits based on your feedback. Although I found a different way to include that of motorcycles, tricycles, and cars since they are important from a comparison standpoint. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Florentino Floro

Please can a knowledgeable editor take a look at recent extensive additions to Florentino Floro? Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP that is responsible for the very extensive additions to the article also left a lengthy message at Talk:Florentino Floro#Revision August 2022.

Given the nature of the edits and the history of sockpuppetry surrounding the Judgefloro/Florentino Floro accounts, is it likely this is another sockpuppet with a clear conflict of interest? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering, though most of the previous controversial edits took place around 2008. Certes (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Additions reverted, which seems like a good outcome. Thanks. Certes (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

SMNI News Channel as a "far-right" news source

I've noticed that several edits in the last few months have been trying to change the article's lead section to label SMNI as a "far-right free-to-air news television network". It somewhat reflects a similar case to when multiple editors were trying to remove the "Marcos is a dictator and kleptocrat" line from the lead sections of Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, and other Marcos pages, which some were arguing either "turns off readers from reading further" or portrays an issue with WP:NPOV. Conversely, those who were affirming to keep the line argued that it is backed up by sources.

The far-right claim on the SMNI article, however, has only been supported so far by Rappler's investigative articles and no other sources, unlike the lead sections of the Marcos pages which are supported by multiple sources.

Should this be called to a consensus? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 04:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The contentious label "far-right" has been removed from the article as it was not even mentioned in the cited source(s). –Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance Philippine-related articles help

Hi, there's a backlog at the un-assessed Filipino articles category. Hope you can help thanks. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the backlog from 65 to 35 articles. To clarify though, do surname articles count as normal articles with a grade/importance rating or are they counted as List articles with NA importance? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I just label them as List/ NA since basically they are navigational lists like disambiguation articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I've changed my assessments on those articles to List + NA. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on suggestions for improving {{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines}}

Can we have a consensus on whether to replace the more ambiguous class NA-Class with Redirect-Class and Draft-Class for the template {{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines}}? Currently, the NA-Class in Philippine-related articles by quality statistics lists Redirect pages while Others lists Drafts; other WikiProjects like WP:CA have no classes NA-Class and Others. I have proposed the change in Template talk:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines#A couple of suggestions but the proposed major changes would require consensus from members of this WikiProject.

Also, can we agree to add a B-class checklist in the template like in {{WikiProject Germany}} to allow easier/more accurate scrutiny/assessment of articles? Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know drafts could have WikiProject assessments. In my experience, most AfC reviewers delete the talk page of said draft pages if the editor creates one.

Anyway, I don't mind splitting NA-Class since it would also differentiate it in the quality backlogs. About the B-Class checklist, I agree on that as well if it would entice more articles to improve in quality. Perhaps the checklist should have date and timestamps per checklist item too? That way, it is easy to know when the article was declared as compliant with the B-Class requirements. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree a timestamp would be useful, but I am not sure if the checklist can support timestamps. I have not seen other templates having the B-Class checklist as having any timestamps.

Redirect and Draft classes seem fine. B-class checklist can work, but it does mean more effort when filling out the template. Is it to meet a particular goal? CMD (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably to easily show in the article talk page itself that a criteria exists for B-Class so that editors unfamiliar with the criteria can somehow improve the article with the criteria in mind as a guide? The extra effort of filling out the template may be acceptable considering that B-Class is only next to GA-Class which has a stricter criteria and isn't freely given. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support B-class checklist and refining NA class articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support clarifying the NA class; ambivalent on the B-class checklist but I guess it wouldn't hurt to include it. —seav (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the reasons stated above. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus to create Category:WikiProject Philippines articles

I am currently trying to get WikiProject Tambayan PH added to User:HotArticlesBot, which generates a daily list of articles under the WikiProject with significant edit activity. However, as mentioned at User talk:HotArticlesBot/Config.json/Archive 2#Protected edit request on 22 June 2022, it requires that there must be a main category for all articles under Tambayan PH, as it does not iterate through subcategories.

But before I can make an edit request to the Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines banner, the main category needs to be created first.

As such, I am gathering a consensus to create a new category called Category:WikiProject Philippines articles that the banner would automatically add all articles into, on top of their existing importance and quality subcategories.

Those subcategories under the current Category:WikiProject Philippines category would also be moved into the new category:

• Category:Philippine-related articles by importance
• Category:Philippine-related articles by quality
• Category:Philippines articles needing expert attention

Besides for compatibility with the HotArticlesBot, this move would also conform to the current practices done by other WikiProjects as shown in Category:Articles by WikiProject. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support if it conforms with current best practices then I'm fine with that. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Sounds good, Hot Articles can be a useful tool. CMD (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per reasons stated above. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've created the category and moved the aforementioned subcategories to it for now while the edit request for the banner template is being processed. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philippine drug war#Requested move 14 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine drug war#Requested move 14 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:DWKX#Requested move 15 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DWKX#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Improvement on all PBA all-time rosters

So, I've mostly finished adding sources to players added on these all-time rosters. One thing I've noticed in all these pages is that they're all very different. Some pages have players' nicknames, others have jersey numbers, and some have trades in them. And I would like all these pages to have the same info in them. So, which categories should be taken out, and which should be kept? And if you have other suggestions on how to improve these pages, let me know. Thanks.~~~~ D-Flo27 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The PBA is mimicking the NBA, so I guess we should follow suit and do what they do with their articles. For example, Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster has the following columns: Player (name), position, from (school), (number of) years, seasons (start and end), statistics, and reference. Now, we can't have stats, and the reference column is for basketball-reference.com, of which a similar website is nonexistent for Filipino basketball. You could perhaps source these to the PBA annual yearbook, but some enterprising foreigner may send that to AFD because the reference is primarily sourced. I suppose the other columns already exist, so I guess we should delete jersey number, nickname? Trades can be transferred to the teams season article, or to a PBA season transactions article, or both. If all teams have a jersey numbers column tho and a great majority of players have their jersey numbers listed, perhaps it can be kept. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philippine drug war#Requested move 14 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine drug war#Requested move 14 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Assessment and suggestions on Tambayan PH task forces and departments

I've updated the list of task forces and departments to reflect a status column on whether they are active or not. However, I think it would be better if others could clarify whether or not the departments and task forces are really active or not. At the same time, we should also assess reviving these task forces to streamline efforts in improving their relevant articles.

