Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47

Submission Review for Tarusan
Hi, I would like someone here to review the article Tarusan. It is a barangay in Bataraza, Palawan in the Philippines. Hoping for any reply. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 08:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about this. The current concensus for barangays is unclear and is subject for more discussions. If you think that barangay is notable, then go on, it's a draft anyway. I hope this doesn't discourage you from editing here. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 08:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do also add relevant information to the Bataraza page! CMD (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do! Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to check contributions of an IP address
Can anyone please check the contributions of this IP address: 68.68.165.8, the same IP who had previously added large amount of text to the Filipinos page. Some his/her contributions involve adding of Japan/Japanese into the articles, like in this revision and another, but without adding any reliable sources. Kindly check if those revisions should be reverted. Thank you. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2021 in the Philippines
Please support Wiki Loves Earth 2021 in the Philippines by endorsing my proposal. Thank you! -Maffeth.opiana (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Whitsun Reef incident
Requesting feedback on what would be the most appropriate, accurate and WP:NPOV. compliant title for the Whitsun Reef incident title. The problem is most WP:RS don't really have a unifying name for the recent diplomatic tension.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Current article name is ok. If WP:RS is describing it as one ongoing "incident" despite there being multiple incidents, we defer to WP:RS and use the singular form. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

CCI wrapup
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Filipino comics and culture. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:Quite a few articles were completely and whole-sale copied from various sources.Almost all of it was Theobscure.Anything relating to Darna and other works by its creators got gutted. You can find a list of all changes performed on this CCI casepage. Thanks! Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Are schools notable?
Most school articles (especially high schools and elementary schools) doesn't have references and sources (and if there are, it would be a primary source or an unrelated source which has nothing to do with the school in general) and highly doubt that there would be anytime soon. I believe that most of these articles are way far from meeting the general notability guideline but it's surprising that no one cares about them being filled with original research and directories. If there's a way to save them (or fix them, whatever), please speak up, but if there are none, can we just delete them for goodness sake? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I assumed this would have to get past the Schools lobby, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus changed in 2017, so apparently they can now be deleted. CMD (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we initiate AFDs now? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 07:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, keeping in mind the RfC does say not to "flood" AfD with "excessive nominations", so presumably it'd have to be in small batches. CMD (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My take on schools is that public schools are generally notable, especially public high schools including science high schools (these schools have their organic laws or republic acts to back them up for example), but i agree that strict WP:N adherence must be applied on those run by private institutions and religious institutions where only those with sufficient references must be kept. You can start AfDs on private schools you think dont meet GNG.--RioHondo (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't all public schools (even elementary ones and "extension campuses") are based on a law? All public hospitals are also created, expanded and abolished via laws. We shouldn't base notability solely because "a law created it". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm good question. The idea there is that public schools in PH i believe are the oldest in their respective cities and towns, usually but of course there are a few exceptions. This is also true in many other western countries where the state usually provided the first and the most basic education in settlements across their respective jurisdictions. Public hospitals are notable in the same way as government hospitals too make up some of the oldest existing health care facilities in different localities. That was what i meant by public institutions in both education and health as having notability compared to private and other types of institutions.--RioHondo (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Barangays are created by laws too but are all of them notable? No. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 10:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The oldest universities in the Philippines are private schools, although they were at some point in time "public". La Salle Green Hills (est. 1959) might be the oldest high school in Mandaluyong. Is it less notable than the oldest public high school in Mandaluyong, Mandaluyong High School (est, 1977)? Of course not. My line of thinking is "not all that government creates is automatically notable. While barangays are another matter, schools, hospitals, companies, organizations and a few other things can be created by both the government and from those outside of it, with basically the same powers and rights, with some exceptions. As for things the government has sole power to create, like barangays, these are still not automatically notable, at least when Wikipedia is concerned. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have initiated AFDs for Blessed Trinity School and Divine Light Academy. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 03:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

CCI notice #2
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Catholic secondary and postsecondary schools and sports. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:not too many were affected and not all were related to the Philippines, but this project showed up most on the talk page so you guys get the notice. If you hate me by now, well, I'm sorry? You can find more information on this CCI casepage. Thanks! Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 02:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

CCI wrapup #3
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Nora Aunor. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:Check the history for the second-most recent revisions.There are some concerns about socks adding copyvio elsewhere.</li><li>There's only a few cases left based on Philippines articles so theoretically I shouldn't be back for another few weeks.</li></ul> You can find more information on this CCI casepage. Thanks! Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?)
Since recently AFD'd a barangay and we have already been talking about laws creating something (like schools, hospitals. and barangays), why don't we, as a community, decide whether all barangays are notable or not? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We won't have consensus on this. Some barangays are/will be notable. There might be also an Imperial Manila bias on this. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend instead of creating a shitty barangay article that will never grow out of a stub, just improve the existing municipality articles... unless your purpose in creating barangay articles is to have its own infobox of area, population and government officials, then might as well don't. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we at least have guidelines so that we can boldly redirect or PROD them? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite hard to do that. I know "case-by-case basis" isn't cute, but someone can say that Barangay 666 in Manila is notable because papal masses were held there, while neighboring Barangay 667 isn't. There can be instances that one of the Talon barangays in Las Piñas are notable while the rest aren't. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: here are the following past cases of WP:Articles for deletion targeting barangays, grouped according to their outcomes and sorted alphabetically, with the year of the nominations:


 * Deleted
 * Calmay, Laoac, Pangasinan (2008) - but later recreated, probably by a variant account of its original page creator (past undetected WP:Sockpuppetry? But this question is irrelevant to the discussion.)
 * Canangaan, Cabanglasan (2008)
 * Pandayan, Meycauayan (2008)
 * Tumalip, Licuan-Baay (2008)
 * Barangay 3 (Población), San Jose, Occidental Mindoro (2009)


 * Merged or redirected
 * Cabaroan, Bacnotan (2007)
 * Hilabago, Dagami (2008)
 * Masalipit, San Miguel, Bulacan (2009)
 * Santo Angel (Ilog), San Pablo, Laguna (2008)
 * Sulvec, Narvacan (2008)


 * Kept
 * Barandal, Calamba, Laguna + Batino, Bucal, Halang, Kay-Anlog, Makiling, Mayapa, Paciano Rizal, Palo Alto, Pansol, Parian, Punta, Real, Sirang, Tulo, Turbina (2015)
 * Binahian, Sipocot (2010)
 * Liciada, Bustos, Bulacan (2016)
 * Mabini, Cagdianao (2018)
 * Magugpo East (Briz District), Tagum (2013)
 * Mayapa, Calamba, Laguna (2019)
 * O'Donnell, Capas (2014)
 * Onse, San Juan, Metro Manila (2013) - kept after improvements
 * Pugalo, Alcoy (2008)
 * Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria, Bulacan (2008)
 * R. Ecleo, Sr., Cagdianao (2018)
 * Salangbato, Famy, Laguna (2008)
 * Singkamas, Makati (2009)
 * Sirang Lupa, Calamba, Laguna (2019)


 * No consensus
 * Sapangbato, Angeles (2008)
 * Tetuan, Zamboanga City (2008) - later redirected
 * Tumaga, Zamboanga City (2008) - later redirected

Also note the following AfDs on barangay lists: _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * of Cabuyao (2012) - kept
 * of Navotas (2020) - redirected to Navotas
 * of Tacloban (2012) - redirected to Tacloban


