Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 40

Philippine peso
As i reading the Philippine Peso (PHP) article, i find something's missing on it, Where are the Tables of the Different designs of these Bank notes and Coinages? from English series up to new generation tables ? we should have imagery also for the Real pesos. We need to have gallery presentations of these monies for the accuracy of the Article. thank you! (JournalmanManila (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC))


 * These were spun off into the articles Banknotes of the Philippine peso and Coins of the Philippine peso. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@skyharbor i see, its merged, thanks (JournalmanManila (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC))

Call for a more constant venue for discussions - perhaps a wiki-essay?
In response to the two discussions above on pre-colonial articles, I reiterate my position that we should really put together a set of steady policies that we can apply to the pre-colonial articles. Even if that policy document (a wiki-essay, perhaps?) results in extensive discussions, that's still better than having extensive individual discussions on individual pages, and the occasional discussions on the tambayan page, but not having a central reference everyone can refer to. - Alternativity (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC) I've lost track of all the discussions over the years. But there are significant discussions in the history pages of Tondo (Historical state), Lakandula, and the thankfully now-deleted "Luzon Empire" - all of which have been plagued by anons insisting on Fringe theories over the years. (Or entirely pushing a Fringe theory, in the case of Luzon Empire)- Alternativity (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this works, maybe our History taskforce author can help us here?--RioHondo (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate being called for service. Unfortunately, I am also unsure how it would work. If we would be coming up with a definite policy on Philippine history articles, particularly pre-colonial, we have to cooperate and have consensus. Anyway, I agree to the idea. I even thought the discussion was already completed when the issue surfaced before. I think I did not agree then to either "state" or "kingdom" because both were concepts unknown to pre-colonial Philippines. Arius1998 (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Arius, i think from our previous discussion, Alternativity was proposing to publish all the relevant policies and consensus made pertaining to this subject, as well as links to all other previous discussions here on Tambay concerning this area. And i remember suggesting Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine History which you created as the place for it. Anyway, my suggestion was to use ancient barangay for all these pre-colonial kingdoms/states cos that's what they actually teach in schools. These barangays (its modern version is the primarytopic so the article is at ancient barangay) are what Araling Panlipunan K-12 books use to refer to all those that have been ruled by datus, rajas, lakans, sultans, etc).--RioHondo (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I remember. That was when the project was incorporated as a task force. However, I was unable to put up together a definite policy or guidlines because other history projects also do not have anything relevant about it. Of course, that was before. Maybe I was looking in the wrong areas? I do not fully know the situation now. Anyway, let us put up a team who would draft this policy paper and study all available discussions in our archives, because definitely there has to be quite a number of them there. Of course, since I am not as active as I was before, we would need editors with more activity and experience. I see that when we finish this seminal policy paper, it will take a long time before it is updated or replaced. As for the barangay, I agree that it is probably the most neutral term for our pre-colonial entities (even sultanates were made up of barangays, so no problem there). Again, I try to refrain the use of either kingdom or state because both concepts were non-existent in pre-colonial Philippines, and may be seen as anachronism. However, I do not entirely agree with the use of "ancient." We ceased to used such terms in history. Besides, the pre-colonial barangay is the original one. The "modern" barangay may ought to be renamed instead of the original one. For instance: barangay (administrative unit)? Arius1998 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The modern barangay is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no doubt about that, based on the number of article views and no. of articles linked to it. See Talk:Barangay. Renaming it would be unwise considering the amount of Philippine geography and politics articles that would be affected. What would you suggest is a better disambiguation for the old barangay then? Cos i did a Google books search and found the "Ancient barangay" or "ancient barangay system" had the most no. of results or mentions in english books than "Traditional barangay" and "Pre-colonial barangay" combined.--RioHondo (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. How about a merge then? It seems that both articles are short enough to be merged? As for the set of guidelines, are there editors here willing to undertake the proposal? Or perhaps there are other ideas on how we should deal with the issue? Arius1998 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No merge needed at this point, I think. Unless you mean the talk page histories. :D Hehe. I want to participate in this. But I really don't want to be the guy who starts it again.  I've sorta gotten tired of my reputation for starting fights in support of Orthodox precolonial history. :p - Alternativity (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I too don't see any compelling reason for a merger considering the huge difference between the modern and ancient form, in terms of sociopolitical structure, size, leadership and degree of power, everything. :) it's even greater than the difference between Regions of the Philippines and Autonomous regions of the Philippines. If you find a more common alternative though, let me know. For now, it's ancient barangay thats more widely used in English sources. As for the Philippine History Task Force/Project, we can pattern it after WikiProject United States History which lists as its Goals:
 * To provide guidelines and recommendations for articles that describe all aspects of United States history.
 * To improve Wikipedia's coverage of United States history by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles.
 * To address POV issues and tentative edits in articles within the scope of the project.
 * To serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to the history of the United States in Wikipedia.
 * And then it has its Scope and Guidelines where we can list specific WP policies relating to editting our history-related articles and even include a link to our Philippine Manual of Styles, links to discussions and consensus made here, etc).--RioHondo (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A point of concern: a page or essay providing guidance on specifically relevant WP policies and serving as a central point of discussion for issues is one thing. A separate wiki sub-project is another. Two things: (a) I don't think we have the resources to make this a wiki sub-project; (b) I feel that a page or essay whose administration is commented upon by the larger Tambayan community is stronger than a similar page or essay which falls under the scope of a much smaller wiki sub-project. Hm. Just my thoughts. Let's not over-extend ourselves? :D - Alternativity (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * wait, United states history it looks good but our history wasn't really the same as theirs Philippine history does had a smimilary style and forms based on the influence from their neighboring countries ?  (JournalmanManila (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

Personal names and titles of persons
This edit caught my eye, and I noticed that it was one of a series of four edits by to articles about Philippine historical/political figures from the time period of the Philippine Revolution and the First Philippine Republic: I made a followup edit to the Trias article, then self-reverted that edit in favor of discussion here. I am raising this here because I think that there ought to be a consistent practice followed here but I'm not sure what that practice ought to be. WP:NCP provides a WP-wide guideline on titling articles about individual people but, AFAIK, there is no WP-wide guideline for the other items in the table above. I believe that there ought to be a consistent guideline for articles in the purview of this project. I do not know what guidance would be appropriate for the four articles exampled in the table above -- much less for similar articles relevant to other periods of Philippine history. Perhaps this ought to be discussed here.

Regarding the four articles exampled above, it seems to me that both the Spanish and the English naming convention might be appropriate and that one convention ought to be consistently followed.

Surnames by country and Filipino name might be useful, as might some outside sources (e.g., and ). We ought to keep in mind, though, that most WP users -- and probably most WP users looking at articles within the purview of this project -- are not Filipino. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration Proposal
Hi! Since i editing wikipedia for a month now, I like to propose an Article with a voluntary collaborations with the fellow users, i like to propose of creating the Article for a Ticao Stone also known as Rizal stone Inscriptions.

This is a Stone Inscriptions written in Baybayin Script found in Ticao, Masbate.

As i read some of the Users are demanding for any artifacts like stone inscriptions a tangible artifacts, this article may help to improve the historiography of the  Archaic epoch of the Philippine History (900-1521),

I will do my contributions and some users give their own, So Who's agree? This is for the Benefit of the Philippine History, If any Ideas objections you can contact me to my Talk page nor i will visit Wikitambayan to read your comments Thank you. (JournalmanManila (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Invitation to Women in Red's special November activities
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Philippine Islands Council (Boy Scouts of America)
This article, which I have twice had to move back for MOS, is really just a bunch of incoherent quote blocks. 3 previous issues of late (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting) have also dealt with this same overeager editor, who won't abide advice. He's knowledgeable and energetic, but has no concept of undue weight. Can someone jump in here?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Demand for List of Filipino inventions and discoveries
Hello! i was looking and asking for the admins or any members who can grant a Semi-protection for the article List of Filipino inventions and discoveries, due to the reasons of trolling

trolling by means of Blanking the page, adding some nonsense words (such as do not copy this or you will diehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ,EDI WOW) from the header to footer of the  of the article,  adding some stupid commentaries (commentaries containing a racist remarks and Anti Filipino sentiments which is done by the wikipedians who using IP address non-registered members. the bad thing was , they are editors which is living also in the philippines!

The purpose of demand for the protection was for the following : to avoid WP:Trollings, for only the Registered editors of wikipedia can only edit the article. and for the safety of article to never again to be trolled.

registered user are easy to be tracked by admins if the members will dare to troll.

I hope the request of the protection will be consider, Thank you! (JournalmanManila (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Requests for page protection is the place to request page protections.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit dispute on CD-R King
So I stumbled upon this article which was started by User:Bumbl loid just recently. Tried to rephrase some things in it and decrufted the article by removing unsourced product listings, only to be reverted by the original author even if I did nothing wrong with it. Any thoughts on this? Blake Gripling (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I already resolve this by retaining your edits to the page. Please see on my talk page for you to see my reply. Bumbl_loid 12:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Neologism in Moro Rebellion article?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Moro Rebellion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of Diacritics, or Palatuldikan?
Is there any sort of policy on the use of the Palatuldikan or Diacritics (not counting ñ, but the ones with accents) in English language Wikipedia articles?Naraht (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is style guide when to use diacritics for article titles of Philippine places and Filipino people. Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles. --Bluemask (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis in the Philippines needs improvement
We have a new article Cannabis in the Philippines, but it could really use improvement and expansion, especially from anyone who can read Tagalog sources. With a little polishing, it'd also be really useful to make a translated version for Tagalog Wikipedia since it's a topic of increasing interesting these days. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Images needed?
I'm taking my first trip to the Philippines in the next two weeks, primarily to meet my future in-laws, but also for a vacation. I plan to see Manila, Boracay, Laoag City, and Vigan. Are there are sites for which we need images, so I can take some pictures? Do you recommend any particular sights or foods? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of the Interior and Local Government list
What is with all the unnumbered, italicized names towards the beginning of the list in the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government (Philippines) article (i.e., from Pascual Alvarez in 1897 to Jose P. Laurel in 1943)? Did they all act in an acting, OIC capacity? If so, should they not be noted as such, similar to the more recent examples from the Fifth Republic? SilentGanda (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Garry Cruz
So this (possibly autobiographical) article was created earlier today. He doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources as far as I can find; however, it appears he released a number of albums (albeit digitally) under Universal Philippines? Is that enough to establish notability? I'm thinking of sending the article to AFD, but I'm requesting second opinions first before doing so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org as a source on Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory
Hi to the community! Please join a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the reliability of globalsecurity.org as a source on Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory. The discussion can be found at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. The discussion continues at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and some voices familiar with basic Familiar history would be helpful for the discussion. :D - Alternativity (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion mentioned above seems to have been archived here. That archived discussion should not be modified; see the hatnote at the top of the archive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone needed to create this article for the 2017 Visayas and Mindanao floods
The recent floods in Visayas and Mindanao are not being given immediate attention here, and no one have been eager to make an article for this floods, as this seems to be worthy for an article because of its very strong impact on those regions and looks like being of national significance also, like the previous floods in 2010 and 2011, 2012 and 2016. I added the recent floods in Visayas and Mindanao to the list of floods, but no one still created the article on the link that I added there. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Telecom mess in the Philis
Hi there,