These are the ones I've indicated so far based on some of my observations on the relevant pages:

List of departments and task forces

Article assessment department Active, since assessment backlogs seem to be uncommon and article quality does seem to be improving all-around Article collaboration department Inactive, since the page itself hasn't been edited since 2008 and there likely hasn't been any recent calls to collaborate or sprint on any specific articles through this department Statistics department Needs updating or should be archived, since the data here is very old and hasn't been updated Some statistics currently exist in the assessment department and the popular/hot articles page and could possibly be merged there Copyright violations task force Needs updating, since there does appear to be some active editors monitoring copyvio media and content in articles here and on Wikimedia, but not likely as a task force History task force Semi-inactive, since the task force itself is quite inactive, more so the relatively small list of articles that are even tagged under this task force, even though there are some active editors working on history-related sections of articles and articles relevant to PH history Does the history section of any article count as Philippine History if it is tied to a notable event? Maybe we should start tagging history-related articles on the banner to provide a scope on all history articles? Local government unit task force Semi-active, considering most regional/city/municipality/barangay articles fall under this and there is some considerable activity, though mostly in the form of monitoring for articles on non-notable subjects and unsourced content Most articles here suffer from editors that are just mostly focused on their own localities, something I admit I am also guilty of Could also benefit from tagging LGU-related articles on the banner as well Politics task force Active, since many political articles, especially those with edit-warring and controversial subjects, are being patrolled and expanded on a daily basis Active editors should look into the multiple requests for articles on the political views on several notable political personalities and for articles on legislation Could also benefit from tagging politics-related articles on the banner as well Transportation task force Semi-active, but mostly only when there are new developments or updates to ongoing or upcoming infrastructure projects. Still, I do see a lot of active editors on transport-related articles. Could also benefit from tagging transpo-related articles on the banner as well I recently rolled out a standard layout for route tables and interchanges on the task force page on virtually all MRT/LRT pages Also, following the recent announcement of new LTFRB bus routes, it might be better to wait for further updates before updating any bus routes on any pages

On another note, I would like to also propose task forces for some other active sects among PH-related articles that might benefit from a coordinated effort:

• Sports - mainly to coordinate current efforts in updating sports-related articles like those related to the UAAP
• Media and entertainment - mainly to improve articles on old and new shows, movies, and other media since many of them are currently stubs

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the reactivation the Article collaboration, Statistics, Copyright violations and History task forces and departments and the creation of the Sports and Media and entertainment task forces. If possible, there should be a team within the Media and entertainment task force focusing on television and radio networks and stations due to prior edits from certain LTAs if having a separate task force is not possible due to excessive compartmentalization and other reasons. -Ian Lopez @ 09:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In general creating more task forces is not the best idea in terms of Wikiproject management as they divide the small number of editors up between various pages. That said, they can be useful for other items such as categorization, so it would be good to know if sports and media would benefit from this. Regarding the History task force, that was originally set up as a separate Wikiproject completely, before I merged it into this Wikiproject as a task force due to its inactivity. A lack of Wikiproject template tagging may stem in part from some missing cleanup after this (I never figured out how to do this well so there are a lot of duplicate templates lying around), although I would say that the original tagging was not that comprehensive. I would suggest not tagging articles that just have a history section, only articles that are specifically about a historical topic should be tagged. For very active subtopics, it may be worth creating the task force and adding it to the Wikiproject Tambayan Philippine template with its own categories to enable the use of tools like User:HotArticlesBot. CMD (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think task forces are the way to go, for reasons mentioned above, but notices on major discussions can be placed here. That's why the article alerts section is a god send. An example of task forces includes the one suggested about maintaining railway articles, but nothing came out of that.

I know some of you guys are sick of discussions, but without this, we wouldn't be able to resolve anything, such as the railway station naming discussion we had earlier in the pandemic. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, sports articles have a lot of editors and unlike TV shows where updates based on TV episodes cannot be easily added as prose, game results can easily be added as tables in articles, and this happens all year. I won't be opposed on having a task force on sports, to unite MOS not just for PH-related stuff on sports articles (such as "Do you include province name in box scores" and "Since most leagues are not home and away, do we have to follow how teams are ordered in box scores during playoffs? Whose order should we follow?") but also universal sports MOS ("Do we list each and every "regular season" game serially in volleyball leagues even if only domestic Philippine and Australian leagues do that?)

Politics: This can get active during election season but can get quiet afterwards. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion can this list: User:Zoomiebot/Unreferenced Tambayan Philippines pages be added as a tambayan task force or at least part of one? I usually either expand articles found there or identify AfD candidates. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for creating task forces on Media and entertainment (especially TV and Film), and Sports since there are many active editors, although my main interest for such task forces is to allow them to be integrated within {{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines}} template to allow better categorization of articles since only Philippine history is currently allowed in the template). –Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:DLSU Lady Booters#Requested move 25 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DLSU Lady Booters#Requested move 25 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:UP Fighting Maroons Volleyball Team#Requested move 25 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:UP Fighting Maroons Volleyball Team#Requested move 25 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FEU Tamaraws men's basketball#Requested move 25 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:FEU Tamaraws men's basketball#Requested move 25 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ateneo Lady Blue Booters#Requested move 25 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ateneo Lady Blue Booters#Requested move 25 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

College sports articles naming

The first college sports season since the pandemic is upon us, and seeing that there are suggestions of having a task force on sports, there's an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:University Athletic Association of the Philippines#College sports articles naming. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As seen below, these are the recent WP:RMs to sort out and standardize naming of articles for these teams. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Roxas, Capiz#Requested move 4 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Roxas, Capiz#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The First and True Home of Asianovelas

Is this still a programming block of ABS-CBN despite airing on a limited capacity on Kapamilya Channel, etc.? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mariano Yenko

I'm wondering if any member of this WikiProject is able to find sources related to Mariano Yenko, particulary anything that can be used support content about his (supposed) death. Currently, there is only one source cited in the article, but that's just a brief mentioning of his name and isn't close to establishing his Wikipedia notability. The non-free use rationale for the file being used in the main infobox claims that Yenko died in the late 1980s, which may be true, but there's nothing to support such a claim in the article. So, the article is still being treated as a BLP even though Yenko is supposed to have died 35 or so years ago. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

By 2011, Yenko was dead; he was a posthumous inductee in the Philippine Basketball Association Hall of Fame in 2011. For some reason, the internet does not know when he died, but it's quite easy to find his fingerprints elsewhere as he was an assistant executive secretary and signed a lot of issuances in the 1950s. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yenko retired from being commissioner of the Philippine Basketball Association in 1987, so if he died in the 1980s, it's from that until December 31, 1989. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this Howard the Duck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Added a couple of refs in the article --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

New LTFRB bus route codes?

The LTFRB just recently issued two memorandum orders which have reopened "90% of pre-pandemic routes", which also have accompanying route codes based on the new system they set up back in 2020. The problem is that these route codes conflict and are possibly meant to replace the existing ones at List of bus routes in Metro Manila.

With that in mind, are we going to shelve the old numbers and proceed with the new list provided in this copy of the memorandum orders? We are also going to have to update the bus route numbers across thousands of transport and place-related articles as well.

• LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 67, s. 2022 (Bus routes)
• LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 68, s. 2022 (Jeepney routes)

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are these used IRL? Do news reports use this? I'd love to have articles for individual routes like London's but references are hard to find. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The LTFRB has not yet released a map or listing of the official colors, but I've seen some online posts of buses sporting the new bus route names and numbering such as this one. They also appear to be using distinct colors as well.

So until then, the article should most likely stay the same until there is a concrete source for the colors and route coverage, similar to when the LTFRB was releasing a summary of the "stops" of each route. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright law amendment bills

Heads up! As of this writing, there are four intellectual property law amendment bills filed in the 19th Congress. These are:

• House Bill 799 by Rep. Joey Salceda
• House Bill 888 by Rep. Michael Romero
• House Bill 2672 by Rep. Christopher de Venecia, and
• House Bill 3633 by Rep. Aniela Bianca Tolentino.