 * Also, my full disclosure for transparency: I got involved in this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles, in the aftermath of my creation of Barangays of Navotas list article and my act of redirecting all Navotas barangay articles here last year. Eventually, objected citing inherent notability of barangays by virtue of their incorporations vis-à-vis WP:GEOLAND. Our disagreements resulted in an intense debate which almost led me to departing from the Wikimedia umbrella (collaterally including tlwiki and Commons). Eventually, a compromise was reached between both of us regarding the matter, though no final consensus on the matter. My recent activity is the creation of Taliptip, Bulakan (which I believe is notable as the site of both New Manila International Airport and the former sitio of Pariahan, with ample references). And very lately, I tagged six barangays of Santo Tomas, Batangas with "saintly names" with Notability tag: San Agustin, Santo Tomas, Batangas; San Antonio, Santo Tomas, Batangas; San Joaquin, Santo Tomas, Batangas; San Luis, Santo Tomas, Batangas; and Santa Clara, Santo Tomas, Batangas. Aside from being unsourced, the contents are too short and contain only the statistics plus their patron saint informations (which led them to be looking similar to wordpress-like entries and not encyclopedic entries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)  19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A random sampling of one of the kept AFDs, Articles for deletion/Briz District, had two keeps citing WP:NGEO, and one redirect citing the argument "not all barangays are notable". One of the keeps mistakenly thought that barangays are towns (they aren't), and with the proviso that if there was any consensus or guidance on this let him/her (there isn't, and it doesn't seem he was informed about this). So by !vote-counting, 1 keep as per WP:NGEO, 1 redirect, 1 misapplied keep but will wait on guidance that never came. This happened in 2013, and I couldn't be bothered to check how WP:NGEO looked like in 2013. In 2021, WP:NGEO does not state that legally-recognized settlements are automatically notable, so if this was the case in 2013, the closing admin, in the words of the Supreme Court, had a "fatally defective" close.
 * Also, my stand on this is that all barangays can be notable, provided they pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you care to update and improve the following Tambayan subpage so that we don't keep relisting these AfD outcomes?: Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. —seav (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I could improve it, since I use smartphone in editing. If this is ok for you, I might change the entire list to bullet form, like above. Or a complete overhaul of the table? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those Kept barangay articles has good sourcing, some have none at all, and it's been over a decade since some of their AfDs. Even if on some technicality they're "notable", they're still piles of OR that are clearly never going to be maintained. Agree with JWilz12345 and Howard the Duck, create them if they're demonstrably notable with good sources, but otherwise just work on the municipality articles. Is there any municipality article which is particularly overwhelmed by an abundance of barangay information? CMD (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HTD. It will be hard to make a one-rule-fits-all. Each barangay will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For that we already have enough policies and guidelines. Another consideration is: will there be even enough info for an article? Even if a barangay is notable, maybe it will always be a tiny stub. In such case, it may be simpler to just upmerge it. I am not a fan of outright deletions, better to just redirect it to the parent LGU. And this can be done WP:BOLDLY. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Barangay articles are almost always include what city/town it is at, land area, population, and the incumbent barangay chairman. That's it. If you're lucky, someone will add the councilors, and the SK chairman and councilors... all of these in the infobox, and not discussed in the article. See for example, Bambang, Taguig. Random clicking in Metro Manila populated places, I dropped by into U.P. Campus, Quezon City. Same shit, only that there's some history about how the barangay was created. Sure, all of these can be placed in a table about barangays in a specific place, and we do this all the time for most town and city articles, like, again, random town here, how it looks like in Alcantara, Cebu (LOL I'm right!). Barangay articles such those two, and the newly created one that's up for AFD, add absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia. The infoboxes for all three barangays I just discussed are longer than the actual prose in the article! For example, all of the information in Tarusan can be added to Bataraza using the example seen in Alcantara, Cebu and nothing will be lost. You don't even have to create a separate article "Barangays of Bataraza" as the Bataraza article right now is short enough for those information from every barangay to be added. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays with a major overhaul, after told me to update it instead of tediously listing barangay AfDs here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)  15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To note: three of the barangay articles voted for keep before: Mabini, Cagdianao (AfD), R. Ecleo, Sr. (AfD), and Salangbato, Laguna (AfD), have been tagged for notability issue by me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I got hauled over to WP:ANI for boldly redirecting barangay stubs to their parent LGU articles back in 2008. If we can get some sort of consensus this time it would be great. So far I think all who has chimed in here has agreed that barangays are not automatically notable and deserving of an article and should really pass WP:GNG. —seav (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there may have been a community shift in relation to notability since those heady early days, and there does seem to be agreement here. However, (thanks to the excellent documentary work of Seav and JWilz12345) Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays shows that the last decade of AfDs have all resulted in keep votes, which should be kept in mind. It might be best for a formal RfC or similar to take place before any local consensus is heavily applied. CMD (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * actually, the list was begun by Seav more than a decade ago, and he suggested me to update it instead of posting redundant AfD links here hehe. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted CMD (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Info: I started another AfD at Articles for deletion/Poblacion 1, Calamba. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend on redirecting barangays whose articles are sub-stubs, and leaving out the rest. If the redirects were reverted, then we can AFD it. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a band-aid solution but I'd prefer doing this than explaining to a white man what a barangay is. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 00:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a sneaky way and you may have to explain yourself to WP:ANI but this can prevent protracted AFD discussions.
 * Also, if a barangay is ever deleted, we'd have to save the database entries and put in the Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive25 section of its mother town/city, something like what was done with the Alcantara, Cebu example above. That means if the town's barangays section isn't set up that way, you'd have to get the data for all barangays, not just the deleted ones.
 * That means we're not deleting information, but just deleting article titles. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Useless "décors" on articles of many teleseryes
If some may notice, various teleserye articles have décors in the form of images of actors/actresses who form part of the cast of the said shows. For me, these are purely decorative and have no utility – doesn't in any way increase or enhance readers' understanding. This is thanks to 's edit at Shake, Rattle & Roll XV, which led me realize about this. I managed to nuke these "décorative imagery" on some articles like Destined to be Yours and Alyas Robin Hood of GMA and Huwag Kang Mangamba of ABS-CBN. However, I suspect more and more such articles contain such "décors", and I hope other editors will do this. I have conflicting schedules between personal/real life and works at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see these in Hollywood articles too; see Family Guy (you can argue that's different for cartoons vs. live action). It's a nuisance but I won't lose sleep seeing Kathryn Bernardo in Princess and I. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The pictures help the reader inform what the cast members of the show look like in person, this is not different to American shows such as American Idol and The Real Housewives of Atlanta. So STOP removing them. This hasn't been an issue regarding television articles.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:PERTINENCE is the most relevant guideline here, and it doesn't help much in deciding which images to include or not. This'll just boil down to WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * then explain why was 's move at Shake, Rattle & Roll XV inappropriate? I'm much more convinced on their move at Shake, Rattle & Roll XV in removing such decorative images (note that the one who added on that film was an FB IP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it was/was not in/appropriate. To copy-paste what I said earlier, "I won't lose sleep" over it. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to look at the Shake, Rattle and Roll article. I'm concerned about the Tv show articles that had the cast pictures removed, tv shows articles that are in my Watchlist. The pictures aren't decors, they are posted for "identification" of the cast members that appeared in the show. If you didn't notice Wikipedia isn't just about texts.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not have an edit summary for the concerned article. But I do agree that these are not necessarily useless. I've made previous similar edits in the past but my rationale for removing such galleries is sometimes the article is too short so the actor/actress images causes clutter, sometimes "creeping in" past the reference section. At least for the desktop view. So, I think this should be on a case by case basis.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Table styles in general and Philippine Cabinet tables in particular
This has been discussed before, here and elsewhere. I was involved in some discussion of this, but I'm afraid that slipped my mind and I have resurfaced that as a current issue at Talk:List of cabinets of the Philippines. That probably ought to be discussed here as a wikiproject issue, but I've already started a discussion at that article talk page so I'll just mention that here. Please discuss there. Move the discussion here if that seems appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