due to the recent changes in mobile services, I was keenly searching for more and better infos, also in wikipedia. What I have found so far, is one article about SUN cellular which sounds like a copy from a commercial flyer of SUN cellular; moreover, it was never mentioned that SUN cellular is about to pass away by being taken over by PLDT & SMART Communication. It's extremely hard to find reliable information on these 2, or 3 respectively, main players in the Philippines. It's approx. 1 year ago when PLDT "swallowed" SUN cellular, erased their previous owner's name, DIGITEL, but the business as usual was continued for nearly another year of 2016. From NOV.2016 onward, SMART Comm. as the mobile daughter of PLDT was "sentenced" to help out SUN cellular for their insufficient antenna system and their poor customer services. Meanwhile, the SUN antenna signal in Cebu City/central Visayas is back to where it should have been all the time, as fast as 3G; but in return, the formerly good availability of the SMART 3G signal was now lost and internetting via SMART 3G is no more possible in southern Cebu City ! I call it, the SUN disease has now infected SMART while SUN itself has recovered. Well, I had left SUN behind after several years of good antenna supply for their recently poor signal and had switched to satisfactory SMART. Now I had to switch back to SUN which is of strong signal again by roaming SMART whereas the SMART signal is as poor as can be - the only online activity that is really working is the enrolling into their connection by using up one's prepaid load, that's all, and after connecting, no page opens properly anymore,not even google itself, and sending a single text e-mail may take 45-60 min until it was sent - stoneage-like ! I visited several service points of SUN and SMART repeatedly during November and December 2016 without getting any explanation or any compensation for my uselessly lost money. Their only canon says, we are updating to 4G... wow, great! And what does that mean to a 3G user then? No answer at all, neither by their salespeople, by their technicians, nor by any of their chaotic websites which are changing their IP names from smart,com into my,smart.com so that most old links are dead now. It's a cat-and mouse hunt, a hide-and-seek situation and the consumer is clarly the looser again; that smells so much like PLDT. The wikipedia site SUN cellular is as such completely outdated within a few weeks, the SMART sites disappear under new addresses, there is not the slightest consumer information, and only when I am getting furious in their office, then they will admit that things are gonna change now - but again with not the smallest guidance for consumers. The SMART Communications wikipedia site also doesn't report on the take-over of SUN, amazing; I personally expect the former mobile phone provider brand SUN cellular to become a mere brand name within SMART for certain tariffs and devices. In Nov.2016, I was told that I am actually dealing with a SMART branch, so I reminded them that they are sitting in a SUN labelled office wearing SUN uniforms; they told me that these will also be changed soon... The general problem in the Philippines is to find, locate, or receive any useful and true information ! Public statistics are mostly missing, public criticism is not practised, negative results never published etc., that makes it very hard and sometimes impossible to really understand and follow what is actually going on. My recent SMART equipment is useless now and thus, truly outdated literally, it was just good to still own my former SUN equipment which I could successfully re-activate. Latest information in SUN is from July 2016 (!), in SMART it's all about expanding into 4G alone, glorious SMART ! Nobody is and was willing to say it loud and clear: In my housing district, the SMART 3G signal is no more and 4G will not come here as admitted by SMART salespeople... never has internetting been poorer than now ever since 2011 ! This is plain fact but not even mentioned in wikipedia - how can that be? I am sure that there are thousands of victims like me out there... where are you all... only in Facebook, I assume. In the business internet, many authors are aware that the Philippines are run by a communications duopoly - outside the business world, I have never heard of this fact but I had to learn it now by my own sad experience. Isn't this mess worth a wiki page of its own? In 2017, many changes are going to come, new frequencies, new minor players, a new governmental style of judging on the telecom industry and a set-back in corruption hopefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmozy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To put it simply, Wikipedia can not be used as a soapbox for grievances. It's a volunteer encyclopedia, not a magazine, not a newspaper, or a PR site. It has no connections with any of those companies. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Two things

 * 1) Someone needs to check the lyrics' translations and copyright status on the Bayan Ko song article. Both the original author and original translator are long dead.
 * 2) Why does Kingdom of Maynila redirect to Seludong? 130.105.220.232 (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I second the motion on the second question. - Alternativity (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The original writer of Bayan Ko (lyrics, Jose Corazon de Jesus, died in 1932, so that's likely more than the 50 year protection period under the Philippines' Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act no. 8293). --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further checks. José_Alejandrino (supposedly the original Spanish writer) died in 1951, so that also makes his death over 50 years past. Not quite sure where the other English translations came from (will have to recheck) but the Carmen Navarro Pedrosa referred to in the sources imply that one of the English translations in the article came from Orion Dumdum, who is still alive. So that translation should be removed. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second question, referring to the ancient state/polity of Maynila as a kingdom is a anachronism. "Seludong" or "Kota Seludong" is an alternate name for the precolonial "Maynila". To shorten the name of the article under WP:CONCISE and to avoid the anachronistic label of "Kingdom", Seludong was used instead of just "Maynila", since the term is still used today to refer to the modern Manila.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tagalog profanity
Hot of the presses: Tagalog profanity. I would definitely appreciate review of this article by members of the Tambayan. (Yes, yes, I am very walang hiya for making this article; let's get that out of the way first thing first.) Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest renaming to Filipino profanity as words like pakshet are seldom heard in old Tagalog provinces outside Metro Manila. Its too modern Manila taglish. Punyeta, gago, puta, etc are also shared with other Philippine languages so theyre not entirely a Tagalog thing. Good article, tho.--RioHondo (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Filipino profanity is currently a redirect. I don't really agree, as according to my research on what most experts say about this subject, Filipino is the standard register of Tagalog, and I wanted to fit the naming convention of other articles on the subject, such as Tagalog grammar. I would also like to invite, perhaps, articles like Cebuano profanity, &c. There seems to be a lot of debate in the world about what the actual status of Filipino is: the government seemed to be going for a constructed language based on many different languages, but as we know that has not happened at all outside of some very small edge cases (and there is no proof that these edge cases of words being adapted into Filipino from other regional languages did not also happen to Tagalog). My personal opinion is that it is only a de jure language, and the de facto national language of the Philippines is Tagalog. Please feel free to prove me wrong though, these aren't so much hard set beliefs as feelings I got from reading the sources and my own preconceived beliefs about Tagalog, Filipino and the whole "national language" question. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tinggil is a Bisaya word. I dont think any Tagalog person uses that word as often to refer to the female sex organ. Then there's that Bisaya word Hindot or Hindut also mentioned in your article, definitely not spoken by any Tagalog except those who may have originated from the south. As a Tagalog, i can tell a person's origin from the words they use. I know some of those vulgar words have found common use among Tagalog speakers but my understanding is that as a general rule, once Tagalog is mixed with other dialects or languages, then it becomes Filipino language. This i learned in Filipino subject. There's more Pinoy cuss words that aren't Tagalog but also used occasionally in Filipino like Buang, leche, peste yawa, kadyot, ukinam, ukininam, (and more from this thread on one forum entitled Pinoy cuss words 101 LOL). Definitely all Pinoy, just not all Tagalog. :) --RioHondo (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, I hear where you're coming from. This -> "once Tagalog is mixed with other dialects or languages, then it becomes Filipino language" seems to be a government POV, and it is not a POV I can find shared in reliable sources, so that's why I left the article title as Tagalog profanity. The government can of course teach its POV in schools as fact, but I don't think I have to cite all of the mistakes that have been found in Filipino DepEd textbooks over the years for you to agree that much of what is taught in local schools is not infallible. I agree with you that many of those words are not originally Tagalog, and perhaps even mentioning that in the article would be good . Also, I am aware that there are many, many, many... Filipino swear words I left out, but note that I only did so because of a lack of reliable sources discussing them, or too few sources discussing them to make a large/interesting section. I based this off of some other X Profanity articles here on Wikipedia, such as Spanish profanity, which, due to my Spanish knowledge, I know is not even close to exhaustive.
 * To reiterate once again, I am not totally against changing the article's name, but I think we should only do it after we have a larger discussion about what the reliable sources say about the difference between Filipino and Tagalog, whether one is really only just a standard register of the other, or if there is something more to the government's claims that Filipino is its own language. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, finding reliable sources is always the toughest part when it comes to creating and editing Philippine related articles. But IMO, its not just a government POV, as i said as a native Tagalog, you just know what is or isnt Tagalog and when to use Filipino or Tagalog. It's not a political issue really, but more of awareness of linguistic/dialectal differences. :) --RioHondo (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Census of Population Data from 1903 - 2007
Just sharing to you the following link as it would be useful for the municipal, city, province and region articles. 2010 and 2015 data are already at Wikidata and you can just place  and   in the LGU article. --Exec8 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC) .
 * https://archive.org/download/PhilippinesCensusofPopulationLGUs19032007

Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index
Just sharing to you the another link as it would be useful in expanding the municipal, city, province and region articles. In case it disappears in the future, you can have use this archive. --Exec8 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.competitive.org.ph/cmcindex/pages/rankings/


