Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Philippine Railways


 * The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created

Description
There are already existing WikiProjects regarding railways and rapid transits. However, these are too broad and may not have the necessary guidelines for Philippine railway-related articles, especially in naming. With the growing network of railways in the Philippines, it is only imperative to have a specific WikiProject that will concentrate on building articles for the railways.

This proposed WikiProject aims to oversee all Philippine railway-related articles. These include the articles for the systems, railway operators, railway lines, railway stations, and even the rolling stock. Examples of such include the Philippine National Railways, Manila Light Rail Transit System and its lines, Monumento station, and the LRTA 1000 class. —Hiwilms (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)
 * rapid transit in the philippines (number of pages in the category: 7)
 * rail transportation in metro manila (number of pages in the category: 22)
 * rolling stock of the philippines (number of pages in the category: 16)


 * List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
 * Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.




 * Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
 * There's a need for a centralized WikiProject for Philippine railway articles, especially now that a lot of railway lines are being built as of May 2020. This proposed WikiProject aims to create a specific set of guidelines for Philippine railway-related articles. Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject Transport are too broad, while WikiProject Rapid Transit appears to be inactive already; additionally, guidelines for articles are non-existent. WikiProject Systems seems to be generally inappropriate for the articles listed. WikiProject Articles for Creation is for review purposes only.