Those that I highlighted contain the freedom of panorama provision that we longed for, in the exact wording as the one at former Rep. Wes Gatchalian's House Bill 8620. Romero's bill focuses on increasing penalties as well as "rationalizing" its functions. Tolentino's bill is focused on protection of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions, probably after the issue between Nas Daily and Apo Whang-od. Anyway, the FOP provision in Salceda's bill is at page 79 (Section 206(m)), while the provision at De Venecia's bill is at Section 48 of the bill.

Let's hope freedom of panorama is introduced here soon, so that the deleted WikiCommons photos can now be restored/undeleted (plus a couple of deleted local enwiki images), and entries like "List of public art in Metro Manila" be enriched with comprehensive illustrations. Support from Pinoy Wikimedians is encouraged. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If ever one of these becomes law, would it apply to all works, or only for those starting from a certain date? I suppose similar laws passed previously did it the latter way. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The language in the sections named above of the two highlighted bills is identical: "The copyright of a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph or by the inclusion of the work in a television broadcast." (my typo-prone transcription) In my uncredentialed understanding, that seems clearly to apply to copyrights of works predating the bill. The precise meaning of "temporarily" and of "open to the public" there is unclear to me. I note the similarity here to this under General Exceptions (search for "permanently situated"). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Aren't laws supposed to be not ex post facto? That's why we have these very specific dates on Commons on when structure was built so that we can upload it there. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Howard the Duck seems to ask about if it may cover works that used to exist until these were suddenly demolished or removed without artist's or owner's consent, notably the Bust of Ferdinand Marcos and the Filipina Comfort Women sculpture. Clindberg of Commons once mentioned to me the so-called transitionary clause. For House Bill 799 by Salceda, such clause is found at Section 266 (page 97–98). I cannot see any transitionary clause for De Venecia's HB 2672, but I assume that it will go by the clause of the current RA 8293 as it stands today. Section 240 of the current law is its transitionary clause. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

To Howard the Duck: Yes, generally, at least that's my understanding; see e.g., Ex post facto law § Philippines, but note the mention of amnesty law in the lead section there. I am not at all sure how that relates to changes to civil law and/or copyright law. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood. I was referring to the effectivity of the law. Would it be effective for all currently standing structures, or only for those erected after it was ratified. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: the FOP provision will certainly apply to all standing works, be it BSA Twin Towers or Kartilya ng Katipunan and Bonifacio Monument or even MacArthur's Landing. Upon the existence of FOP, it means it is now permissible to depict these works on photos and other depictions for any purposes. What only concerns me is that some of the works may not qualify, because these were meant to be permanent, yet removed against the consent of architects or current copyright holders: the likes of Marcos Bust or Filipina Comfort Women sculpture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Info: one more intellectual property code amendment bill was filed just recently (first reading was on August 24): House Bill 3838 (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REVISED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES), sponsored by AAMBIS-Owa Party List representative Lex Anthony Colada. As of this writing there is no link to download a pdf copy of the bill for anyone to look and check. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Five bulls are currently listed on the House web page here. I only found one on the Senate web page here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Update @Wtmitchell and Howard the Duck: and others: the amendment bill HB 3838 by Rep. Colada is now available online. Click this ➡️ House Bill 3838. Fortunately, it contains FOP provision, in the same word as the wording of Gatchalian's HB 8620 of the 18th Congress, to which both the Salceda and the De Venecia bills follow. The FOP provision of HB 3838 is found at page 85 and will be assigned as "Section 203(m)." With regards to transitionary clause, however, this bill will be the new IP Code. Technically the Colada bill is not an amendment bill but a revision bill, overhauling the entire IP statute. Section 263.2 indicates it will repeal the current Republic Act 8293. In this case, then the FOP will only cover works that still exist, and no longer cover the likes of Filipina Comfort Women, the bust of Ferdinand Marcos at Aspiras–Palispis Highway, and the old building of the Banco de las Islas Filipinas (BPI) at Ayala Avenue, unless the accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations guideline will explicitly include works that were meant to be permanent in accordance with the intents of the architect/artist and original owners but were suddenly demolished or destroyed, at the hands of current owners but not in the intent of the original owners and artists/architects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I talked with Carl Lindberg of Wikimedia Commons about the transitionary provisions, and the discourse is somehow productive. Read: c:User talk:Clindberg/archives 11#Request for comment on transitionary provisions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a lot of time and effort spent on something that has a very little chance of being passed into law. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I don't think so. Salceda has been pushing for a major update in our intellectual property code (PhilStar article). Many of the stakeholders are supporting HB 2672 by De Venecia. For another stakeholder, Globe Telecom and its entertainment arm KROMA, they are backing Salceda's HB 799 (PNA article). Fortunately both of the heavily-supported bills in IP code amendment contain the freedom of panorama legal right. So I think the call for an update/revision to R.A. 8293 is stronger than ever this 19th Congress. IPOPHL themselves have been pushing for IP code amendments since at least June this year (Manila Bulletin article). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't hold my breath on this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

request to include articles to Category:21st-century Filipino businesspeople

Hi, I just made Category:21st-century Filipino businesspeople. Can you help add articles there from the Category:Filipino businesspeople container category? Thanks in advance. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we supposed to make Category:Filipino businesspeople diffuse to per century subcats or leave the articles there? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah we should diffuse the articles to subcats since Category:Filipino businesspeople is a container cat. I actually cleaned similar container cats like Category:Filipino comedians and Category:Filipino scientists. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You should see Filipino actors categories. Diffusion to male Filipino actors, Filipina actresses, which then diffuse to acting by media (television, film, stage). Easy way to inflate edit counts lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also some articles do not discuss business activities of its subjects at all. Supposedly this is a good reason to remove businesspeople cats, correct? Similar to Jane de Leon who was supposedly a singer because she sang on ASAP Natin 'To. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup if the article doesn't explain the profession then it's probably best to remove them from the category entirely. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I did letters A-M. I left some people out because surprisingly we need a 19th century businesspeople category. I'd do N-Z probably later. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, some articles are quite hard to determine which century the person was a businessperson, and I resorted to guesswork to sort it out.

Also, there were some foreigners and I dunno how to classify them. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Howard! --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: The category is now emptied, and I've also created a 19th century category for all of the Negros sugar barons.