 * How useful is this index actually? Do we really want another ranking in the infobox? I feel that this should not be added. Looking at the drastic changes year-to-year, it would be a huge task to keep it up to date. But more importantly, it is a meaningless number without proper context and explanation. At best, it can be used for a stand-alone article where it can be properly explained. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on RS Noticeboard on reliability of historyofjihad.org as a source
I've started a thread at the RS Noticeboard requesting community comment on the reliability of historyofjihad.org as a source, at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Seeking comments there, please - Alternativity (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Blurb for the mobile version of Ma-i contains false information no longer on the desktop page
Hi. I've noticed that as of today (2 February 2017), the blurb for the mobile version of Ma-i still describes it as a "sinified state". This, despite edits on the article removing that description (which scholarly literature asserts is untrue.) Does anybody know why? And can someone do something about it, please? Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. I changed the description in Wikidata. (See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4401176). You may want to change the description yourself if my changes are incorrect. --Jojit (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User:ArtCulture, User:Inangpintor and Elito Circa
Hi. Some weirdness seems to be going on between User:ArtCulture new account User:Inangpintor. I'm not sure I understand it, but it seems to be centered around the Elito Circa page. I'm completely unfamiliar with Elito Circa, but I initially appreciated some of the edits by User:ArtCulture to art pages I was watching. I'm no expert on Philippine Art despite my dabbling, so I'm going to flag the community now. Who's vandalizing what? Might bear watching. - Alternativity (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you can add PhilHist15 to the list. - Alternativity (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"The Soils of the Philippines" as a History of the Philippines Source
Please note that the source being used to justify to continued use of the terms "Tondo Dynasty" and "Tondo Empire" is "The Soils of the Philippines" By Carating,Rodelio B., Raymundo G. Galanta, and Clarita D. Bacatio. It was published by Springer Science & Business in 2014. It's problematic for at least two reasons. First of all, clearly, the book isn't about history at all. Second and more importantly, the original text clearly makes extensive use of the "Kingdom of Tondo" Wikipedia Page as a reference. I think this is a no-brainer as a non-reliable source, but I'd like to consensus, and a discussion I can refer to in the future when similar citations rear their ugly head. I'm not sure if community consensus here at WP:Tambay is enough. Should I bring this up with WP:RSN? - Alternativity (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary. WP:CIRCULAR is pretty clear.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Extensive Damage to History of the Philippines (900-1521) articles, connected to "Tondo Empire" Fringe Theory
Hi all. I'm formally calling the community's attention to extensive damage, via the addition of speculation, synthesis, peacock terms, and extensive use of unreliablie sources, done to articles connected to History of the Philippines (900-1521), specifically anything linked to the "Pasig River kingdoms", especially Kingdom of Tondo. Essentially this effort has promoted the idea that the Kingdom of Tondo was an Empire/Dynasty, with extensive territory and dominion over other kingdoms, including the Kingdom of Namayan/Sapa and Ma-i (damage undone). I'm not going to make an argument about this being untrue (who knows); but I am going to make a fuss about it being unreferenced and unscholarly.

User:JournalmanManila seems to be at the core of this, and has been warned about this numerous times on his user page, on the appropriate article pages, and on edit history descriptions. But other editors are copying the behavior. I cannot tell if this is sockpuppetry, copycat behavior, or just a reflection of popular (misguided) belief in the theory. (Because, hey, their theorypushing really is more exciting than having to trawl through scholarship and historiography.

As is, these articles now contain unreferenced (or poorly referenced), unscholarly text which are often plain false due to anachrnonistic interpretation of facts (WP:SYNTHESIS if ever I saw it.)

I know people tend to keep their hands clean of this particular corner of wikipedia, but we (the Tambayan Community) let this slide for a while LAST time and the result is that terms like "Tondo Empire" and "Tondo Dynasty" have come into use by sources citing wikipedia such as THIS:, which the Kingdom of Tondo article now cites as a basis for using those terms.

I'm not sure how to fix this. Getting Ma-i into a skeletally acceptable shape alone took me two weeks. Besides which, I've been known to have my own scholarly blind spots. Requesting input and help, please. - Alternativity (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What if we bring this to ANI and have the pages in question given the 30/500 or pending changes treatment? Considering the contentious nature of the edits I think locking it down a bit and having trouble users topic-banned from editing would help curb the misinformation. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's the same user looking out from his watchtower that we managed to block indefinitely last year. I believe it's called Operation Overlords -- the same historical revisionism I have been alerting the Project to in the last couple of years. This used to cover a whole lot of Philippine articles but we've managed to isolate the problem to the concerned pages i think. No doubt another WP:TBAN is in order, or even an WP:SBAN would be highly recommended with all his, Philipandrew's, Philipandrew2's and all their socks' edits to those pages, or any Wikipage for that matter, permanently deleted. Will support the ANI.--RioHondo (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. The use of "Specially", the broken English, the skill with GIMP and the tendency to create cobbled-together images (especially in baybayin), and the same topic obsession is definitely quacky. I suggest checking his Commons trail as well. Sigh.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Vouching on the SBAN too. I'd say we revert the page to the last known clean version, then have it permenently PC'd or at least for six months. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, one good thing DID come out of this: it forced me to massively expand Ma-i, which had been stubbish before. (It still needs work, but for now I think I've provided basic citations contradicting the common fringe theories) The reason I mention this is, with all that damage, it's hard to figure out how to fix things. Do we just go back to an earlier point? If you look at the edits, that involves massive massive rollbacks. They've been at this for a looooong time. Any ideas? I strongly support any incident reports and blocks we can do, but my primary concern remains the scholarly quality of the articles.
 * (Also, is there any precedent for summarizing and archiving article talk pages? Particularly on Kingdom of Tondo and Lakandula, the messy discussion is contributing to slow response to vandals. I think I've caught myself repeating arguments on the same talk page once or twice.)
 * (On another note, let me remark that this seems to be the third wave of fringe theories linked to Kingdom of Tondo: the first was the "Luzon Empire" fiasco from the mid-2000s (still reverberating today in edits that want Tondo to be called a Sinified state), the second was the "Descendants of Lakandula" fiasco of the early 2010s(?) which invented a Lakandula of Guagua, and this third is sort of a slow-burn anachronistic "empirification" of Tondo. I don't know why Tondo is always the flashpoint, but wow if that isn't an argument for locking down Kingdom of Tondo, Lakandula, Kingdom of Namayan, and possibly History of the Philippines (900-1521), I don't know what is. - Alternativity (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Up to you to submit an incident report for admin sanctions. I haven't reviewed the articles so at this point, i guess only you know the extent of the damage. :) If something is beyond repair, then reverting them to the year/decade it was last acceptable and neutral as Blake said will have to be necessary. Make sure to save your edits and versions of the pages tho, so we have something if eventually all his edits get deleted as a result of ANI. IMO, locking the page is just bandaid. It's only a matter of time before he comes back to ruin your changes and insert his materials again as he's done under different handles apparently over the last 10 years.--RioHondo (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah a lockdown would be too much, but if ANI decides for an indefinite pending changes (as a 30/500 would be too much unless absolutely necessary) I don't see anything wrong with such protection in place. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge February 2017 is Multilingualism
FYI, take a look in commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - February - Multilingualism if you have any file you'd like to upload, maybe in some of your archive at home. So far nothing from the Philippine.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

City and municipality articles
let me know that there are over 1,600 city and municipality articles in the WikiProject and that they all use the plain Philippines map. Is there any reason that we shouldn't start converting them to the relief map? Thanks, Dawnseeker2000


 * The plain map is less distracting, makes the location stand out more, and the provincial boundaries are actually visible. The relief map is pretty but overkill in the infobox.
 * I recall seeing a recent and extensive discussion somewhere on the use of plain vs. relief maps. Can you please link it? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Found the other discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba. Most of the arguments there apply here as well... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO, that's just the right map to use, the plain map or what i call political map as these are political/governmental articles on Local Government Units (LGUs). The relief map or what looks like physical map, that's used for articles relating to geography or landforms, at least from my experience :) Btw, i hope someone also creates individual locator maps for Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and a new locator for Metro Manila. These would be particularly useful for articles on buildings and structures, an OpenStreetMap type showing major roads for Metro Manila would be much more helpful for readers compared to the blank unlabelled locator map we use right now. For the locator maps of the 3 main island groups, this should at least provide more detail compared to Miagao Church pointing to what looks like a big chunk of southern Panay covering Iloilo and Antique. :)--RioHondo (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that for contemporary locations, the use of the political map as a/the main image makes sense. But I would really like to see more extensive use of relief maps for:
 * * a) geographical features such as mountain ranges, bays, etc;
 * * b) historical locations such as Ancient Tondo (aka Kingdom of Tondo, because it helps ward away anachronists who insist on using contemporary boundaries to delineate historical territories; and
 * * c)articles in which the geographical features are key to understanding aspects of the topic concerned, such as Navotas (key to its etymology and history) and Corregidor (key to its military strategic characteristics ... or do we want an actual gradient map for that?).


 * I feel that for City and Municipality articles (with exceptions in unusual cases), the political map should be the image in the infobox, with the relief map optional for the geography/topography and history sections.


 * Also, someone care to point me to a guide for how to create relief map images? :D - Alternativity (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO, the relief map is overkill for pinpointing locations of cities/municipalities. Unlike, say, Wyoming, which is just a big rectangular block devoid of internal context, the Philippines, being an archipelago, already provides lots of natural geography context and you don't really need to show mountain ranges. I also like the argument that we use a simple, less distracting, political map for administrative entities and use the physical map for natural entities like mountains. —seav (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Philippine train station naming and naming of the LRT and MRT systems
The name of train stations in the Philippines seem to have the incorrect naming convention, and seems that Philippine train stations should best follow US train station naming (i.e. Station name ([operator name/line name] station)), rather than the British/Australian train station naming, like "Station name" railway station (for Philippine National Railways stations) or "Station name" LRT (or MRT) Station (for LRT and MRT stations). If US train station naming scheme would be used over the British train station naming scheme, the name of the station would be close to the ones used on signage, so:
 * Alabang railway station -> Alabang (PNR station)
 * EDSA LRT Station] -> EDSA (LRT Line 1 station)
 * Recto LRT Station -> Recto (LRT Line 2 station)
 * Araneta Center–Cubao MRT Station -> Araneta Center–Cubao (MRT Line 3 station)

With the US train station naming scheme adopted for use in Philippine train station naming, the names would be close to the names used on actual signage, except for the disambiguator.