Support
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
 * 1) Hiwilms (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — started this proposal.
 * 2)  Koressha  — It would be best to have something like this—specifically covering a locality—in order to have unified naming schemes as well as more organized manners in handling the wiki. Koressha (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also in for fixing active rolling stock articles with this project so it's best to have well-defined 1) parameters, 2) "|background=" colors on serviced lines, 3) up-to-date images, and 4) maintenance for these articles deemed low-importance on WikiProjects with broader scopes. &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Korean Rail Fan - This would allow us to finally solve the fiasco in Talk:Manila_Metro_Rail_Transit_System_Line_3 that has already resulted in maligning opposing users. Korean Rail Fan 06:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think creating Wikiprojects solves things, it won't. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm if this is fruitless then why threaten the users who started this? This could be another case of WP:ABF to me.Korean Rail Fan 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all sorry for those inflammatory statements back on the MRT talk, but, to be fair, you must read carefully what HTD said. I support having a dedicated Philippine railway project, but this should be a subproject of WP:TAMBAY than a standalone. We can build better standards for Philippine railway-related matters through a WikiProject, but considering our railway system is less developed, it's premature. We already have a transportation task force, so why not integrate this into that instead?-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue is that of focus from these other task-forces and Wikiprojects. The very fact that our railway system is expanding rapidly gives us some time to prepare the articles before the general public starts looking them up on Wikipedia. But that's just imho. Sabaybayin (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I second 's thoughts here. Given the focus of WP:PINOY and WP:RAILWAY 1) being too broad to even care about our still-developing railways, 2) I suppose if this proposal was not placed here, would anyone else mind making a project with a single focus to consolidate our own railways and standards vis-a-vis? 3) Our railways lacked the same notability as Japanese, US, or UK railways would, owing to its developing state. Look, there is hope, ambition, and talent in our own; hence, we must really define it. 4) We also have a handful of Philippine railway history that remains unwritten here. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 11:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Sabaybayin (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC) - I support the creation of template articles for better uniformity among station articles. I also want to expand the history section of each railway.
 * 2) Itsquietuptown — I support the creation of this wikiproject, as per the reasons listed above by Sabaybayin.  Itsquietuptown   t • c 08:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Raku Hachijo — I support creating this wikiproject. Currently, I contribute with organizing specifications of the decommissioned rolling stock used by PNR until the 1990s. The problem however is that this topic is rarely researched and there are barely any secondary sources for the matter. Raku Hachijo (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually found some possible references. The problem is that they are abroad (one is in a UK library) and are not in an e-book form. Having them in an e-book form has some charges according to their reply on my inquiry.  Hiwilms   Talk   14:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
What's keeping WP:PINOY and WP:RAILWAY from helping in achieving the goals of this suggestion? This reminds me of WP:NUMIS insisting to Filipinos that the English name for Philippine currency is "Philippine piso" instead of what actual, breathing Filipinos saying all along that it's "Philippine peso". This smells like another Wikiproject where things are decided by a cabal imposed on to everybody else. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude if there's a railways Wikiproject they suck. They can't even make shortcuts. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So if that sucks, we can make our own! This Wikiproject is the opportunity for us to create the standards we will closely follow. WP:NUMIS as how I see it, is given for a general level. But we're talking about our own railways, and therefore our own set of standards. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 12:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PINOY, it's good that it is there. Since it is localized, we can call our currency as, say Philippine peso. And as was written in this project's goals, we need to define what's our naming systems and refine how we will write our articles systematically that a more generalized Wikiproject may fail to oversee to fit our local standard. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. It just means that the general railway-Wikiproject can't be bothered to do that, what more on a country-specific proposal such as this one? WP:PINOY has been deadlocked for years on basic stuff such as "standards". You'd have to make me believe this proposal solves that.
 * I guess you don't know how naming conventions for WP:NUMIS works. The English name for the currency is what appears on the coin/bank note. As "piso" appeared on those instead of "peso", WP:NUMIS people, based on their policy, said that the name should be at the wonderfully bad "Philippine piso". It took brute force and a lot of common sense to override their project-specific standards because it didn't correspond to WP:NC which is site-wide policy. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, regarding WP:NUMIS that's because our banknotes have Filipino words imprinted. In that case, they insisted in using the calque which is definitely not how Filipinos would write their "dalawampung piso" in English. Again, to call it a "twenty-piso bill" is just not how we do things here in the Philippines.
 * So you see how agreements on discussions other people had no idea happened was imposed on a real article? That's terrible. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why we need a separate WikiProject; to 1) narrow down the naming conventions and standards to our locality, 2) make us define our style on writing our articles. Compare section layouts of the Philippine National Railways and Manila Light Rail Transit System; because these are written by different users with no single standard to follow, there's a difference; only the latter is a featured article. 3) There is a strong need for us to, again, define what is our own. Definitely a general-tier Wikiproject cannot decide what is really for us; hence us Filipinos who are more familiar with the standards must do, especially in this localized WikiProject. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. This just smells an attempt to formulate "policies and guidelines" without the wider participation of other people. I'd rather have things such as these discussed in discussion that there's an actual resolution at stake (such as an RM, or an RFC) than discussing stuff on the project space among ourselves, make policy based on that, then impose what was discussed on articles that people didn't realize was happening. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the way you want it, let's see if others will follow suit. This wikiproject requires more users anyway to chime in so it can be started. We can invite others to spill their thoughts here, et. al. 1) Whoever was in the RM discussion contributes to that "wider participation" but that does not mean the discussion itself is still as fresh as it was started. WikiProjects are free for new editors to join as well. 2) That "how agreements on discussions left unknown" indeed is terrible since there was no set standard so to leave that as an exception as necessary. And WP:NUMIS is again, a general WikiProject. But then I think we should not be comparing apples and oranges; how WP:NUMIS works is probably not the same with the WikiProject for the railways in general. 3) The RM discussion is beyond cumbersome; its succinctness had dried up. In occasions where the talk would shift to the possible effect on the ancilliary titles, it becomes "out of topic" though really, these names would depend from their parent names in some way. The worsening length of the RM discussion can slow a poor device, and WP:DR is getting a bit overlooked even in the RM thread. Saddening. A little compromise would not hurt; iff there are rules that have to be prioritized for example, then WP:IAR. Hence we have to recognize and define what is our own. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 13:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry po. I won't comment anymore regarding this. I was a "talker" like one user claimed. Yes, I might be. I'm thinking of a semi-retirement on enwiki because I'm just a trash here 😞 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said this above, but don't we include this on Tambayan's transportation task force? Our rail system is still in its infancy, and not much notable as those with very large national networks (E.g. Japan, China, US, Canada, UK), so if we want to build standards for PH rail-related matters, better do it with the wider Tambayan community. Just because we have a few Tambayan members interested in rail transit shouldn't dissuade us from discussing within the large community.