Would be interesting if someone can source 19th century actors; Rizal's novels allude to this, a play touring different towns. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Typhoon Noru#Requested move 30 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Typhoon Noru#Requested move 30 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Filipino billionaires by net worth

What should we do about this? This list has been blanked for days now. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, just prod/AFD the thing. I don't think we can avoid copyright violation of Forbes' billionaire list without introducing other references. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Article has been marked for PROD. Hopefully it doesn't need to go to AfD since it is clearly against WP:CLIST. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sultan Sumagka

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sultan Sumagka to→ Talitay. Republic Act No. 11550 was signed on May 27, 2021. The law stated the creation of Maguindanao del Norte and Maguindanao del Sur, recognized the name of the municipality as Talitay, not as Sultan Sumagka and ceded the municipality to Maguindanao del Norte. The law had won via plebiscite on September 18, 2022. There is no reliable source to prove a successful plebiscite of Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 228 happened. Furthermore, no records found from the Commission on Elections that a plebiscite of Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 228 exist.--Exec8 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Consensus on which SVG and size to use in Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines/testcases

To hopefully improve the old PNG image in Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, which looks quite antiquated due in part to its low resolution, SVG versions of the image were requested from Graphic Lab in Commons. Thanks to 痛, two SVG versions (transparent and white backgrounds) were initially created. I requested in Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines that the SVG with the white background replace the old PNG in the template. Paine Ellsworth granted my request; however, Sky Harbor used the transparent version. I contacted Sky Harbor in his talk page regarding the low contrast of the yellow sun against the template's yellow background; he said he found the white background distracting, and suggested maybe an outlined version might be better. I requested additional versions of the SVG from 痛 in Graphic Lab; 痛 created two additional versions: an white-outlined version of the sun, and another round white background. 痛 personally said he prefers the version with the round white background. I would have preferred the square white background, but also think the round white background looks good, much better than the transparent background.

In the meantime, I also requested from Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines that the image size be changed from 50px to 80px, since the image was quite small compared to other WikiProject templates such as Template:WikiProject United States, which currently uses 90px. My request was denied on the basis that consensus first be made.

Your thoughts on this please? Should we use the round white background SVG image, and should we increase the image size in the WikiProject template to 80px?

• 
  SVG
• 
  SVG with white background
• 
  SVG with white outline, sandbox preview
• 
  SVG with white circle, sandbox preview

Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for SVG or SVG w/ white outline - I mostly use Wikipedia with Dark Reader so I actually didn't realize there was a significant color contrast. Anyway, I think the first or third one is pretty good for me. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support SVG with white outline This one should help make the icon stand out more while not being distracting to the eye. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support "SVG with white outline". I'm using Dark Mode so this version would be easier to the eyes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for 1 and 3. The first one looks cleaner in my opinion (here's a sandbox preview), but I don't mind the version with an outline. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support for either "SVG" and/or "SVG with white outline". The "SVG" is clearly a standard to every image with transparent background in Wikipedia, but I don't mind about the "SVG with white outline" as it is currently the most majority votes above. The other two ("SVG with white outline" and "SVG with white circle") doesn't even fit with the background IMO. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• ? & comment. It appears from this that the size of the image might be a non-issue? Editors have yet to comment on the size change from 50–80px. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• These are SVG images so quality would still be the same regardless of size. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's good to know, thank you Lenticel! To editors Sanglahi86, Ganmatthew, Sky Harbor, ­hueMan1 and CruzRamiss2002: I've taken the liberty to depict the differences on the [test cases] page. All four different images are shown, and in each section both image sizes also appear. Hopefully this makes it a little bit easier for editors to decide which is best. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support for either SVG 80px or SVG w/ white outline 80px. I think the larger size makes the logo details more visible and improves contrast too. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for either "SVG" and/or "SVG with white outline", both in 80px. Same reason as Ganmatthew, the larger its logo the detailed its visibility and contrast. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Input requested at RSN for Filipino tabloid discussion

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of Filipino tabloids: Hataw! and Pilipino Mirror

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone is able to provide input as to the general reliability of two Filipino publications at the above discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Kay Selya article proposed for merging

I recently proposed that the article Kay Selya should be merged into Florante at Laura. What do you think? 49.144.196.228 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Possibly misnamed image file

The image file File:Coat of arms of the Philippines (1935–1940, 1941–1946).svg seems misnamed. AFAIK, the coat of arms retained its status during the period as government in exile. See also here. I may be confused about that or, if I'm not, it may be not worth the effort to change the name. I'm just mentioning it here in case someone else wants to follow up on it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup listing for Tambayan articles

Zoomiebot's task has already been retired. The bot's user has suggested that we use this e-link instead. https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Tambayan_Philippines.html Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the page just a copy of the data or is it being updated? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated less frequently than the old (daily) bot page, and instead runs weekly on Tuesdays. Chlod (say hi!) 02:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It has more info aside from unreferenced articles so we will be able to find articles that have problems. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Notable Ilocanos section of Ilocano people

The page Ilocano people has a long section "Notable Ilocanos" that has recently been tagged for splitting, probably due to its length. Should the entire section be deleted instead? The current revision appears to be a case of example farm, especially considering that Ilocanos are one of the largest ethnolinguistic groups in the country. I have not found list pages of Tagalog or Cebuano people. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is done for ethnic groups articles elsewhere. These can be linked to a category. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion one way or the other, I'll mention two articles I found with a quick search: Lists of African Americans and List of Afro–Puerto Ricans. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at articles such as Croats, for example. You're examples are of mixed ethnicities (Africans in the Western Hemisphere already a mixed enough lot), of which there are fewer examples to pick out of. Out of the example I cited, Croats has a "see also" to a "list of Croats", which turns out to be a "List of people from Croatia". I suppose we can create a "list of people from the Ilocos Region"... or even a per province list of notable residents. Again, lines are blurry between transients, residents, ethnic groups, nationalities and races, making a list like this is... well interesting if how someone comes up with it. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists and categories are complementary things. A standalone list can be drafted provided that sources are cited --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the list is an unwelcome distraction within the article. The completionist in me prefers that it not be deleted,so a split makes sense to me. But yes, keeping that list organized would be difficult. - Batongmalake (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree it's not helpful to the wider article. It makes much more sense as a category, which does appear as a list. CMD (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Reassess Careless (record label)

Hello, I recently updated the orphaned Careless article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Careless_(record_label)) as it only had information until 2020. I added information from 2021-2022. Could I request for a reassessment? Thank you. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Your link is broken, you can just use this: Careless (record label) --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, here's what a C-class record label article looks like: Avatar Records. It think the current Careless article is at around Start to C status. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Pro-tip: Unless your article is rated as an FA, GA or A-class, ratings mean nothing. Move on. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs, just wanted to get a quick reassessment on where it is now, so I know where to improve it further. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nintendoswitchfan: It looks pretty decent in my opinion. You should consider asking the kind people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, who may be able to provide further input. CMD (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Kalinga-Apayao

• Moved here from article alerts talk page.

See Article - Kalinga-Apayao- this province no longer exists. This article should be deleted. See the artcle 'Apayao' - "Finally, on February 14, 1995, Kalinga-Apayao was split into two distinct provinces with the passage of Republic Act No. 7878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apricots 999 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 April 2011  (UTC)

• @Apricots 999: articles of former provinces – those that no longer exist – are always valid for inclusion here, as long as reliable secondary source citations exist and the article does not treat the province as still existing, that is, past tense is extensively used. We have Maguindanao, Davao (province), and also Cotabato (historical province). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Skyway (Metro Manila)#Requested move 2 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Skyway (Metro Manila)#Requested move 2 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Importance and significance of law-related article requests

Seeing as there are about over 40 article requests for law or legislation-related articles here, which of the requested legislations articles below are of high priority or importance? Or even those that are not well known but deserve more exposure?