CCI wrapup #4
Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Philippine history (with some edits to Philippine volcanoes). Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:<ul><li>A few top-importance and high-importance were affected by the cleanup. Pages include Mayon, Taal Volcano, Kalinga (province), Battle of Mactan, PAGASA, Ruy López de Villalobos, Mount Hibok-Hibok, and Mount Bulusan.</li><li>Two pages have been sent to Copyright problems and have been temporarily blanked.</li><li>This is a relatively old case, and more pages may need rechecking. Since casepages are blanked after completion, the full list of pages that were checked in this case can only be found in the casepage history.</li></ul> You can find more information on this CCI casepage. Thanks! Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 23:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles, including Tambayan Philippines related articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. --John B123 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Passages about COVID-19 in history sections of municipal articles
It is "only in the Philippines" situation here. The history sections of municipal articles, like those at Las Piñas and Pateros, contain mentions on COVID-19 pandemic. However, a glance on articles of five cities abroad — Chicago, Manchester, Osaka, Podolsk, and Huanggang — shows there are no references or mentions to COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns. For Huanggang alone, the section was removed for "undue weight" reasons. Perhaps these passages on COVID-19 at all municipal (and possibly provincial) articles must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * City-specific information should be considered on a case by case basis, but certainly "X was part of a Manila-wide lockdown" doesn't seem too helpful or informative. CMD (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect this will be true of most places in the Philippines, given the length, economic impact, and social consequences of the lockdown. But for those reasons specifically. (For example, San Juan being an early site for the spread of COVID-19, or Pasig becoming known for its effective early response, and so on. As long as there's extensive media or academic literature coverage.) I agree with CMD that just a statement about being "part of an Xwide lockdown" is not enough.- Chieharumachi (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * look at the instance at Huanggang. It was also one of the first places in China to have imposed lockdowns. But a user removed that passage citing "undue weight". I think for the Philippines San Juan, Metro Manila will only warrant COVID-19 narrative in a history section as the first site of current (March 2020-era) COVID-19 spread (but not for all others like Pasig, and worse Metro Manila). Responses are best made at articles more related to COVID-19, like COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines or one of its sub-articles grouped under its template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. If there is something very specific or noteworthy related to a LGU, it can be mentioned. Otherwise there is no need to repeat the same generic info. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that there ought to be a wiki entry for the Philippine Cholera Epidemic of 1902-1904 (the one that killed Mabini), and that LGUs should mention it if it had a significant economic or social repercussion for that LGU. (In the Cholera epidemic's case, the City of Manila and the Province of Batangas.) And I think that's what mentions of COVID-19 in LGU histories ultimately ought to look like. If quarantine has caused a municipality to lose 50% of its income, I would argue that's worth a mention. There's a context to the "due weight" removal of mentions of COVID-19 from Chinese cities, after all. The potential for blackening the reputation of the town is much less, whereas the documentation and preservation of a town's economic history has genuine historical value. So. ​I'm hesitant to cite due weight. Although I think a good reason for being wary of mentions of COVID-19 is possible recentism. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * possibly. My addition at lugaw over the viral "lugaw is not essential" incident in a city of our province was later removed on recentism grounds. Perhaps this might be a justification for removal of news-like COVID-19 passages in many municipal-level LGU articles, Pasig and Pateros to name a few. Perhaps as of now only San Juan, Metro Manila deserves some mention of COVID-19 pandemic in its history, as the "epicenter" of the current wave of the pandemic here (excluding isolated foreign cases from January). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The current passages read like this:

"In 2020, _____ and the entire Metropolitan Manila was placed under community quarantine for one month starting March 15 due to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic."