And I also point out questions regarding the name of the articles of the LRT and MRT systems, whose current naming do not follow the common naming. Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System do not follow common references and names for those lines, and these needs to be renamed to Light Rail Transit (Metro Manila) or Metro Rail Transit (Metro Manila). For the LRT lines, these would be the possible renaming, by omitting "System" from the names, or "Light Rail Transit Line [number] (Metro Manila)" :
 * Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 -> Manila Light Rail Transit Line 1 (option 1), Light Rail Transit Line 1 (Metro Manila) (option 2)
 * Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 -> Manila Light Rail Transit Line 2 (option 1), Light Rail Transit Line 2 (Metro Manila) (option 2)

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for bringing this up. Review is definitely overdue. 14 years since the Strong Republic Transit project, some things are now more clear to me: 1) There will never be a unified "system", at least in the near future, except the LRTA Lines 1 & 2. Some of the new line projects have already been awarded to individual private companies so they will be their own individual "systems" with their own "brand names". Universal LRT Corp. for example has chosen to name their line as simply Metro Rail Transit Line 7. So we can forget the system part. And 2) The unqualified LRT and MRT by and far are the most common names for those mass transit lines.
 * So i agree that 1) The "System" articles be merged back to their operators. (the Philippine National Railways doesn't have a separate article for its "system" anyway. It's both the company operator and the system). And 2) The plain names "Light Rail Transit" and "Metro Rail Transit" be used. We can discuss the best way to disambiguate them. If you ask me, im leaning more towards using:
 * Light Rail Transit Line 1 (LRTA) (operated by Light Rail Transit Authority)
 * Light Rail Transit Line 2 (LRTA) (operated by Light Rail Transit Authority)
 * Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRTC) (operated by Metro Rail Transit Corporation)
 * Light Rail Transit Line 4 (Philippines)
 * Light Rail Transit Line 6 (Philippines)
 * Metro Rail Transit Line 7 (ULC) (operated by Universal LRT Corporation)
 * I prefer using the railway operator as disambiguator as these mass transit lines aren't confined to Metro Manila (LRT-6 is entirely in Cavite). I believe this is the same practice in countries like Japan where mass transit are operated by different corporations. The "Philippines" disambiguator for LRT-4 and LRT-6 are only temporary, will change them once weve identified their operators.--RioHondo (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the article titles of the stations, definitely it is more neat to use the plain name (what actually appears in their infoboxes) without the unnecessary "MRT/LRT station" qualifier. But again i prefer a simpler disambiguation. Araneta–Center Cubao (LRTA) and Shaw Boulevard (MRTC). That way it's more relaxing to read. Araneta Center–Cubao is a station on the.. And NOT Araneta Center–Cubao MRT Station is a station on the... REDUNDANT. :)--RioHondo (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. However, the station renaming involves many articles. How about a mass article renaming for the PNR, LRT, and MRT stations?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait it out. Allow other users to comment on the proposal before carrying out any mass move. We haven't agreed on the disambiguator. :) --RioHondo (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging, appreciate your take on this proposal. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved most pages of the PNR stations to follow this format: Station name (PNR station). The remainder, including LRT-1, LRT-2 and MRT-3 stations, as well as the other PNR stations I did not moved, are yet to be moved. But, I will see the agreement with the naming scheme.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why the name sfor the PNR, LRT and MRT stations are named as Station name railway station, Station name LRT Station, and Station name MRT station, is due to the use of the Rws, Lrts and Mrts templates to create links for the stations. The "Station name railway station" scheme is somewhat a common station naming scheme in British and Australian train stations, and for Philippine stations, what looks better is just the station name (as seen on signage) and the disambiguator.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I looking up for create train station links with templates dedicated to create predefined train station links for the PNR, MRTC, and LRTA stations.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Use the Stnd template: it expands to  . Useddenim (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No issue with using the plain name for stations. As i said, that's also my preference as it actually uses the name in their respective infoboxes. But the disambiguation for me is longer than necessary. If we follow WP:CONCISE, we wouldn't really have to put their entire description as a station enclosed in parentheses, as it is the first thing mentioned in the lede. I'd have preferred Tutuban (PNR) without the unnecessary station qualifier, as google already displays the "is a station" bit in their results, and because Tutuban (PNR) can only mean the station. Same for Araneta Center–Cubao (MRTC) and Central Terminal (LRTA). As for the line names, i need to at least hear the side of the users who created them.--RioHondo (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I just got called to here, but I started a discussion a week ago about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rapid transit and didn't know where else to look. Now I know. I've been doing downcasings of "station" in the style of WP:UKSTATION more or less, but if people prefer to go with something like WP:USSTATION, I'm willing to chip in to go that way instead. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would've preferred, at least for rapid transit stations, be named as " station", as the word "station" is usually included as an identifier in WP:RS. I could probably say the same for PNR stations. See this, for example. If the article has to be disambiguated, then adding "(MRT)", "(LRT)" or "(PNR)" should suffice. 10:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that still be UK convention? As for station names, my idea of US convention is the case of the New York City Subway stations:


 * Canal Street (New York City Subway)
 * Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway)
 * 168th Street (New York City Subway)
 * South Ferry–Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)
 * Court Square (New York City Subway)
 * Plain names. No "station" qualifier in the titles at all.


 * Using the NY Subway stations example, let me break down the proposals being floated here:
 * 1. Canal Street (New York City Subway station) —TagaSanPedroAko
 * 2. Canal Street station or Canal Street station (New York City Subway) —HowardTheDuck
 * 3. Canal Street Subway station —current
 * 4. Canal Street (New York City Subway) —My proposal. :)
 * Anyone else has a convention to propose?--RioHondo (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could care less if it's the UK, US or Martian convention. I'm looking at how WP:RS, most preferably local ones, does it. It still keeps the natural disambiguator "station", without being too specific such as "MRT station". Looking at the recent news at the "common station" for LRT-1, MRT-3 and MRT-7 at EDSA North, they're using "North Avenue station". Looking at articles about individual stations, they're using "LRT Baclaran Station", "LRT-1 Baclaran station", "MRT3 Ayala station", "Magallanes to North Avenue Station". This article uses "Tutuban Station". TripAdvisor uses "Ayala station". It seems that for the "first reference", WP:RS never omit the word "station". – H T  D  13:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, you can bet the standard " station" is used a lot in RS when referring to practically all rapid transit stations throughout the world. It's concise and easily understood. But you can also argue that simply "Blumentritt" is more common as it also covers RS's that refer to it not as "Blumentritt station", but as "the LRT Station in Blumentritt", "station in Blumentritt, Manila", the "station of Blumentritt", "Blumentritt LRT station", "Blumentritt terminal", "terminal in Blumentritt," etc etc. Then add the "Blumentritt station". It's got it all covered. :) This has been argued in the US rail project before i believe, which is how they arrived with the convention.--RioHondo (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The search I did was nowhere as exhaustive as I would like it to be, but I haven't come up with WP:RS that calls it simply as "Blumentritt" on the first reference. Of course someone may come up with something to that effect, but the preponderance of WP:RS, without question, always disambiguates with the word "station", or with the phrase "MRT/LRT/PNR station", at the first reference of the station. We'd always follow WP:RS. Perhaps this is true for U.S. WP:RS talking about rail stations in the U.S., and I won't dispute that, but I can be persuaded if this is also the local practice, where WP:RS calls the LRT station at EDSA simply as "EDSA", at least on the first reference. – H T  D  14:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then UK convention is for you. Hehe. LRTA.gov.ph even calls it Blumentritt Terminal and EDSA Terminal on its website here. We'll put it to a vote don't worry. It's always consensus on the kind of convention to use.--RioHondo (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah. I intentionally avoided "official" first-party sources such as the actual owners and operators of the railways, and used third-party sources. Third-party sources is closer to general use, and even if it contradicts with each other, we can weigh them up. Can you imagine if the official website issues conflicting information? (Which they always do.) – H T  D  14:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with HTD on this, in that I'd like to include "station" but remove "LRT", as that's very common in sources. But I also like the alternative of just downcasing station in the current name scheme, mostly because that will just be so much easier. Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good idea how to proceed here? Or any objection if I just keep downcasing "station" and keeping the titles otherwise as they are, without prejudice against further title convention changes later? Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so a number of articles have already been moved by you and TagaSanPedroAko with completely different formats. I suggest we settle this first so we can rectify the situation and bring back consistency in our articles.--RioHondo (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. If I understand TagaSanPedroAko's scheme, I would just add parens around the "LRT station" part of the name, while lowercasing station, right?  I'll wait and see what the project prefers, and what the template implications are.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's the deal. The article title would definitely need to mention: 1. The station name and 2. The rail system/operator. This is crucial in that several stations have the same names (those "interchange stations" for example) but are impossible to merge simply because they're separate structures (by different owners) and some aren't physically connected to each other at all, like Araneta Center–Cubao LRT Station and Araneta Center–Cubao MRT Station; Blumentritt LRT Station and Blumentritt (PNR station); EDSA LRT Station and EDSA (PNR station); North Avenue MRT Station and North Avenue LRT Station, Buendia MRT Station and Buendia (PNR station), etc. So the " station" proposal, in my opinion, won't work to provide a uniform scheme as some would eventually need to be disambiguated (which would only attract instability and later moves to copy those disambiguations). The only question is: Is there a need to include "station" in the title when the rail system is already indicated? :) But if everyone agrees to it, then it'll only be a matter of status quo versus parentheses.--RioHondo (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean drop "station" maybe, and go with something like Araneta Center–Cubao (MRT)? I don't care for that minimalist approach; fails recognizability, compared to titles that are easily recognized as station articles. And disambiguators usually say what the class of object is; it's not an MRT, but is an MRT station, so that would fit the usual disambiguator pattern better. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, this WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. Which is copied in all Category:Paris Métro stations, Category:Milan Metro stations, Category:Berlin U-Bahn stations, Category:Moscow Metro stations, Category:Madrid Metro stations, Toronto Transit Commission stations, etc. No station. Just Subway/Metro/U-Bahn/TTC. Sometimes, the disambiguation only needs to show location in parentheses and not be too precise as to provide anymore information or context that would otherwise be the job of the lead section. Hehe! Note too that ordinary people only know LRT, MRT or PNR, i doubt anyone ever googles Blumentritt+station, they only do keywords: Blumentritt+lrt. That's something to consider too. :)--RioHondo (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. I won't object if that's the way y'all decide to go. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You doubted wrongly:
 * Ayala station: 619k results
 * Ayala MRT: 410k results
 * Ayala MRT station: 327k results
 * If we're going to be dropping the word "station" from article names, we would need far more convincing arguments aside from the #alternativefact "no one searches for it", and "New Yorkers use it". – H T  D  00:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the Google searches above had the words "Ayala" "MRT" and "station" appearing on the page, but not necessarily together. If you'd look for pages where "Ayala" and "station" or "MRT" is there without the other, "Ayala" + "MRT" is leading 7:6.
 * Looking further at Google News results, this is what I came up with:
 * Ayala MRT -station: 841
 * Ayala station -MRT: 17k
 * "Ayala station" -MRT: 2
 * "Ayala MRT" -station: 5 (1 article though didn't have the exact phrase "Ayala MRT" though.)
 * "Ayala MRT station": 10
 * It seems that, for news articles which should be the majority of the WP:RS that we're using, neither call the MRT station near Ayala avenue as "Ayala MRT", "Ayala station" or "Ayala MRT station", but a great preponderance of articles, and it's not even a close contest, always have the words "Ayala" and "station" in it without "MRT", as opposed to "Ayala" and "MRT" without "station" in it. Of course, this is only one station, and who knows what kind of results crop up for other stations, but this is based on something, unlike you something you pull out of thin air, and that these should be from the Philippines and not some far away land that likes big apples. – H T  D  01:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a reason it's called a convention. Does WP:MOSPHIL follow RS for the names of our cities? No. LOL! This convention is no different from your Lapu-Lapu, Philippines where it is only disambiguated by its location as opposed to what RS really calls it. Good luck finding an RS that says Lapu-Lapu or Naga only, without City. I understand you campaigned for this un-Philippine-like convention-from-a-faraway-land before? Teehee! I know you too like apples ;)--RioHondo (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If WP:MOSPHIL doesn't even follow WP:RS, then why is it even in the Wikipedia namespace? That's terrible. I'm not talking about the examples you've given, as it is irrelevant to how rail stations are to be named.
 * And please, cut the condescension. It's not helping you win arguments. 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha. The Duck always sees condescension except those he's written. :) Read your arguments, they're all very hostile, unnecessarily even. I go explaining the convention used elsewhere and get called as pulling something out of thin air. But ive gotten used to them, only i try to adjust my language with you all the time my friend. Your words not mine. Haha Big apples back at you ;) Payce!--RioHondo (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ooh i dont care if its the UK, US or Martian convention only my wish be done.. because im the duck". :P Haha. A cooler head with an alternative solution to offer would be welcome. Thanks! Otherwise, we stick to status quo and just allow Dicklyon to continue downcasing "station" in the current articles titles. Peace tayo HTD! Hehe, just try to loosen up buddy. :)--RioHondo (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, still waiting to hear people's opinion regarding the line names, particularly with regards to following WP:COMMONNAME and removing Manila and System from the titles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My preference would be remove System but keep Manila, which gives much better recognizability than the four-letter system acronyms. Keep in kind the COMMONNAME is nothing more than a strategy for recognizability, not a criterion of its own. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, it's not just absent in their actual names, some of those rail lines already go far beyond Manila, with Line 6 soon operating totally outside Manila :).--RioHondo (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still Manila area though? Whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup the Greater Manila Area, hence the title of that list of stations. Im good too with retaining Manila but the sources just don't pick it up.--RioHondo (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think one or more of you better make a definite proposal, or a pair of competing proposals, based on what seems likely to gain consensus in light of this discussion, and call a quick poll, and get this decided. Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