It would be good to prioritize writing articles for laws that are either very topical or significant as of the moment, or those that are not well-known and writing articles on them would help shed more light or attention to them. Thanks!

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

As I added most of those red links, I think the highest priority to be created are the following:

• Community-Based Monitoring System Act
• Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises
• Corporation Code of the Philippines
• Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018
• Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (may include Republic Act No. 11647 (Amendments to the Foreign Investments Act of 1991))
• Magna Carta of the Poor
• National Greening Program
• Philippine Mental Health Law
• Public Service Act (may include Republic Act No. 11659 (Amendments to the Public Service Act))
• Rice Tariffication Law
• Universal Health Care Act

—Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

LGU terminology

Recently a bunch of province articles have been edited with text which previously said "largest municipality" being changed to "largest LGU". While technically there is a distinction between cities and municipalities, "LGU" is a very jargony acronym that won't be readily understood by many. Are there opinions on the best way to write this? Writing out "local government unit" or writing "city or municipality" both feel a bit long. (There is a separate issue where "largest" can mean by land or by population but the edits prompted this terminology question.) CMD (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, some people do refer to their local government as a LGU (especially on the city/municipio level) but I agree that to refer to it as a municipality or a city would be preferable to avoid jargon, especially in the global context. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely common in Philippine political speech, but I don't know how much it translates. What about "largest administrative area of the province?" CMD (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We should stop using "administrative area" more than we should stop using "LGU" as the latter is actually a well-recognized term than the vaguest possible term "administrative area". LGUs are full fledged political units that have executive and legislative functions. They are not merely "administrative areas".

As for using "LGU", it is also a term to denote the local government itself. Terms such as "Pasig LGU" or "Pampanga LGU" are common. Using that term needs context at the very least. If we're ever using that, use "local government unit" and link appropriately in the first reference, and use "LGU" in the second. Don't use "largest LGU"; instead use "most populous local government unit". If "local government unit" is a head-scratcher in leads, bring it down to the "Government" section. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Largest city/town/LGU" at least in the Philippines is vague. I remember Davao people edit warring because their city is the "largest city" and not Quezon City. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, and I don't think I do, LGU is not jargon, it is an abbreviation for the term Local Government Unit, a term referring to a unit of government below the national government level. The use of both the term and the abbreviation in items published by governmental offices is very common; see, for example, the DILG web page.

An LGU may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially altered either by law enacted by Congress in the case of a province, city, municipality, or any other political subdivision, or by ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Council) or Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) concerned in the case of a Barangay located within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to limitations and requirements prescribed in the Local Government Code (see chapter 2, section 6 here.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It can mean any unit below the national government level, but in my experience it usually refers to just the city/municipality level. Provinces are referred to as provinces, barangays as barangays, and it is this middle layer that gets left with the LGU label. That said, the potential ambiguity you raise which I hadn't considered is another reason it's suboptimal in prose. I'm not sure why administrations can't have executive and legislative functions, but I'm not opposed to HTD's suggestion of removing it from leads and leaving it to the government subsection where possible. CMD (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

On consideration, the largest LGU terminology [1] seems sensible to me. Municipalities are governmentally below provinces, but cities are governmentally on the same governmental level with provinces, are governmentally independent of the provinces, but located geographically within provinces. It makes sense to me to say that, for examples, Angeles City, Odiongan, Roxas City, and Kalibo (two cities and two municipalities) are the largest LGUs in their respective provinces. The population vs. area ambiguity of largest is another matter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Just my two centavos: I can attest to the fact that NGO and ODA Organization personnel, staff in National Government Agencies, and academic researchers regularly use the terms "Provincial LGUs," "Municipal LGUs", and "Barangay LGUs" to describe decision makers and implementors at those respective levels. That's a pretty big group of word-users, I think. So I balk a bit at the idea that "LGU" implies a Municipal/City level administration. There's a reason the term is designed to be encompassing. - Batongmalake (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not all cities are in the same "level" as provinces. A lot more cities are "component cities", which are part of provinces.

FWIW, Metro Manilans (who aren't migrants) don't relate with provincial-level politics so terms such as "Cavite LGU" don't make sense to them. For the rest of the Philippines, "LGU" refers to all levels of government listed in the Local Government Code. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the additional issues raised above, I have reverted the IP edits. Hopefully one day there will be an easier way of referring to the third layer of governance. CMD (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Philippine English

This edit to Talk:Philippine Organic Act (1902) caught my eye. I see that article talk page does include the {{Philippine English}} thmplate. The usage guidance in the docs for that template says, re articles including it, "Usually, the article either has evolved using predominantly this variety or has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation that uses this variety." Yes, the Philippine Organic Act (1902) has strong ties to the Philippines; however, its topic is an act passed into U.S. law by the U.S. Congress. I assert that the Philippine English template is inappropriate here.

This causes me to wonder whether the usage guidelines for the Philippine English template might need more thought at the project level and more clarity in the docs for that template and whether, perhaps, this might need a review. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Under MOS:COMMONALITY Philippine English and American English are going to be the same 99% of the time. I doubt it's a question of any practical impact on the article in question. CMD (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that use of the template is appropriate for one reason and one reason only: while the law was passed by the United States Congress, the article on Wikipedia would naturally be written primarily by Filipino editors, who in turn would use their own variety of English. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

re CMD above, as a practical matter for this particular article that could be. Having done an ocular inspection of the article, I don't see a problem at this point in time. However, I will be the one who will say that the presence of this template on the talk page amounts to an assertion that if there is a question in this area in future it should be resolved in favor of Philippine English. As I said above, I do not believe that is appropriate in this particular case, and it seems to me that guidelines regarding the placement of this template in articles should be clarified. I see, for example, that the talk page for Jones Law (Philippines) article is similarly designated as being written in Philippine English but those for Treaty of Paris (1898), Treaty of Washington (1900) and Treaty of Manila (1946) are not. I am at a loss trying to understand what guideline to consider re placement of this template.

Re Sky Harbor above, That argument appears to me to flout WP:OWN. I don't know how I might determine the proportionate ratios by nationality of editors of this article, but I note that it was created by a non-Filipino (myself). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TIES is clear. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. I suppose the Filipinos has dibs on this one, as long as the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 is concerned. This is taught in Philippine History subject in the Philippines. I doubt this is even taught in any history subjects in basic education in the United States. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd also have to add that formal Philippine English has virtually no differences from AmE, save for some words such as "railway" instead of "railroad", (which isn't exactly alien to AmE speakers, unlike say "flat" and "apartment"). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, if you wrote the article and there are competing national ties then I believe your original choice sticks due to MOS:RETAIN. As for a general rule, there are no rules anywhere with regards to these language templates, they usually just get spammed throughout talkpages with no reference to the article content itself. They at no point overrule MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN, although as HTD notes TIES applies specifically to formal English, so I doubt many issues will arise. CMD (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I don't there would be any issue. I think American English and Philippine English has more difference in how they are spoken as opposed to how they are written. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. This was more of a heads-up than an expression of concern. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Split discussions needing resolution

These are discussions that have been "going on" for at least 6 months.