 * Looks like you mistyped Sky Harbor's name in your ping, so I'll be calling him in. User:Sky Harbor, can you chime in here?TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed. Why do we need another project? There's a railways task force under WP:TAMBAY, if memory serves. --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this being a task force instead, but since we already have a transportation task force, why not cover rail-related matters there?-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The potential inefficiency of a WP:TAMBAY task force is that 1) standards re: transport (especially railways) are not clearly defined (even if there was organization, as a former reader-only user the naming schemes in PNR and LRT/MRT as I've seen have stark differences. 2) Though our presently active railways are fairly short, keep in mind that we have a notable Tranvia, PNR had more branch lines before, and other defunct railways (Panay Railways, which also has Cebu and Negros; an original Mindanao Railways in the last century); in other words our railways are actually expansive as a whole regardless of status. 3) WP:TAMBAY seems to have too large of a focus; too much for even newer users to chime in the expanse to be honest. Not everyone is a railfan either. The gap has widened and I suppose a separate Wikiproject could be presentable especially to other local railfans off-wiki to be engaged with improving and/or adding articles re: Philippine railways. I don't know how you guys (pinging:, et. al.) would be able to convince other PNR article-exclusive editors to join the greater community either with peace, lest you have ideas. And no; this is not to dissuade ourselves within a bigger community but rather, narrow down the objectives. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 10:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a separate WikiProject is needed here. A task force as suggested is the better approach in my opinion. --seav (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * +1, things to be handled by this proposed project should be better handled by our existing transportation task force, BTW. I see how bad our our coverage of rail transport in our country is, but the lack of support from the wider Tambayan community is not a convincing reason to start a separate WikiProject anew. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the transportation task force everyone is talking about? It's been 4 months since the "creation" of this task force and nothing really happened. I am quite surprised. No, I am not. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a scenario like WP:WikiProject Trains in Japan? If so, I see, but I still prefer this being part of our transport-related task force because our network is not much as notable as like those in Japan, US, or UK. No problem if you want to expand the PNR page, or create a Mindanao Railway article as long most content is reliably sourced.TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not notable? Sort of, if you say only the active lines alone. How many times am I going to say this, that 1) we have a tramway that was once renowned internationally, 2) railway history here was barely touched as of wiki writing, and 3) that the task force won't bother on our current railways? This is why we have to define what is ours. From that, it can prove our railways' notability. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 01:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes I would rather have that scenario. We cannot request for a task force if we have unclear standards and no defined MOS in railway naming conventions. It's too convoluted for others to handle that. And again, WP:TAMBAY's scope alone is too broad. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 01:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For those pushing the argument that WP:PINOY and WP:RAILWAY are too broad in scope, and/or nothing ever happens, the same people will show up in discussions whether or not a task force or a separate project is made, whether or not they make themselves members of a task force or Wikiproject. The same people will talk about creating MOS, and that stuff. We'd still be making the same discussion. If we confine discussions to project space, then do an RM, then repeat the process all over again, and have outsiders pitch in, then you guys realize "consensus isn't on our way", we just like wasted a month of discussions for nothing. That's why I'd rather have the discussions on where the consensus will change things such as RMs or AFDs, rather than slogging through point/counterpoint in project talkspaces where nothing really happens (which is contrary to what people pushing for this want!). At least those point/counterpoint arguments amounted to something in RMs and AFDs. This is where we make policies here, on actual results, not theories.