 * It's just that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (comment in passing) Example: Pateros (found, along with some others, with this). This surely has WP:BURDEN problems. I would say that it also has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DATED problems as well. Lots of the Wikipedia articles about sports and entertainment have similar problems coming from, IMO, editors who don't understand the WP is an encyclopedia, not a current events newsletter making random edits about whatever interests them at the moment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no argument from me that the passage above is unmerited. In some specific cases the text should be something more like "During the COVID-19 Epidemic, LOCALITY X was noted for PHENOMENON Y." In Boracay's case, that's losing a significant amount in terms of tourist revenue (if such is covered by sufficient media sources). In San Juan and Cebu it's first-hit and notable superspreader events, respectively. I still feel media coverage of the pandemic responses of Baguio and Pasig is sufficient to argue notability... But yes, I totally agree that the passage above should be removed. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward on barangays plus some MOSPHIL discussion
The AfD that prompted this thread had already been closed as redirect. Please read the closing admin's note since it is informative (and useful for future AfDs). The admin said:. Given this and two other recent AfDs for barangays in Calamba (both resulted in not-keeps too), I guess we can now have consensus that barangays aren't inherently notable and should be decided on a case-by-case basis following WP:GNG? —seav (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we going to add this to MOS:PHIL or something? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe when we have consensus that there is indeed a consensus? 😜 —seav (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would reaching a consensus even stop people from slapping GEOLAND to us? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Woah, let's not get that ambitious. Nothing can stop that. CMD (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would say there is consensus that "barangays aren't inherently notable and should be decided on a case-by-case basis". This is actually what WP:GEOLAND already says at the 2nd bullet (Populated places without legal recognition). So it is somewhat redundant to add it to MOS:PHIL, but I won't see harm in adding it as extra clarity. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Barangays are legally recognised places though. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 13:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In this context, it means legally incorporated. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not exactly mean that. Some hamlets and villages in the U.S. are not incorporated.
 * What's clear with WP:GEOLAND though is that it doesn't mean that if it meets WP:GEOLAND, it is automatically notable. Looking at how it is written, even if it both meets WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, it can still not be notable. It is also written differently than other notability criteria that makes a subject automatically notable. What's frustrating is some users have their own interpretation of WP:GEOLAND that is widely different from how it is written. Anyway, this is a long simmering dispute in the notability pages, and is not just limited to places. For example, are Olympic participants of any sport from every country automatically notable, even if you cannot find WP:GNG about them? Some say yes, some say no. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Noted. Without digressing further, I agree then that the best way is to update MOS:PHIL to explicitly clarify that "barangays aren't inherently notable and should be decided on a case-by-case basis". --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we put that to MOS:PHIL now? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Regards, --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of questions:
 * Is MOS:PHIL still a thing?
 * If it is do people know it exists, does it actually follow usual practice?
 * For example, it states "When to use the word Philippines as part of the city name", giving Angeles, Philippines and Lapu-Lapu, Philippines as examples. It's quite very evident that the most popular names of these places are Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City. To dispute otherwise is like being one of those WP:GEOLAND guys.
 * Another example is "Names of historical figures (roughly those who were alive during Spanish rule) should generally follow Spanish conventions outlined at Iberian naming customs." It's quite very evident that the most popular spelling of the article currently at Andrés Bonifacio, at least in the 21st century is "Andres Bonifacio". (I tried doing this at Mariano Gomez, one of the GOMBURZA, but was complicated with a 21st century Argentine footballer of the same name; the RM did result in having his article moved to Mariano Gomez (priest), with the footballer at Mariano Gómez (footballer).) Again, to dispute otherwise that we use accents for Spanish era figures in the 21st century parlance is like being one of those WP:GEOLAND guys. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess? I don't know where they got that from. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted a question at Talk:Mariano Gomez (priest), but it seems that no one cared. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy/guideline pages should reflect actual practice IRL; not just what we want the practice to be. Some parts of MOS:PHIL don't do that. I haven't checked the entire MOS, but there still might be other "rules" that don't follow IRL practice. As stated in my RM for Gomez, actual practice in real 21st Century life don't use diacritics to spell his name; there was even a comment there that his name wasn't even "Gomez", but "Gomes". Howard the Duck (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for city names, I am still firm in opposing the return of "city" suffix and provincial suffixes for Philippine city article titles, unless warranted. Like Malolos vs. Zamboanga City vs. Roxas, Capiz (because there are two other municipal-level settlements, one from Isabela and the other from Oriental Mindoro bearing this name). But I am supportive of plans to axe "xxx, Philippines" convention, as it is unnatural for me - for both Angeles and Lapu-Lapu. These shall go under Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City (return of old convention exclusive for these two independent cities). So the city article title convention will now be reduced to three: only, use of provincial disambiguations when warranted, and use of "City" suffixes when warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Cityname City" should indeed not be used, as it is not predominantly used, at least in most cities ("I'm going to Pasig." instead of "I'm going to Pasig City." Exceptions are if "City" is included in the name, like "I'm confined to the Pasig City General Hospital.") "Cityname, Philippines" is almost never used, but in cases that we need to disambiguate, perhaps "Cityname (Philippine city)" is a better alternative.
 * P.S. "Roxas, Capiz" should really be at "Roxas City". This is similar to Lapu-Lapu City which was renamed upon cityhood, which means the word "City" is eternally stuck with the new name. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using Roxas City. As long as both Roxas, Isabela and Roxas, Oriental Mindoro exist under their names, unless these will be renamed. But I am in favor of titles such as Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City, for these two HUCs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Roxas City is the one in Capiz. There's no confusion to that. That is the Roxas City. The towns in Isabela and Oriental Mindoro can remain under their names. It would be interesting if any of those two become cities in the future. But for now, "Roxas City" indisputably refers to the city in Capiz, and is indisputably the name predominantly used name of that city. Let's not be carried away with what kind of cities these are, otherwise Naga, Camarines Sur and Santiago, Isabela absolutely make no sense at all, but you could argue that these are one of the names of these cities, well aside from "Naga City" and "Santiago City" which cannot be used. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, MOS:PHIL is still valid, but don't forget it is not policy. Per the intro: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply (italics mine). Therefore, no need to get overly concerned about having rules in MOS:PHIL for every possible situation. So, for the city discussions above, just start individual discussions on the respective talk pages. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is true, but MOS:PHIL is designed to have rules for every possible situation. You can make a persuasive argument that Jose Rizal's name doesn't have diacritics, at least in current usage, but someone will shout MOS:PHIL, then you're stuck in a stalemate..... god, this feels like GEOLAND. 16:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am considering this proposal for simplifying MOSPHIL (even though it is not an official policy but a general practice). See the collapsible box:

Cities (1st proposal)
All cities fall under three types of conventions: general convention, provincial name convention,, and "City" convention.

General convention
As a general rule, cities should neither be affixed with the word "City" nor the name of the province in which it is located. Examples:


 * Baguio instead of Baguio City
 * Kabankalan instead of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental or Kabankalan City

It is also applicable to capital cities which are the preferred primary topic, over other places, such as:
 * Bacolod for the capital of Negros Occidental, while the lesser-known municipality of the same name goes under Bacolod, Lanao del Norte.
 * Maasin for the capital of Southern Leyte, while the lesser-known municipality of the same name goes under Maasin, Iloilo. (This can be optional though, and the provincial name may apply for Maasin.)

It is also applicable to cities having unique names that bear special titles. So far no city in the Philippines fall under this case.

Provincial name convention
If the city has the same name as another city or municipality in the Philippines, disambiguate with a comma and the provincial name after the name of the city (e.g., Cityname, Provincename). If it is in Metro Manila, use Cityname, Metro Manila. This is also applicable to independent and highly urbanized cities, except those names which are unique in the Philippines but not in other countries. The provincial name purports to describe the general area and not necessarily as the mother political unit of the city.

Cases and examples:
 * City with the same name as that of other Philippine city or municipality
 * Naga, Camarines Sur
 * Roxas, Capiz
 * San Fernando, La Union


 * Component city with the same name as that of other non-Philippine city or municipality
 * Isabela, Basilan
 * Legazpi, Albay
 * San Juan, Metro Manila


 * Cities having non-unique names that bear special titles
 * Muñoz, Nueva Ecija for "Science City of Muñoz
 * Samal, Davao del Norte for "Island Garden City of Samal"

"City" convention
Whenever a city has the same name as that of a Philippine province or region, the word "City" may be provided as part of the city name. Examples:
 * Cebu City
 * Batangas City
 * Quezon City
 * Cotabato City

If a highly-urbanized city does not have an eponymous toponym or place name even in other countries, but is not the primary topic for other reasons, the word "City" may be used as part of the city name.
 * Angeles City – the primary topic of the name "Angeles" is the given name and surname.
 * Lapu-Lapu City – the primary topic of the name "Lapu-Lapu" is the chieftain, hence it redirects to Lapulapu.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I was about to think of thinking MOSPHIL as mere general guideline than an official policy, when I remembered about my recent failed attempt in moving San Luis Potosí City to "San Luis Potosí (city)". My reason was "COMMONNAME", but I got snowed at Talk:San Luis Potosí City, on the grounds that my proposal (backed by a prior move request for Puebla (city), that common name doesn't overwrite established guidelines (for Mexico the MOS is at Naming conventions (geographic names)). Not to mention the never-dying debate on the simplification of article titles of uniquely-named U.S. cities (like Tacoma and West Palm Beach).