1. Talk:Civil Code of the Philippines#Creation of a separate article for the Family Code: No resolution as of November 2017. (A 5-year request!)
2. Talk:Killings of Kian delos Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman#Split proposal: No resolution as of February 2019
3. Talk:Philippine National Railways#Split proposed: No resolution as of May 2020
4. Talk:Constitution of the Philippines#Split into daugher articles: No resolution as of January 2021
5. Talk:The Broken Marriage Vow#Split proposed: No resolution as of February 2022
6. Talk:2020–2022 Taal Volcano eruptions#Splitting proposal: No resolution as of May 2022

Howard the Duck (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

All six should just be closed as inactioned. None of these articles is remotely long, and most of the sections that are suggested for splitting are tiny. A split tag shouldn't be used to try and suggest a new page. CMD (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of those articles deserve to be split, though. The various constitutions deserve their own articles, for example, as well as the Family Code. For the PNR, the split is half-resolved as there's now an article on PNR rolling stock, but not PNR liveries. That said, I get that it's all dependent on interest; the subjects are likely notable but no one seems to be interested in writing those articles. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the topics would merit their own articles, but doing this through a split of current content would be poor. The individual articles would need far more content to provide anything coherent to a reader, and the current articles would generally lose what is a only a basic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section, if that. (I thought about doing some of the constitutions myself previously, maybe I can get back to that.) CMD (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Help in refining NA-Class pages to Redirect-Class

Just notifying the Assessment department that {{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines}} has recently allowed the tagging of Redirect-class. Help is needed to refine about 1,800 Category:NA-Class Philippine-related articles to Category:Redirect-Class Philippine-related articles; almost all the pages currently tagged as NA-Class are redirects, with the exception of Drafts. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Buddha

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Dates in articles on Philippine holidays

This edit to the Day of Valor article cought my eye, prompting this edit by me to bring the infobox there into sync with the docs for {{Infobox holiday}}. Presuming that I got this right, other articles for Philippine holidays probably ought to be similarly updated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagalog translation of the WM Movement Charter (draft) Preamble

Please kindly go over the Salin sa Tagalog of the Movement Charter Preamble (draft). I created a dedicated response section for it as well (just to make it neat). I have a December 18, 2022 rush deadline from the MSG Committee for +/- comments; there are no right or wrong answers; so your feedback will be so valued. Warm regards. Buszmail (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Baliuag#Requested move 17 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baliuag#Requested move 17 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Rigoberto Tiglao

Hi all. Kindly see the Rigoberto Tiglao article.

Based on its history of edits, there were some concerns about BLP and content that may be possibly be inappropriate, in particular, the "Fake news and disinformation" and "Reception by other jounalists" sections.

While these sections are all cited, do they belong in the article? Should they be kept or removed? What can be done to improve the article? Regards, -Object404 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Pakikisama

Hello, WikiProject,

I postponed deleting this draft for another 6 months and thought I'd bring it to your attention in case anyone here thought it was worth working on and submitting to AFC. It seems like an interesting subject if reliably sourced. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth working on and keeping. It indeed is a thing in Philippine culture. -Object404 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is certainly worth keeping, but I feel it should have been created with WP:VER in mind from the beginning. And with recent scholarship in mind, from the beginning. As it stands, there are a lot of characterizations of pakikisama in the draft which feel simplistic, and unconnected to a broader values system. Also not clear is the fact that pakikisama is both a concept/value and a behaviour at the same time. So... basically I feel that as currently written it leans too much towards Lynch's outdated (and frankly colonial-focused) interpretation while not drawing enough from Enriquez and later academics like Maggay and Pe-Pua, or even others who have covered the territory such as Jocano Sr. But definitely worth keeping, and a very important article. - Batongmalake (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Page move discussion for UNTV (Philippines)

There's a page move discussion happening at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022. Any members of this Wikiproject are open to discuss what could be the potential outcome to move the page. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:6D6E:5479:F240:D16E (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Finding sources about the International Philippine School in Riyadh?

Dear Philippine editors,

International Philippine School in Riyadh has received a PROD. I wonder if some editors who have access to Philippine newspaper archives can find sources describing the establishment of the school so the article can get sourcing? Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be looking for sources in... Riyadh? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No hits on Philippine news archives. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. :( As the school dates from the 1980s I wondered if some archives would be offline. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I intended to send a separate message on ARwiki but it looks I didn't get around to it. The idea is that as it's a Philippine overseas school, I hoped it would get coverage in its home country. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The "home country" of this school is Saudi Arabia. You are more likely to find sources about the British School Manila in the The Manila Times than in The Times. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You must have already seen it but a quick google search turned up this, if it's any help. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this! Since this was an embassy school (as per the link) I would think that a journal article or English language newspaper at some point covered the establishment of this school. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Golez

Would someone from this WikiProject take a look at Anthony Golez and assess it? I tried to so some minor cleanup, but there's still quite a bit of unsourced content. I'm not very familiar with articles about Filipino legislators, but perhaps someone from this WikiProject might be able to find some sources for some of the things mentioned in the article. Just for reference, the article was created by a paid editor working on behalf of the Malasakit at Bayanihan Foundation party and possibly the subject of the article. The article was approved via WP:AFC and the creator has made the declaration required by WP:PAID; so, neither of those things seem to be an issue now, unless the creator tries to start directly editing the article themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added some info on the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Lenticel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Skyway (Metro Manila)" or "Metro Manila Skyway"?

The recent move of Skyway back to its hardly-ever-used long name Metro Manila Skyway shouldn't have pushed through. There is so far only one participant in that move discussion (despite a notification here in WT:TAMBAY), but it did pushed through.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, "Metro Manila Skyway" isn't completely alien as its WP:OFFICIAL name is "Metro Manila Skyway System". This is still acceptable as its a WP:NATDIS, and is infinitely a better name than "Line 3" for the train line above EDSA. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this exchange in passing, and it prompted this google search. From the snippets quoted in the hits, it looks like there is need for some wikilinking and regularization of terminology if anyone has the time and the inclination. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to standardization of names of streets? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I had looked at this and commented in passing, and I actually don't remember what I was referring to. I think the phrase, "hardly-ever-used" caught my eye and prompted me to do a google search with the words Metro Manila Skyway as separate terms. Looking at the results, I see that "Metro Manila Skyway" is the top result. Re wikilinking, a quick search in the article for North Luzon Expressway as an example finds it linked in the infobox and used but not wilinked several times in the article. MOS:REPEATLINK says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. [...]"; linking only in the infobox seems not to follow this guideline. I don't recall what specifics I had in mind when I wrote that it looked like regularization of terminology was needed.

Looking at the article while writing this, I found myself going back and forth between that and Google Maps searches (e.g., this one to clarify "Magallanes to Alabang" in the article (that search might be improved to show better-matching endpoints). It strikes me that it might be useful to provide a list of external links to such maps somewhere in the article -- perhaps in a notelist; perhaps in an article section near the bottom using internal wikilinks and anchors and relyinng on the user to use"go back" without supplying him a backlinks -- I haven't thought that through.