Local sports tournament articles, basketball articles in particular (but not UNTV Cup ones and volleyball articles) are well crafted. They look the same every season (at least the recent ones, the old ones probably had the old templates, but even then the old ones still look identical), have the same look and format, and even section titles are the same whether it is professional or college or amateur, or even international. Sure, these have little prose, but those which do have prose still look the same with each other. Even badly formatted articles, such as those volleyball tournaments, they still look alike. And that was done with no longwinded discussions. No RMs. There's no MOS to speak of. People just did stuff. If things worked out fine on one league, apply it to the other league. You don't need task forces or Wikiprojects to do stuff. Just do it. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 2) It is a tedious process to see that everything has to depend on lengthy, nearly-infinite discussions like that. That actually shoos away potential editors who could be of great help! That also risks possibly better insights from being thought more intently. 3) I suppose we do not have to compare apples and oranges, right? Sports are of greater public interest; trains are not. Unlike sports whose rules are taught in PE classes at school, railfanning is cliche; with proper hierarchy, everyone can get moving more efficiently. &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 16:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Okay but isn't that "reality-based policy-making via RM/AfD/whatever-discussion-that-is" thing very time-consuming? I'd have to admit, and others did a lot here so far, but what the other user/railfans who proposed and chimed in this WikiProject wants is focus and organization, because PH railways isn't really something others would prioritize anyway. Sad! Lol, it is time-consuming alone to argue on what is the standard, which is right, let alone listen to refutations from one user to another. That is because we have not defined what best applies. If we did, I'm sure that those lengthy, spam-like discussions would be much shorter, succinct, and civil.
 * Some discussions are time consuming, some aren't. I know you aren't saying that we won't be discussing once a Wikiproject is created but, yes, we'd still be discussing once a Wikiproject, or even a task force is created. Discussing things on discussions that entail consequences are better because there's something to show for it, instead of discussing in project-space, then doing things such as RM or AFDs. Some discussions don't have to be done on RMs and AFDs. and these are the ones you don't have to discuss at project-spaces at. For example, let's say you and and your friends figure out that "the article about the train line running above EDSA should be at 'Line 3'." You can't actually just move it wholesale (let's pretend the recently-closed RM didn't happen). You'd have to do an RM (well you actually can, but if someone who cares, and wasn't a part of the discussion, spotted you early enough, there'd be WP:BRD and guess what, we'd have an WP:RM anyway. Having a Wikiproject doesn't subtract the amount of time discussing things; it actually increases it.
 * That recent RM? We did establish the standard. Any RMs/discussion will be based on that. You can build upon standards moving forward from that. People have begun phasing out "Line #" in favor of "LRT/MRT Line #".
 * I'd argue public transportation is more important than sports, just like, and I'm guessing here, it's easier to edit sports articles, and that there are a very few resolutions that can happen (win, loss or draw). This is unlike transport which is more complicated. Still, I guess we won't see anyone arguing on sports articles though that "the sports team representing the University of the East should be called the East Red Warriors because acronyms are bad." Howard the Duck (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1 and 2) Yep it's true some RMs are less-convoluted, but that's because we share known standards for that (such as the Railway Station → Railway station RM). On the other hand, initiating an RM where it will definitely affect other articles outside the RM's scope alone is a different story, because eventually the realization of other implications shows and thus, the discussion loses its succinctness. In the case of the lines' RM, I do not see any established standard, but mere compromises hither and thither. 3) Okay, public transportation is of greater importance but sports is still more popular. We kinda share the same point there re: sports, but again I'm not going to compare apples (acronyms for sports articles) and oranges (acronyms for transport articles). That's what makes sports articles tad easier to edit because, unlike our case in Philippine transport where there are no exact naming conventions, sports are governed by various organizations whose rules are well-defined. There's little or nothing to argue on sports because it is also taught at school, unlike transport terms which are learned mostly via commute. In other words, Philippine transportation had unfortunately mixed a bit of technical jargon on its colloquialisms which you guys had always pushed in multiple threads before. At the very least, it is already problematic. &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Koressha&#125;&#125; {interact&#124;ambags&#125; 12:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, but I think not all activities for the mainspace requires nothing else aside from RMs and AfDs.