GMA Network logo (2D vs 3D)
Hi. I opened up a discussion thread in the GMA Network talk page on what version of the network's logo should be used for the GMA Network page. User:Kazaro replaced the 2D SGV logo with the 3D version. I already argued that the 2D logo is the official one since it is the one used for GMA's official documents and websites, but he is insisting that the 3D logo is the official one since 2011, citing that it is the one used as a network bug in all GMA telecasts as well as on their posters. I am trying to seek consensus on this discussion since he keeps on re-adding back the 3D logo as the main logo of GMA, but no one except us two have posted our opinion regarding this issue.

Please see the discussion thread here. -WayKurat (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Category: Philippine Martial Arts
Just popping in. Is there a reason the category is at "Philippine Martial Arts" rather than the better known "Filipino Martial Arts"? Maybe someone wants to change this? Not really my thing, but I thought it was weird. - Alternativity (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the main article is at Filipino martial arts following WP:COMMONNAME. However, there is also MOS:PHIL that says that for inanimate nouns (like arts/martial arts), the adjective Philippine must be used. Knowing the administrators at CFD, they are very strict with following MOS, so i'm not sure how this can qualify for renaming.--RioHondo (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe move the main article to Philippine Martial Arts instead? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article follows WP:Commonname as Alternativity said. See Google: Filipino martial arts: 402,000 results vs Philippine martial arts: 34,200 results. Maybe we should update MOS:PHIL instead? I also have issues with the "Philippine politician" example. That's supposed to be Filipino politician, with Philippine only being used for the specific national political position, like Philippine president or Philippine senator.--RioHondo (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Without looking into this at all, my top-of-the-head thought was that it is both proper and common to refer to persons such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Chris Christie, etc. as American politicians in situations where both of those distinctions matter. I see one such reference to a politician in the Philippines below the national level in this britannica.com article on Alfredo Lim (whose WP article describes him as "a Chinese Filipino politician"). I probably ought to have made this comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles, but I don't think I have my act together on this well enough for that just now. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to Sorry i don't know who else maintains MOS:PHIL. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Archives
Hey folks. I was just going to look at the discussions of the Kingdom of Tondo article for reference on steps forward, and now I can't find it. It was supposed to be archived in Archive 40, if ever, right? Not sure why I can't find it there. - Alternativity (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Bluemask (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:American people of Kapampangan descent
You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:American people of Kapampangan descent. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Electronic copy of The Philippine Islands
You guys might be interested in this: http://www.mainlib.upd.edu.ph/?q=%3Dphilippine_islands —seav (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Copies are also downloadable for free as Kindle E-Books. :D Happy reading. - Alternativity (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Philippine highway network
Hi. Just created this article covering the new DPWH highways and expressways route numbers and classifications as per the 2015 DPWH Road Atlas. Appreciate you guys' help in filling in all those highway routes information. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask Sky Harbor for help. About two years ago, he showed me a document or website (I think) about those route numbers and classification. That would be a great help if he can share it. --Jojit (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jojit! Actually, it was SkyHarbor who informed me about those DPWH routes about 2 years ago also. I just hadnt gotten around to actually studying it and doing an article on it because it looked too complicated hehe, until i saw users adding those route images in road articles recently. Glad a few editors have started to help out with the info. Where is our resident road/rail expert SkyHarbor anyway? :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the article in question before Jojit informed me about it on the Tagalog Wikipedia, but so far, so good. Certainly has my seal of approval, but if you ask me, it would be wise to have parallel articles for the following:


 * Numbered highways composed of several roads (e.g. N59 vs. its constituent roads)
 * AH26 should be its own article (as I mentioned previously, and not as a redirect to the Pan-Philippine Highway, which is where N1 should redirect to), which is composed of several national highways, which in turn is composed of several roads on some of those numbered segments (e.g. N10 and its two constituent roads)


 * As for all other highways, may I suggest adding route shields to them where appropriate, and adding redirects only if the highway number is linked to a single road. For example, N11 should redirect to Circumferential Road 5 and the N11 shield included in the C-5 infobox because in the RNS, only the entirety of C-5 is signed N11, but N54 shouldn't redirect to Kennon Road because it would exclude the three other constituent roads within its route.


 * Finally, I would suggest beginning a gradual rollback of using C and R numbers for road references in articles (as I'm inclined to believe these have been deprecated with the new RNS), moving progressively to using N numbers only. So, for example, instead of seeing " Ortigas Avenue", we should start seeing "N60 (Philippines).svg Ortigas Avenue" instead. --Sky Harbor (talk</b>) 13:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I haven't completely studied the routes so im still clueless on many things like the difference between AH26 and N1 highway. LOL! This might take time, but i agree with all your suggestions, including the gradual shift to the N routes for our Manila radial and circumferential roads. Let's see which ones match up. I'm hoping to start with the Metro Manila roads that we have but would probably prioritize those primary roads, specifically the first 99 routes. The number of secondary roads looks like it runs in the hundreds so we can forget that. Added to the loop.--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that AH26 is not the whole N1, if basing on signage, and the DPWH Road Atlas, which includes all information on the roads that form the national highway system (primary, secondary, tertiary), and I agree that AH26 should be its own article, but Pan-Philippine Highway should be redirected to it, as Pan-Philippine Highway is not the whole N1. What is called N1, based on the laest DPWH Road Atlas data, would be parts of
 * Manila North Road from Laoag to Allacapan
 * Bangag - Magapit Road and Junction Logac - Magapit Road from Allacapan to Lal-lo
 * Cagayan Valley Road from Lal-lo to Guiguinto
 * MacArthur Highway
 * EDSA
 * Daang Maharlika from Muntinlupa to Laguna-Quezon boundary
 * Manila South Road from Laguna-Quezon boundary to Calumpang, Tayabas, Quezon
 * Daang Maharlika at Calumpang, Tayabas, Quezon to
 * MSR Diversion Road over Lucena
 * Daang Maharlika from Lucena to Matnog
 * Daang Maharlika from San Isidro port at Allen to San Juanico Bridge
 * Daang Maharlika from San Juanico Bridge to Liloan
 * Daang Maharlika from Surigao City to Davao City
 * Davao - Cotabato Road (MacArthur Highway) from Davao City to Digos
 * Digos-Makar Road from Digos to General Santos
 * Makar - Marbel Road from General Santos to Koronadal
 * Cotabato - Marbel Road/Marbel - Allah Junction - Cotabato Road from Koronadal to Cotabato City (with gaps on sections inside ARMM, maintained by the regional government instead of the DPWH)
 * Malabang - Dobleston - Tukuran Road in Lanao del Norte
 * Tucuran Junction - Karomatan Junction Road from Lanao del Norte-Zamboanga del Sur boundary at Tukuran to Labangan
 * Lanao - Pagadian - Zamboanga Road and Pagadian City - Zamboanga City Road from Labangan to Zamboanga City.
 * AH26 is not always on N1, as on the segments past Alabang up to Calamba Exit of SLEX, and perhaps on Davao City, where it follows Carlos P. Garcia Highway (Davao City Diversion Road/N913). AH26 rather follows E2 (South Luzon Expressway) from Alabang to Turbina, Calamba, instead of the N1.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just dropped by here to express my comment. I agree with you, Sky Harbor, in terms of articles for routes. For me, routes consisting of only one segment should be merged with the segment's article (e.g. N208_highway_(Philippines) should be a link to Aspiras–Palispis Highway, N172_highway_(Philippines) must be a redirect to Timog Avenue, and N68_highway_(Philippines) is Andaya Highway). For those routes with several segments (e,g. N59_highway_(Philippines) / N142_highway_(Philippines)), they deserve their own standalone articles. JWilz12345 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Butuan Ivory Seal
Hi! Just created this article covering the Butuan Ivory Seal, a privy seal made from the Ivory tusk of a Rhinoceros found in Libertad Agusan. I Appreciate you guys your help in adding  more in all those information. Thanks! (JournalmanManila (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC))

New article: History of Philippine money
Hello! i Just recently created this article covering the History of Philippine money, I Appreciate you guys your help in improving in all those information. thanks! (JournalmanManila (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