That's all that comes to mind right now except to mention H:Colorblind re distinguishing " Skyway in orange" in a Skyway System shown in red on an inset in this map used in the article, and that concerns the map, not the article. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Note in Google searches: If you want to make sure the same exact phrase is used in search hits, enclose that phrase in quotation marks. In your search, pages where the words "Metro", "Manila", and "Skyway" will show up, regardless if those words are in the order you wanted or if they are even together.

Insert: that is what I intended -- in line with the topic of this section and, possibly, other similar alternatives -- wtm

This is where the proponents of "Skyway" win, as that word is indeed the WP:NC for the largest elevated tollway in Metro Manila. However, since that "Skyway" is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is where the proponents of "Metro Manila Skyway" ultimately win due to WP:NATDIS.

Insert: I see that NC says that parenthetical disambiguation is generally used, "when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." -- wtm

If only Bongbong Marcos named this as the "Ferdinand Marcos Sr Memorial Skyway" then we wouldn't be having this problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh -- following on somethng I mentioned above, something like the following might be useful in the article:

[...] including a route on the Radial Road 3

alignment from Quirino Avenue in Manila to Alabang [...] from Magallanes to Alabang

Maps

Some locations and segments mentioned in the article include:

Those ref links in the box above are just illustrative examples using some content snippets from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs#Requested move 11 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs#Requested move 11 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR Notice

Manila has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Maguindanao categories

Recently, I recategorized Category:Maguindanao to accommodate the province's successors, Maguindanao del Norte and del Sur. As a consequence, its subcategories are now empty except for Category:People from Maguindanao‎, which is giving me a hard time to recategorize. I have considered recategorizing pages in this category by their birthplace, but according to WP:COPPLACE, the place of birth [...] is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual; and how about deceased individuals who didn't live long enough to see their province get divided (again), where are they from? Some of them have even died before Bangsamoro was created, so we can't put them there neither. Do they live in Maguindanao del Norte or del Sur retrospectively? Jokes aside, I really need your suggestions. Thanks. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:People from Middlesex still has people in it, despite Middlesex no longer existing since 1965. (It has awfully too few articles though so perhaps they are categorized differently?) Perhaps keeping the Maguindanao categories filled up as is would be the way to go, with people living through the division going to both Maguindanao and Maguindanao del Norte/Sur. For example, if there's a category for governors and board members of and congresspeople from Maguindanao, would it be exactly accurate for it to be include in the successor province categories?

I suppose this should also be the way to go to divided provinces such as most of mainland Mindanao provinces, Samar and Camarines provinces. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Federico Caballero

The Federico Caballero article describes him as an "epic chanter" (it seems he performs traditional epic poems), but links "chanter" to chanter - an unrelated musical instrument. Is there a more appropriate link for this (perhaps to the Philippines' oral performance tradition)? Also, is "chanter" a terribly good word, in English, to use (that is, do English sources use that specific word for his kind of performace)? Or would "traditional spoken word poetry reciter" be appropriate? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This should probably be on tha article's talk page. Since I came across it here, I will comment here.

I know noting of Federico Caballero or of chanting. Some googling quickly turned up

• this, which describes him as coming from "a long family line of epic chanters";
• this, which gives some detail about Federico Caballero's life, about chanting, and specifically mentions "the Sugidanon, the epics of Central Panay.

More googling led me to this, which gives some info about those epics and which mentions Fredrico Cabellero.

I also found this, which puts him and his art in the context of the mountains of central Panay] and this video (not showing him, I think, but see 4m23s into the video).

There's probably more relevant sources out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: Not exactly the best target but would chant be a more useful target than chanter? We have an article about Philippine epic poetry but it doesn't have any info for chanters. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Rigoberto Tiglao

Hi all. Kindly see the Rigoberto Tiglao article.

Based on its history of edits, there were some concerns about BLP and content that may be possibly be inappropriate, in particular, the "Fake news and disinformation" and "Reception by other jounalists" sections.

While these sections are all cited, do they belong in the article? Should they be kept or removed? What can be done to improve the article? Regards, -Object404 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Fake news and disinformation" section has been renamed to "Controversies and fact-checks". Thoughts? -Object404 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds more neutral, I support the rename --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Rigoberto Tiglao on the "Reception by other journalists" section in the article. I'm heavily leaning towards deletion, for being superfluous. Can we get more comments and discussion before deleting it? -Object404 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the section. Other editorial content elsewhere in the article must either be removed or rewritten in encyclopedic form; for example, a paragraph under Controversies and fact-checks section has the following content (bold emphasis mine):

Tiglao has repeatedly made the false claim that receiving foreign grants and funds by Philippine media organizations is illegal and against the Constitution of the Philippines. It is not. What is prohibited is foreign ownership and management of media. Article XVI, Section 11 of the Constitution states that: "The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens." Philippine state-run media entities under the Presidential Communications Group such as PTV-4, the Philippine News Agency, and Radyo ng Bayan receive foreign funding as well, such as from China.

–Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Can you explain further the problems with the bold section? -Object404 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be rewritten in encyclopedic form since it currently sounds like an editorial/essay, especially the "It is not." sentence. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -Object404 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Madridejos and others (maybe)

I find that Madridejos has no finance data - income etc. - I mean no properties, rather than empty properties. Information isn't within PSGC. So where can I find it (to add to wikidata)? Auntie Kathleen (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I eventually found that there are four municipalities in Cebu who have no financial data in 2020. That took a while to find, as they kept moving! I mean the whole of the country is here, but I was looking only for Cebu.

Annual Financial Report for the Local Government (Volume I) 49.147.195.181 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimania 2023 : Singapore, 16-19 August

Kabayan and Wikimedians! You are highly encouraged to apply for travel scholarship for Wikimedia Movement's largest gathering, Wikimania 2023. Wikimania 2023 will happen in Singapore and online from 16-19 August, 2023. There is a pre-conference on the 15th and a post-conference on the 20th. It is back on our region since Hong Kong in 2013. Application deadline is on 5 February 2023 at 23:59 AoE. Regular registration will happen around May 2023. --Exec8 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Japanese government-issued Philippine peso#Requested move 29 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Japanese government-issued Philippine peso#Requested move 29 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominated AfD: Lyceum of Alabang

I've nominated an article for deletion because it fails the notability test for schools. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyceum of Alabang. Nintendo2000 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ranking Template to use in Premier Volleyball League, Spikers' Turf and V-League (Philippines)

I would like to open a discussion regarding on what ranking template to use in every competitions on Premier Volleyball League, Spikers' Turf and V-League (Philippines).

In the official websites of PVL, SPT and VPLH, the standings only shows the "Win-Loss"–"Points"–"Points Win-Loss-Ratio" and no "Sets Win-Loss-Ratio" shown. Hence, I changed the Template:Vb cl3 header & Template:vb cl9 team into Module:Sports table/Volleyball, because the latter have a parameter that can hide the "Sets Win-Loss-Ratio" so it reflects the standings on official website to their respective article page.