 * Therefore I feel that there should be the need to modify MOSPHIL in accordance with current norms of article titles and changing era. This may include revising the MOSPHIL for names of figures: I support the complete departure of the use of diacritics for historical figures (except "ñ" of course) like Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio. As for cities this needs MOSPHIL backing, as evidenced by various issues hounding titles of U.S. and Mexican cities (with those against case-to-case move requests citing naming conventions and relevant manuals of style). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cities (2nd proposal)
All cities fall under three types of conventions: general convention, provincial name convention,, and "City" convention.

General convention
As a general rule, cities should neither be affixed with the word "City" nor the name of the province in which it is located. Examples:


 * Baguio instead of Baguio City
 * Malaybalay instead of Malaybalay, Bukidnon or City of Malaybalay
 * Sipalay instead of Sipalay City, Negros Occidental or Sipalay City

This is also applicable to capital cities which are the preferred primary topic, over other places, such as:
 * Bacolod for the capital of Negros Occidental, while the lesser-known municipality of the same name goes under Bacolod, Lanao del Norte.

This is also applicable to uniquely-named cities that bear special titles. So far no city in the Philippines falls under this case.

Provincial name convention
If the city has the same name as another city or municipality in the Philippines, disambiguate with a comma and the provincial name after the name of the city (e.g., "Lipa, Batangas"). If it is in Metro Manila, use Cityname, Metro Manila. This is also applicable to independent and highly urbanized cities, except those names which are unique in the Philippines but not in other countries. The provincial name purports to describe the general area and not necessarily as the mother political unit of the city.

City with the same name as that of other Philippine city or municipality.
 * Cases and examples:
 * Naga, Camarines Sur
 * Roxas, Capiz (best to add as this part seems to gain some contention, myself included)
 * San Fernando, La Union
 * San Fernando, Pampanga
 * Santiago, Isabela

Component city with the same name as that of other non-Philippine city or municipality.
 * Isabela, Basilan
 * Legazpi, Albay
 * San Juan, Metro Manila

Cities having non-unique names that bear special titles.
 * Muñoz, Nueva Ecija for "Science City of Muñoz"
 * Samal, Davao del Norte for "Island Garden City of Samal"

"City" convention
Whenever a city has the same name as that of a Philippine province or region, the word "City" may be provided as part of the city name. Examples:
 * Cebu City
 * Quezon City
 * Zamboanga City

If a highly-urbanized city does not have an eponymous toponym or place name even in other countries, but is not the primary topic for other reasons, the word "City" may be used as part of the city name.
 * Angeles City – the primary topic of the name "Angeles" is the given name and surname.
 * Lapu-Lapu City – the primary topic of the name "Lapu-Lapu" is the chieftain, hence it redirects to Lapulapu.

Here is my second proposal. For the Roxas it's best to add with link to this Tambayan page. But my proposal is mainly to drop the usage of "x, Philippines" for both Angeles and Lapu-Lapu and use "City" convention. Also, my proposal is to simplify the convention per three types (general convention, provincial name convention, and "City" convention), with examples and cases on each types (thus avoiding usage of numerous subheadings). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

-- I also support abandoning "x, Philippines" as way to disambiguate independent cities. Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City is fine for clarity purposes. The latter to differentiate from the Visayan chieftain. Although, I strongly maintain that "City" should be use sparingly in city article names.