Languages in regional articles
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lea Salonga
An IP editor added to Lea Salonga's article that she appeared in Eat Bulaga! from 1980-1985, 1989-1992 and 1995-1998 as an occasional co-host and guest performer. I removed the information pending verification. Can anyone verify any of this with one or more WP:Reliable sources? If so, please respond on my Talk page. Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Daikon split discussion
Please come participate in the split discussion regarding the Daikon article. Thank you. --Epulum (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tondo
Hi. Just flagging that Stricnina seems to have started a cleanup of the Kingdom of Tondo article, although s/he seems to be encountering resistance from users who want to popular speculation to stay on the page. From what I can tell the discussion seems to have come close to an edit war once or twice, so Tambayan folks may want to watch the page. (I'll try to do my part, but as usual, real life keeps me away from wiki.) Thanks! (Attn: Wtmitchell, RioHondo, Seav and Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw) - Alternativity (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We will put the article under watch and intervene if necessary.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to ask moderation in the Kingdom of Tondo article since any cleanups being done there is being undone by users who want the speculation to stay on the page. I'm specifying Theseeker2016 as the perpetrator of maintaining non-peer-reviewed claims in the page. Wtmitchell, RioHondo, Seav and Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw Stricnina (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

PMA Classes (Mistahs) in AFP (or PMA Alum) Page InfoBoxes
Hey folks. I just looked at the pages of Generals Año and Lorenzana and realized that their PMA class is not clearly indicated on their page. Since PMA classes are considered, both by media covering the AFP and by PMA alums themselves, to be significant inputs to their decision making processes (thanks to their... fabled... Mistah system), I thought maybe that info should be in the infobox. Soliciting comments on whether this ought to be done, and what the best way of doing it might be? As you all know, this topic is really not part my traditional edit-stomping-grounds, so I'm bringing the suggestion up to the community for consideration. - Alternativity (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Tawag ng Tanghalan
I dunno, but would it be more appropriate to split the article into separate pages, each dealing with the different incarnations of the singing contest? The problem with this however is that pre-Internet era sources for Filipino subjects (i.e. for Tanghalan) can be rather sparse unless one even bothers to head to the library and pore through books about local popular culture. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bacolod–Silay Airport article titling
Seeking input and support for the requested move of the article to the Bacolod–Silay Airport namespace, from its current Bacolod–Silay International Airport title. Most recent documents from CAAP and the Public-Private Partnership Center still classifies the airport as a Principal Class 1 airport, and no permanent Bureau of Immigrations officials are currently stationed there. The "International" portion of the airport name should therefore be removed until the CAAP officially reclassifies the airport as such. isagani (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:PHLinttop and Template:PHLinttop, and Template:Jct extension for Philippine roads
I created two templates, PHLinttop and PHLint, for generating Manual of Style-compliant road junction lists for roads in the Philippines. While existing junction lists for some highways and roads in the Philippines have been transitioned to the MOS-compliant form, but using wikitable, which can be time-wasting, the new templates will create the tables without creating a large table formatted on the MOS:RJL format. Tables with "Km", "Intersection/exit name", and "Remarks" column headers are close to MOS:RJL, but they have to be made MOS-compliant, with most intersections unnamed, except for a few junctions, and roundabouts, and the contents under the "Remarks" may sometimes use "you" in several situations (e.g. "This exit leads you to [name of city/municipality]", which violates MOS:YOU and is unencyclopedic.

I also extended the Jct template to accommodate the new route numbering system of the Department of Public Works and Highways, along with AH26. While this can be used on at-grade roads, where the intersecting road may have signposted route numbers, this cannot be used mostly for expressways as signs there are still not replaced by those including route numbers, but can be included in the list of major junctions on infoboxes, including those for expressways.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

DZRH history was copy pasted from a housebill
DZRH article history was copy pasted from House Bill 4136. A bill authored by Honorable Congressman Benhur Salimbangon of 4th district of Cebu. Consider rewriting. Bonvallite (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Publications by the PH national government are public domain, so there is no copyright issue here. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 13:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The bill was received by the House of Representatives on 18 October 2016. The article version before that (dated 16 October 2016), the article and the bill almost have the same content. Is this a case of reverse copying? --Bluemask (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2011 Armed Forces of the Philippines corruption scandal
Requesting to update reference for the above article.

Ref on the article: Ref #8 - "Ramos, Marlon (2011-02-19). "Cimatu: Yes, I got my 'pabaon' (sendoff gift)–40 medals". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 2011-05-05."

This reference can no longer be found in the web. This article is relevant to current a event. Source: http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/08/17/ex-afp-chief-cimatu-replaces-lopez-as-environment-secretary--Quazti (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Found an archived version on the Wayback Machine . I also placed this on the article. --Bluemask (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Clicking on Ref: "Ramos, Marlon (2011-02-19). "Cimatu: Yes, I got my 'pabaon' (sendoff gift)–40 medals". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2011-02-19. Retrieved 2011-05-05." the links still source me to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110219-321059/Cimatu-Yes-I-got-my-pabaon-sendoff-gift40-medals instead of https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110221123947/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net:80/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110219-321059/Cimatu-Yes-I-got-my-pabaon-sendoff-gift40-medals--Quazti (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here I've fixed it to go to https://web.archive.org/web/20110220205032/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110219-321059/Cimatu-Yes-I-got-my-pabaon-sendoff-gift40-medals. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And here, I've fixed some more dead links in thatr article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

≠deads.com

Roads task force, and guidelines for PH road article content and juncto
I surfaced several issues with articles about Philippine roads and I am involved in a clean-up task that I started. This looks like that a guideline must be laid out for the structure of Philippine road articles, and road articles should be handled by a new task force of Tambayan Philippines, which will deal with highway network, road and street articles. The road article structure guideline proposal shall be mostly based on the U.S. Roads WikiProject guideline (WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards, but with differences like inclusion of cities and municipalities on the infobox, and treatment of major landmarks (malls, schools, colleges/universities, tourist attractions,etc.) on the article, and further refinements will be discussed. The new task force, Roads Task Force, must be created with the introduction of route numbers on the expressways and national roads, that should be mentioned on the existing articles about named roads, and articles issues being surfaced. The new numbered routes shall be covered, but only problem is the sparse number of sources, especially about the history of the roads.

And aside from article structure problems, one issue I found with Philippine road articles is with intersection or exit lists. Though some articles have their junction lists changed to a Manual of Style-compliant format, some articles still use wikitable-based lists that use either of these formats:

Most of my recent edits concentrated on Philippine road article content cleanup and structural improvement, and with the new Roads task force created and article guidelines laid out, this can be done faster through peer cooperation.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging RioHondo, Sky Harbor, JWilz12345, Hushskyliner, FrjWorld and Korea Rail Fan.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I remember you bringing up the same proposal for a transport task force a couple of years back. If indeed there was a taskforce or wikiproject to be created, you can still expect my support and participation. Roads, rail, aviation, ferry, im all for it.:)--RioHondo (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Philippine expressway network
Btw, i created a separate article for expressways as apparently it has its own proposed network and master plan under the name "High Standard Highway Network." (JICA, 2010). So now we have two highway systems: the Philippine highway network (or Philippine national road network) and the Philippine expressway network (or Philippine high standard highway network). Cheers--RioHondo (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we doing something for waterways, past and present? Then color me intrigued, especially for waterways in NCR, Region 3 and Region 4. (AKA the ManilaBay-PasigRiver-LagunadeBay complex and the old Estero system) - Alternativity (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Good question. I believe Gina Lopez is doin something for waterways in NCR (like cleaning them up and creating linear parks) as chair of Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission hehe! :) But will investigate further. I know MMDA was planning a ferry system along Marikina River similar to Pasig River Ferry Service a few years back. The Cavite, Corregidor, Nasugbu and Bataan ferry routes are operated by private companies tho, such as Metrostar Ferry--RioHondo (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

North Luzon West Expressway
The article for North Luzon West Expressway has gone a long way since its creation by Jeromesandilanico, but it is now bound to the trash can. It is a fabricated neologism for a set of expressways named Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway and Tarlac–Pangasinan–La Union Expressway. I nominated its article for deletion, and yet, no agreement has been set by the Tambayan Philippines. Please share your opinions about that article's deletion.TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor adding barangay links
There is an IP editor adding a few random links to barangays in articles of LGU's, see contributions. They all link to non-existing articles or disambiguation pages. This editor is clearly adding these links to be disruptive. Please keep an eye out. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right, the editor added link to locations that are odd. But this may just be a novice user trying to help who does not know the rules. 219.103.216.190 (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Longest river in PH?
Many websites show that the Cagayan River is the longest river in the Philippines, often indicating that it is over 500 km long. But most of these websites are either wikis or blogs or otherwise non-authoritative (i.e. some travel website without proper references). I couldn't find any reliable source (other than EB) for PH river lengths. And since EB indicates that the Agusan River is the longest, I had updated the Cagayan and Agusan River articles accordingly. An IP editor strongly objects to this but can't seem to add reliable references.

It is not that I refuse to believe that the Cagayan River is the longest river, but WHERE IS THE PROOF? As it is right now, the reference used is http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/longest-rivers-in-the-philippines.html, which is far from a credible source.

So I am looking for more input, specifically we need reliable and authoritative sources about river lengths. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone having luck finding reliable and authoritative sources? If not, then we're compelled to use EB references that indicate that the Agusan River is the longest... -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 20:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this geography book at google books. https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=HSfhlDCQ3z0C&pg=PA93 -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found another one here https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KBAyvht2J_AC&pg=PA36 -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lenticel for that info. Interestingly it is not very conclusive: one source gives a length of 193 km and the other 353 km. That's a big discrepancy (even if you assume that the 1st source may have meant 193 miles, which is 310 km). At least the 2nd source matches EB, but EB gives a length of 390 km for the Agusan River, which makes it longer than the Cagayan. Still more research needed... -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 13:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to help. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of the List of rivers of the Philippines article reads as follows, citing Encyclopædia Britannica Online articles in support:

"The country's longest river is the Agusan River, with a length of 390 km, followed by the Cagayan River and Mindanao River, both about 350 km."