Also both in NCAA Volleyball and UAAP Volleyball the Module:Sports table/Volleyball is what other editors are using to rank the participating teams.

I've edited the ranking table on 2021 Premier Volleyball League Open Conference, 2022 Premier Volleyball League Open Conference, 2022 Spikers' Turf Open Conference and 2023 Spikers' Turf Open Conference but user Akasahe28 reverted the edits I made on the mentioned articles.

The Module:Sports table/Volleyball is much better to use in my opinion. 98Tigerius (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we have on off-en.wiki wikia for Schools?

Question on the heading. Kinda feel bad for alumni that see their alma mater's articles get deleted.

Context is that secondary and tertiary educational institutions were once proposed to be notable (See Wikipedia:Schools for the failed notability proposals for for context). Now, schools need to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Anyways since those past proposals didn't push through, we have a bunch of Philippine school articles that can be easily challenged for deletion. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How about WikiPilipinas? There doesn't seem to be a lot of school articles there but I'm pretty sure it'd be allowed. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Also their notability requirements seems to be less stringent than en.wiki --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ganmatthew and Lenticel: I think this suggestion is good, but according to WikiPilipinas' about page, [their] articles are written and edited only by an in-house team of editors. How are we supposed to transfer articles there? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Transferring the articles is no longer our concern as long as the use of the deleted school articles meet Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. We just need to point the editors to Wikipilinas. Hopefully, they can contact editors that can help upload their articles for them. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Francis Lopez or Lebron Lopez

I'm interested in making an article on Francis 'Lebron' Lopez, the young basketball prodigy set to play for the UP Fighting Maroons. However, I'm not sure what the title of the article should be. Should it be "Lebron Lopez", which is what the media has been calling him ever since he arrived on the scene? Or should it be "Francis Lopez", which according to an interview, is what he wants to be called by? What do you guys think? D-Flo27 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:PHIL says, "The article title should include the given name and the surname". MOS:NICK says, "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." Perhaps a redirect to the article from Lebron Lopez and something like, "best known by his nickname, Lebron following first mention in the article (as for Bobby Kennedy). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@D-Flo27 WP:COMMONNAME dictates that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). So try searching for news articles about him, and probably compared if either Francis or LeBron is more commonly used. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 00:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please join discussion re Too many commanders and leaders in articles about the Philippines

Please join the discussion at Talk:Philippine–American War#Too many commanders and leaders. Please note that this concern applies to the Spanish–American War article as well, and probably to other articles within the purview of this wikiproject. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding User:Hotwiki

For those who have encountered User:Hotwiki while editing Philippine television related articles, especially TV shows aired by GMA Network, you might want to share your insights at this ANI discussion. I have opened this ANI since they were involved in an edit-war with a new editor (User:FrostFleece) and showed aggressive behavior towards the new editor in their talk page after questioning their edit. -WayKurat (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why I prefer editing entertainment articles only after years if not decades after the program concluded. These things are quite toxic to edit. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the same user that suddenly uploaded exactly the same image of The Wall Philippines title card in a different file format and replaced the one that I placed way back in the first season of the show. HiwilmsTalk 13:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of requests for article subsections outside of Tambayan PH

I was going through some articles not specific to a location such as Frontage road, Bicycle helmet laws by country, and Shumai, which are articles that usually have a dedicated subsection for the Philippine context. Shumai (siomai) of course is an article that has a specific variation in the Philippines. However, the others are more like minor variations that exists in the country, like Ortigas Avenue and Roxas Boulevard having service roads or Quezon City having bicycle helmet laws.

So that being said, would it be appropriate if we also had article requests for subsections of said articles on or similar to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Requests?

For example, I noticed that the frontage road/service road article did not have a section about such roads in the Philippines when it had for other countries, so I included a section for it. So the purpose of having requests for article subsections would then be to encourage WikiProject members to fill in the local context of topics like that.

However, as noted in the scope under Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment, articles that are only vaguely related to the Philippines or can conceivably be tagged as related to too many countries should not be under the jurisdiction of Tambayan PH. So would it mean that this suggestion could apply for pages under Tambayan PH but not for articles that don't qualify for tagging, like frontage road and cycling helmet laws? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ganmatthew: I think you can make a subpage/section for those in your user page instead. Those sections might be too vague to include in our wikiproject's request subpage but it's perfectly alright for the user page per WP:UPYES. For example, I have a link pointing to various backlogs/issues in Philippine artiles. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright. So it's alright to link such a page on my userspace on the WikiProject requests page then? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as the link at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Requests points at a specifically Philippine topic related section of that future user subpage then I see no issues with it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Snow in the Philippines

Hey, I wanted to request that an article be made about the topic of "snow in the Philippines". There already similar articles like snow in Florida, snow in Brazil, etc. There is a category Category:Snow by country. I am genuinely interested to know if it has ever snowed in any part of the Philippines. There are articles online like this one that claim that snow has fallen on the peak of mountains like Mount Apo, but that it is rare. But then there are other sites that also dispute that claim, saying that snow in the Philippines has never been confirmed. So which side of the story is true? I have also heard locals tell me about "snow rooms" (maybe we need an article on that too?), which are indoor places in the city that give Filipinos an experience with snow through artificial snow. Having never been to the PH myself (but I want to go), I thought it would be interesting to explore all of this through an article. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

coldest recorded temperature in the Philippines was around 6.3 degrees Celsius. Even if we count Mount Pulag unofficially, that would be at best 0 degrees Celsius. Those temperatures aren't enough to sustain snow. We got hail though so I don't know if that counts. As for snow rooms, yeah Artificial snow could use some expansion for that. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 transport strike in the Philippines

Can someone watch this page: 2023 transport strike in the Philippines. Some red-tagging is ongoing here, involving new user who appears to be from Canada (and a Fil-Can). I'm afraid this could become a magnet for such destructive disinformation. Same user also red-tagged some party-lists in the 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that needs to be escalated to WP:ANI if this is an ongoing behavior? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Jeez I should've known the Communist Party of the Philippines is a jeepney operator now. Who knew? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's unsourced anyway. Even if the CPP did release a supportive statement, they don't belong in the infobox.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They've been recently in WP:ANI, mostly around edits about the protests in France. Looks like we have some kind of rightist in our radar: their edits on the 2022 House party-list election (branding certain party-lists as CPP fronts), the early March strike (suggesting CPP support of the striking groups) and the protests in France (claiming the protesters are now using violence and the military being sent to violently suppress them) suggest of radical right-wing positions (red-baiting, union busting). Any thoughts?:::TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs for that ANI report? If so then usually another ANI thread detailing repeated behavior might be in order. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's in [2][3][4].

Going back, they appear to have never touched the House party-list election and the transport strike article again, but let’s still be watchful. The French protests article might benefit from some editing protection.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I've noticed in diff 3 that they said ":On (be)Healf of Nordisk Plus"... "We can't reports"... There might also be a case of WP:ISU here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent) It seems that the ANI thread is currently active and the user was warned about their behavior. Let's wait if this happens again. Hopefully it doesn't. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)