 * Magandang hapon po. If I were to ask if this wikiproject should be pushed through or not, I'd like to choose the third option: convert this proposal to a proposal of a Tambayan Philippines task force. I can notice that most of the discussions in the Tambayan are now more focused on political topics, including LGU's (though I became involved recently on LGU's regarding article titles of uniquely-named municipalities). I have two best and neutral suggestions:
 * Reformat the "Wikipedia:WikiProject/Philippine Railways" as Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine railways - my top preference; or
 * Incorporate this into the Tambayan Philippines/Task force Transport.


 * Pinging for insights (with HueMan1 the creator of the idle transport task force).


 * (an out of topic comment) I didn't place the transport task force as my first suggestion because, as I said, it can end up idle. And there are no major wiki-issues on roads and other forms of transport, save for railways. To note of my comment before regarding the Philippine highway network (at tambayan in December 2019), I have assumed that it is still on development as the component roads of the routes tend to change (E4 for instance, according to HueMan1 when I talked to him on Messenger), and the addition of more routes. So I doubt the feasibility of a transport task force.


 * For my choice of creation of aseparate task force: this is because of the contentious discussions that I read before, with three or four groups under three or four opinions. I also oppose excessive bureaucracy within the Tambayan community, which prevents several editors from contributing. I myself experienced that frustration, and to some degree until now.


 * As such I suggest conversion of this proposal to Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine railways. A clear option between two gigantic boulders. Not as broad as the Wikiproject, but at least there can be a good place to set of standards on railway-related articles.


 * Hope this is the best compromise for all. Stay safe despite the pandemic! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Move to close
How can an admin close this as an abject failure? Do I have to post at WP:AN? The user(s) who pushed for the creation of this project have left the project after being out-discussed in an railway-related RM. There's significant opposition to this as shown on this page. No one has replied in a month. Any railway-related discussion can be done in discussions with consequences such as WP:AFD, WP:RM and WP:RFC, among other discussions. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please relax, sir. You should not just assume that the users had given up on this particular Wikiproject, for we may be busy in real life and may lack the luxury to be on-wiki all the time like you do. Please consider noting the adjustments individual users irl would do in light of the quarantine, okay?


 * 1) Notice that I wikilinked a new page Tranvia above within the scope, which was given an initial C-class rating. To improve this, does this page need a move or a deletion discussion? No, as I had that page reviewed. But a review by non-PH railway users is enough merely to assess the writing style that shapes the article. This discipline (railways) are not popular like sports; a novelty, an esoteric interest, that even awaiting comments might be impractical due to again, its nature and confusing colloqualisms often. Thus we, as the locals, we really should identify standards on how to write this, because after all we are the primary users!
 * 2) Why not just a task force, you say? Because the discipline of railways are actually more expansive in truth, let alone theory. How can we, then, sort the writing of prose and/or tables in the articles? How can we identify the limits of data to be displayed in infoboxes? A task force seems to be too small a group, but a Wikiproject has more space for expanding encyclopedic content in a broad yet unpopular, yet often-used means, specifically transportation.   13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No new arguments. Close this now. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Welp. It looks like this needs 3 months of staleness for it to be closed. I suppose no new arguments stated above count as staleness? See you in August, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with closing. I had mentioned above, give us some time, assume good faith. You may consider checking our user pages to see our statuses; again, some of us are busy. And this subject again is broad yet unpopular. From what I see, it is mostly you who is opposing our Wikiproject, when there should be no problem to having flops or new additions, be it proposals or permanent content for article mainspace. And to be frank, you are getting aggressive, sir; for a proposed Wikiproject needs at least six willing participants, here you may help correct my memory. Have a nice day.   08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, actually, six (including me) had signed above already. I do not see any harm here; in fact if all of us could be available at the same time we can give it a go. It would also be great to have things reassessed with a more definite quality and importance scale.  08:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)