 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, I was the one who added that sentence. But when I edit the Cagayan River article to say it is the second longest river, another editor keeps on challenging this. That is why I am asking for more reliable and authoritative sources, either to back up EB or prove conclusively otherwise. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with the sections of LGU articles that are written like a list
It looks like deleting the "Education" and/or "Media" sections of LGU articles may not helpful, as many info there may be moved to a separate list, or if a standalone list is not possible, it can be summarized. Lists are also the problem on the "Tourism" sections, and such sections are mostly written like a tourist brochure. As far as I know, such sections are tend to be written as lists, and the best way to deal with sections, mostly violating some WP:NOT policies, is rewriting them than deleting the info there, that can be deemed useful for the reader. (Pinging Hariboneagle927) -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That grinds my gears as well, i.e. anons and/or editors merely listing names of schools and other such institutions on LGU pages. I could've expounded those on the General Trias, Cavite article myself but honestly I would leave that to someone who can better provide an insight in better detail. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ideal it could be summarized. The norm I try to do when dealing with school listings is to leave at least the colleges, and universities, and sometimes high schools. Schools that only cater to elementary education are often deemed not notable by Wikipedia so I almost always remove elementary school lists. Sometimes even daycare and pre-school schools are listed sometimes mixed with private school listings.

The promotional tourist section are more suitable for Wikivoyage, Wikipedia's sister project so I leave a Wikivoyage external link if there is an article over there regarding the town/city. Major fiestas known in the national or even provincial level should be mentioned. A separate article for these fiestas so it wouldn't give too much promotional weight on the fiestas. Same for tourists attractions. If possible rename "Places of Interest" (or Tourist attractions) with a more neutral term like "landmarks" or depending on the function (mention churches in Religion). Media section is totally unnecessary, this section seems to be advocated by a editor using multiple IPs which just lists the radio stations/television stations that services the locality.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What about newspapers? That can be OK. And you may be mentioning one of Tambayan Philippines' most notorious vandals, Bertrand101 (see its LTA case). While he is known for hoax radio and TV stations, why remove the legit ones? Is mentioning radio or TV stations in LGU articles redundant with their respective articles? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes in most cases. Mentioning ABS-CBN, GMA 7, the Philippine Star serves in a particular small remote town when its most probably true in majority of other localities is redundant. No need to mention that Globe and Smart offers services in my hometown for example. If the locality does indeed host an regional arm/annex of a national media firm it could be mentioned. Like how Cebu-based Sun Star has regional "versions" in Cagayan de Oro and Manila. If media-related content do get mentioned. It could be a subheader of economy section.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also for schools we could create a list of high schools (as well as colleges and universities) for each Philippine province. This was done for schools of the United States and have the relevant articles use "See also" (which is simillar to the Main article template used in sub headers) template in Education section.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Loan words in regional language
Yesterday and today I was looking at Romblomanon language, and I noticed that several of the words listed there are pretty obviously* loans from Spanish. I started putting them into the empty Loan words section of the article, but realized with a sigh that it's just OR until it's got reliable evidence. So I moved all that onto the Talk page (and see below).

None of the references listed in the article are online and I don't have ready access to any of them in print. If anyone in this project is willing and able, that would be a help. The same is likely true of other regional languages. * Obvious to me— I'm a linguist— but also probably to anyone else. Here's my list. una is in § Numbers, and it may have come by way of Tagalog (see Tagalog language). The others are in § Common Expressions.


 * {|class="wikitable"

!Romblomanon !! Meaning !! Source language !! Source word !! Source meaning
 * guapo || manly || Spanish || guapo || handsome
 * guapa || beautiful || Spanish || guapa || beautiful
 * semana || week || Spanish || semana ||week
 * merkado || market || Spanish || mercado || market
 * una || first  || Spanish (via Tagalog?) || uno/a || one
 * }
 * merkado || market || Spanish || mercado || market
 * una || first  || Spanish (via Tagalog?) || uno/a || one
 * }
 * una || first  || Spanish (via Tagalog?) || uno/a || one
 * }

Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Heya Thnidu. Thanks for working on this. I'm not a linguist myself, but I suspect loanwords won't be particularly hard to find reliable sources for. I know for sure there's an academic source (Potet) for Philippine Language loanwords from Arabic.  And I'm fairly certain there are academic sources for Philippine Language loanwords from Sanskrit (all what, 600 words worth?) and popular sources  for Philippine Language loanwords from Chinese. Maybe even academic works on the latter, though I haven't seen them.  I'm not a linguist myself, so I won't be of much technical help, but I certainly applaud your effort and wish to help whenever I have time and capacity. :D - Alternativity (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, . But I'm wondering how many of those sources even mention Romblomanon.
 * And it's just occurred to me to wonder how many other loanwords from Spanish, including the few mentioned here, came by way of Tagalog or some other Philippine language. --Thnidu (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fringe theories linking Philippine cultural properties to India
Hi. Just FYI, I recently removed content claiming that the Biag ni Lam-Ang was influenced by Indian texts, and categories sorting it as Indian literature. As any Filipino who went to High School knows, the poem was passed down to Bukaneg orally in the Ilocano language, and has Spanish Catholic elements in it as well as indigenous Ilocano motiffs. There's literally NOTHING Indian there. So problem fixed, as far as that article is concerned.

But I've noticed a similar pattern of attributing Indian roots to Philippine articles such as Biag ni Lam-Ang and (sigh) Tondo (historical polity), either without references or with non-scholarly sources, and also adding sections containing (what looks to me like) fringe theories involving the historic or mythic Filipino polities or personalities in such articles as Suvarnabhumi (Thailand) and Greater India. I can't do research debunking each incredible claim, so I'm raising this up to the community. Maybe some of it is legit. But meh. I doubt it.- Alternativity (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism
I have added short sections on the Philippines to the article on Nationalism. These probably need more work. Please contribute as may be appropriate. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Addition of income class to provinces pages
I love the tables on each of the provinces of the Philippines pages, but I feel it is valuable to add another column of information that indicates each municipality's/city's income class. I know it's an arduous process, but I am not familiar in editing Wikipedia pages. It would also be great to have it sortable as well to compare different municipalities/cities at a single time, without having to click on each municipality's/city's Wikipedia page. For example, I am from Iloilo, and while this [|page] has wonderful information, I would also like to see income class added to this table.

Information for each of the province's municipalities and cities income class can be found here

Maraming salamat Tambayan Philippines!

47.138.76.127 (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Palawan in maps
Most of the maps that are found in articles of the provinces here in the Philippines include Palawan as part of Visayas when it is actually of Luzon. Almost all of the maps that I've seen have this error. You can try and see if your province has it also. For example, in you can obviously see that it is shaded which infers that it is separated from Luzon. In addition, that file is also contained in 40 different wikis. --<span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-style: italic;"> J eth R oad the F act B oy 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue dates back to the brief time when Palawan was made part of Western Visayas. Sadly the maps have not been updated due to a lack of time. —seav (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits on Datu (section: functions)
Requesting comment, and action if you deem it appropriate, regarding this series of edits on Datu. Editor seems to be on a soapbox, and operating off of a POV disregarding WP:RS. ''Personally I think holding "monarchy" and "nobility" in such high esteem is a bunch of patriarchal codswallop (I just had to say it, sorry). But that's just me. At any rate,'' I don't want to participate in an edit war right now, so perhaps the rest of the community might want to chime in? - Alternativity (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, an update: the user in question has been insisting on using the main article space of the Datu article to assert his/her point of view that these Filipino rulers are monarchs, and that the polities and social groupings they lead are monarchies. It's a topic that has had an impact on very many early Philippine history articles, and this "monarchist" POV has been pushed hard by numerous editors in numerous articles.  Datu, I think, is the right place for a proper discussion. May I request people take a look, and add their five cents before I elevate this dispute any further? I feel that more voices are needed for this discussion to go anywhere. I've created a discussion at the relevant talk page: Talk:Datu. And I've also chimed up about this problem at the talk page for Wikiproject: Politics. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community Meetup
Hi! If you're in or near Makati on Saturday, August 12th, you're invited to attend a Wikimedia community meetup. This will just be a simple meeting of Wikipedians and fans of Wikipedia to mingle, chat, and discuss open knowledge and open data. Bring your ideas, questions, enthusiasm, and money (because this is a KKB event)! The event will be held in the afternoon at Venture Capital Cafe in Salcedo Village. There's more information at the Facebook event page. See you there! —seav (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Traditions_of_the_University_of_Santo_Tomas
This article is at WP:AfD, and it risks being deleted outright if it's not cleaned up and trimmed down of the trivia and cruft. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NIR dissolved
In the latest tale in the ongoing saga of the unstable LGU system in the Philippines, Pres. Duterte has dissolved the Negros Island Region due to lack of funds. —seav (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Except Tagalog, the other Philippine languages has not changed and retained the info before Aquino EO. --Exec8 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nitpick on tlwiki edit page
Could've posted this on phabricator, but I've noticed that the save button on the editing page at tlwiki is still in English, i.e. "Publish changes" instead of the expected "Itala ang pagbabago" or something. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, ✅. Save button is now translated to Tagalog. --Jojit (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed moves for Kingdom of Tondo and Kingdom of Maynila to Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history)
Hi all. Given the status of the discussions at Talk:Kingdom_of_Tondo#On "Kingdom" as a Mis-labelingand Talk:Datu#2017 Re-opening of "Monarchy" discussion, I've proposed that Kingdom of Tondo and Kingdom of Maynila be moved to the more neutral Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history), respectively.

May I request inputs on the discussions here (Tondo) and here (Maynila), respectively? User:Sulbud, User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, User:Stricnina, User:Gunkarta, User:Darwgon0801 and User:Wtmitchell, since you've participated in these discussions before, arguing for one side or the other. So you might be particularly interested.

Thanks and Mabuhay. - Alternativity (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality check assistance on Marcos-related articles
Hi! Can someone check the neutrality of the following articles? Ferdinand Marcos, Benigno Aquino Jr., People Power Revolution, Philippine presidential election, 1986 and any other articles that I have not mentioned related to Marcos or Aquino. As I mentioned last year, someone have edited these articles and tilted their neutrality to be "Pro-Marcos". The said user was already blocked twice for edit warring as per this ANI reports (1 and 2). The admins have already taken notice of the whitewashing activities of this user and now they are trying to fix the articles' neutrality. I can only check a few facts but I will need someone to assist me in verifying what needs to be removed and what should remain. Thank you in advance. -WayKurat (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hilda Montaire
Does anybody want to save this stub? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Anime Pilipinas. Reliable source?
Over at WP:ANIME, we need some input as to whether Anime Pilipinas is a potential reliable source. https://www.animepilipinas.com/ Is this a notable news/blog website over in the Philippines? <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by several anons at National Artist of the Philippines
Hi. Just a heads up. I have added a "requires attention" tag to the National Artist of the Philippines page because I am uncertain how to fix the damage that anon vandals have done. Not all the anons have done bad edits, but some have changed information; I am not enough of an expert to be able to tell them apart. - Alternativity (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tony Fabella
Anyone out there wanna help save the Tony Fabella article? Especially editors with an interest in Filipino culture in general or Philippine dance specifically? - Alternativity (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI that the article has been moved to Draft:Tony_Fabella. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

List of artifacts in Philippine history
Hello! I recently created a page for the List of artifacts in Philippine history I hope you can expand and help to improve this article. Thank you! (Hunter05 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC))


 * I went to the article to check out its content, and noticed that it's under an AFD. I did not initiate this AFD myself, but I thought I'd bring it up with the broader WP:PINOY community. Relevant discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_artifacts_in_Philippine_history. - Alternativity (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ilocano language: "More Ilocano words" section
I have been working on that section to transwiki those words to Wiktionary, as the article is not intended to be a dictionary (Wiktionary is intended for those). While several words, especially basic ones and those in the body for explanatory purposes, can be left out, the words in the "More Ilocano words" should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Almost many of them are already in Wiktionary (the remaining, and those contually being added by IPs, may not have any entry yet). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this guy?
Been monitoring activity from a week or two ago, and since I'm no expert when it comes to radio stations and other broadcasting companies, I was wondering if some of you guys could have a close watch considering his history of nonsensical or bizarre edits on various articles. He has previously been blocked for that reason and went silent for a time until recently, when he inundated radio station pages with stuff I'm not sure about. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Information Agency Plagiarism Copy from Wikipedia
Articles of Philippine Information Agency for the Cities was copy-pasted from Wikipedia.

Bonvallite (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As of this time they shut down the pages. I also stop tagging the [wp:copyvio] on articles affected.

Bonvallite (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is less a copyright issue than it is a tagging issue. The PIA's website is in the public domain; we only need to note that there is some content from the website of the PIA. (Also, is this the PIA copying from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia copying from the PIA? If it's the former, it's not that hard to talk to them, and we can certainly do something about it.) --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Station names

 * Since it has come to my attention that station names have been changed by TagaSanPedroAko, such as those of the PNR from eg. "Santa Mesa Railway station" to Santa Mesa (PNR station), and the Central Terminal Station example, I suggest that we change all station names to a similar format like the Central Terminal example following conventions in other countries by dropping "LRT" and "MRT" and by putting a disambiguation thru (Line #) only if the name has two separate stations named after it. (eg. Araneta Center-Cubao LRT station to Araneta Center-Cubao station (Line 2) and Araneta Center-Cubao MRT station to Araneta Center-Cubao station (Line 3) ) Korean Rail Fan 10:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

->From the Central Terminal LRT station edit history

Cuchullain moved page Central Terminal LRT station to Central Terminal station: Per WP:CANSTATION

->From my talk page:
 * Well, the issue was raised in the tambayan page at least a week ago and heck both the international admin User:Cuchullain (via the Central Terminal Station) and User:TagaSanPedroAko (for PNR) did it without hesitation from any other users. Korean Rail Fan 11:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, having the stations of the Manila LRT and MRT stations based on a template such as LRT Station and MRT Station looks bad in the real situation. The names should reflect those that we see in reality, not those based on automatically-generated stuff. So does the Philippine National Railways stations, that used "[Name] railway station'", even that is not true also in reality (though "railway" has use is the Philippines, naming a PNR station using the name generated by RWS, that is, "[name] railway station" will not make sense in the Philippine context, plus that template seems to be intended for mainline railway station names in Commonwealth nations or in countries whose coreesponding WikiProject agreed to use such naming). I made several changes to the station names, just before I addressed them at the Tambayan Philippines talk whether the name changes are okay or not.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Current vote to the proposed naming omitting "LRT, MRT, and railway" to the station names and following disambiguation proposed above is 3 vs 1 with the former for Ayes which includes users Cuchullain, TagaSanPedroAko, and Korean Rail Fan while the latter being the Nays with the only user voting for such is Hiwilms. Voting should be open for a week from posting of this response and after such the result would be considered as the consensus, unless a valid reason as arbitrated by an administrator is given, since this topic has been open for quite sometime already and no responses are being put into prior to the renamings. Korean Rail Fan 06:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, moving pages is not a vote, but an exercise in finding consensus. Clearly, no consensus exists in moving the pages to those titles. And even then, if this were a vote, I'm very likely to oppose it. What's wrong with the old station name convention (which I borrowed from the Singapore MRT convention, actually) that we need to change it in the first place? --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is finding what the plurality thinks is the best to make a certain decision and therefore the fairest method would be putting in into a vote, so I dont see what is wrong with putting things to a vote especially if it would determine the majority. Second there is the opposing views in which I stated my point, and you have stated yours. To be honest whatever outcome this consensus might result into, wouldn't really matter for me. But since the users whom given their points above have both valid arguments, ayes for WP:CANSTATION while the nays for SG Convention. In the end both sides only wanted to make things better, right? Korean Rail Fan 05:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are we even using the Canadian article convention for stations in the Philippines to begin with? I would understand if we were talking about a Canadian rail system, but we're not. I wouldn't mind making a Philippines-specific convention, but I have very strong reservations about applying something that doesn't even apply to the Philippine experience to begin with. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 03:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree that a Philippines-specific convention should be applied for train station names. A standard scheme for naming train stations has been done for WikiProject Japan, where the scheme "[Name] Station" is applied, with disambiguation added when two stations are named the same. Then, if consensus for PH train station naming will be looked upon, we may either keep the naming based on Singapore or Commonwealth-specific conventions, adopt US or Canada-specific conventions (WP:USSTATION/WP:CANSTATION), or create a new one to include to MOS:PHIL, if not of those above are to be agreed upon. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FOP Philippines
Transcript from my user talkpage: -->" I need further clarification about the FOP for certain landmarks in my country (this discussion may need multiple commenters, e.g. User:RioHondo, User:P199, User:TagaSanPedroAko). The FOP page at Commons says:

"'' Not OK Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) of part IV ("The law on copyright") of AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (chapter found on pp. 84-90) does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. Bizarrely, the law itself is entirely based on the law of the United States and contains identical fair use provisions, which however are not acceptable.

ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet.''"

But there are some instances that it doesn't apply, especially in older buildings/landmarks, some modern landmarks, etc.. To name some:
 * File:Smmarilaojf.JPG Transcript from Commons:User:King_of_Hearts: "Keep per COM:TOO. I can hardly see what is copyrightable about this building"
 * The case of Rizal Monument in : its designers Carlo Nicoli and Richard Kissling are deceased since late 1910s 1920+50=1970.

Based on Rizal Monument case, San_Agustin_Church_(Manila) is FOP in my assumption (I have already transferred File:Ph-mm-manila-intramuros-san agustin church (2014).JPG to commons). Based on that article it was founded in 1720 and has withstood many earthquakes in the past; it is the "sole survivor of the seven churches of Intramuros to survive the leveling by combined American and Filipino ground forces in May 1945" (therefore not rebuilt). It only undergone a cosmetic renovation in 2013, which for me is not a strong justification for No FOP PHL.

However, I'm not sure over the following landmarks (some info based on their enwiki articles):
 * Manila Cathedral (since 1571 current structure from 1958)
 * Quiapo Church (current structure from 1933)
 * Binondo Church (since 1852, current structure from 1950s)
 * and some other noteworthy PHL churches
 * SM Mall of Asia, SM North EDSA, and SM Megamall (This is the reason why I did not tag File:SM North Facade.jpg, despite the fact that I had put field, to be safe.)
 * Jones Bridge, MacArthur Bridge (Manila), and Quezon Bridge

I need further advice and assistance over this matter. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This question is rather specific for a general editing help request; few of the helpers will be familiar with the intricacies of Philippine copyright law. You may want to ask for more specific advice at WP:Copyright questions or possibly WT:WikiProject Philippines. My understanding is that for Wikipedia's purposes, the Philippines are considered not to have freedom of panorama, making regular copyright rules apply - which in the case of the Philippines seems to mean 50 years after the death of the creator of a work. The architects of structures built in the 1950s are likely to not have died by 1967; so unless you have evidence to the contrary for a specific building, you should assume they are still protected by copyright. On the other hand there's the issue of the threshold of originality; if a photo shows "just a wall", there's little to be copyrighted since walls aren't the invention of the specific architect who designed the building to which the wall belongs. This is getting more difficult when photos show more elaborate parts of a building, though, and I'd generally try to err on the side of caution. Huon (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)"

JWilz12345 (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

—Pinging for RioHondo, P199, TagaSanPedroAko, Finnusertop, and AntiCompositeNumber (and possibly several others).JWilz12345 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on Philippines FOP copyright issues, but at Commons, images of many modern buildings, such as the SM Mall of Asia, are deleted because of no FOP. Sorry I can't contribute more here. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 17:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What about purpose built facilities owned and operated by the Philippine government, including LGU units, like city and town halls? Are they under the scope of Section 176.1 of Republic Act 8293 or are they copyrighted by whichever individual or entity that was tasked to do the architectural work? -Ian Lopez @ 05:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask also if bridges such as Jones Bridge, MacArthur Bridge, Quezon Bridge, etc. fall under FOP. Their articles give me more ambiguity than certainty.JWilz12345 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the Central Terminal LRT station? (e.g. File:Philippine Railways LRT Central Station.jpeg Template there gives me more ambiguity than clarification, as this station is a public transport structure utilized by the public and has no distinctive architectural attributes, just like all LRT, LRT-2 and MRT-3 stns. Besides, most of the images of these and PNR stations now originate in Commons,with several of them successfully moved from here.) Repinging : RioHondo, P199, Sky Harbor, AntiCompositeNumber, and possibly TagaSanPedroAko.JWilz12345 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already tagged the aforementioned photo of Central Terminal stn. as ok for commons (I don't see anything special regarding architectural quality of this station's interior, and it is like any other train station here in PHL). I've seen a discussion of this file in the past, but my "common denominator" of this file remains it is ok for commons. Besides, it is like the more than 1,000 (i suppose) images of LRT, MRT, LRT-2, and PNR stations now accessible from Commons, including commonsfile File:LRT Central Terminal.jpg by Sky Harbor.JWilz12345 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the said file, I've moved it to Commons using "Commonshelper". I believe that this station possesses no special architectural quality that would make it No FOP. Besides, there's a Commons categoy named Commons:Category:Central_Terminal_LRT_Station, which contains roughly 30 files by both Sky Harbor and Judgefloro. As I said before, this station (and other stations of LRT, MRT, and PNR) have insufficient threshold of originality that would make them No FOP (especially those depicting their relatively ordinary/plain interiors). like I said before, Commons has more than 100 (possibly 500-1,000) images of LRT, MRT, and PNR stations that survived questions of FOP PHL situation, and are still prevailing to this day.JWilz12345 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)