Also I think we should prefer using WP:COMMONNAME (Montalban, Rizal rather than Rodriguez) and WP:CONCISE (Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte rather than President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte) when it comes to city/municipality names.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Montalban: People have been calling it Rodriguez lately. News reports also use the name "Rodriguez." It's closer than your think.
 * Re: President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte: I actually don't know the facts on the ground, but we'd have to rely on that.
 * I suppose this opens a whole new can of worms. For places named after saints: Do we shorten "Santo" and "Santa"? For example, should it be at "Sta. Rosa, Laguna"? This actually peeves me; consider "University of Sto. Tomas"; I cleaned this up last year because people are too lazy to type in "Santo", preferring "Sto.", and you cut the number of keystrokes by just one. Would've considered to use "UST" instead of "Sto." if someone is lazy.
 * Yes, we'd have to depreciate "x, Philippines", and "Cityname City" should still be restricted to a couple of handful of uses. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is "Angeles City" less popular than just "Angeles" on Google? (see ) — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many Lakers fans here. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. Are they that lazy to not type "Los" first? Speaking of Rodriguez, have you guys seen the article for Mendez-Nuñez? It is located at Mendez, Cavite. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Related queries for "angeles":
 * pampanga
 * angeles pampanga
 * los angeles lakers
 * los angeles time
 * angeles city pampanga
 * Related queries for "Angeles City":
 * angeles city pampanga
 * pampanga
 * angeles pampanga
 * angeles city philippines
 * hotel angeles city
 * Search for "Angeles" shows both "Angeles" in Pampanga and "Los Angeles". Angeles Pampanga vs Angeles City shows a better view of the actual searches. The spike in the angeles vs angeles city in June 2004 came at the heels of the epic Finals meltdown of the Lakers vs. the Detroit Pistons. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rodriguez is still the official name, plus the accepted name of the city-like municipality. There was a proposal to revert its name back to Montalban though (the reason: familiarity and more common name), but no news about it ever since it came to the news. I think there should be instances where COMMONNAME is not applicable, because it sets forth a dangerous precedent that may compromise the entire encyclopedia itself in the eyes of the Filipinos, especially if the differences are not the spelling or title affixes but the entire name itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIAL -- we don't have to abide with "official name" if it is not the most popular name. Again, this opens a whole new can of worms: if a place is recently renamed, when do we move it to the new official name? Example: N.S. Amoranto Street is still predominantly referred to as "Retiro", by old-timers and recent arrivals. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * for Pres. Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte, I think it should remain as it is. It will create a wrong notion that it is called as such despite that it is not. Same for Rodriguez, Rizal. Unless PSA, NAMRIA etc.. will axe "Pres. Manuel A." in the name of the municipality.
 * for places with "saintly" names, I think we should avoid abbreviations as long as PSA and other government agencies and reliable official sources do not abbreviate such place names. But I agree that convention should not apply to cities, municipalities, and a Manila district bearing "saintly" names. These aren't as famous as San Francisco and Santo Domingo in the West, and most people here will first think of such names as names of saints than names of places. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually open to using WP:NC names. San Juan, Metro Manila's official name is "San Juan del Monte", at least when it was a town. Los Angeles actually has a long real name that I couldn't be cared enough to Google. What is San Jose del Monte's most popular name? I guess it still is "San Jose del Monte", so I guess no one's proposing to be moved to San Jose, Bulacan? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess Mendez-Nuñez will stay at Mendez, Cavite then. Are these the only examples where common names are used instead of the official short names? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * San Jose del Monte's case is simple – it is eponymous to a title of St. Joseph (San Jose), but not the saint himself. San Jose del Monte translates as "St. Joseph of the Mountain", which by its exact name is a title of St. Joseph. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This means it should stay as it is because San Jose del Monte is not a saint name, but a saintly title name. So applies for it. And no one's calling it San Jose here, but still San Jose del Monte City or San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. More commonly on print and online media it is referred as "CSJDM" or "SJDM". For Wikipedia, the general convention applies for it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, "San Jose del Monte" is the most popular name of the city. It's rarely called "San Jose" probably because there's plenty of San Joses. I suppose its name is safe for the next 10 years or so. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte - The official website of the town alternatively uses just "Roxas" ("people of Roxas", "About Roxas", "Roxas-LGU") so it isnt exactly a wrong notion to use as such. As per Montalban, as per my undestanding I was close to moving the page to its common "unofficial" name from Rodriguez, based on usage by both government and major media outfits (see the talk page for that page) but the lack of official consensus on MOS:PHIL in general (particularly when the WP:COMMONNAME largely differs from the official name) prevented the move. At least we should be able to review the town/city article names vis-a-vis with WP:COMMONNAME/WP:CONCISE on a case by case basis.


 * For "Sto."/"Sta." I believe we should spell it out, I don't know if this abbreviation practice is specific only to the Philippines, but if this is the case then spelling out these saintly prefixes in full would be more preferable.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Spell it out, please, including for surnames. Other English varieties which have interacted with Spanish don't abbreviate it, and for clarity's sake we shouldn't either. --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundant code
User:Exec8 is doing it again: making significant changes to all LGU articles without consultation. This time he is adding stack templates that are totally redundant in most cases or actually create annoying formatting in other cases (for example, compare this diff). For a while, I wasn't bothered, but now I see more and more weird formatting as a result of this (am I the only one seeing this?). ''This code is superfluous at best or otherwise disruptive. It should NOT be added.'' Can others please weigh in on this? --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject
Bataan Day	Total 8,437	Daily 1,947--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could definitely use improvement, but it doesn't really feel like a stub! It has a C-class rating in its other Wikiproject tag, so I've changed the Tambayan rating to C as well. CMD (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Several radio stations in the Philippines nominated for deletion
Could use some help evaluating and finding sources, if available. WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Radio. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Friendship and Independence
We're just over a month away from the 75th anniversary of the Treaty of Manila (1946) and Philippine independence from the United States. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to spur the creation of some Philippine-related content for the main page. The Republic Day (Philippines) article is already listed in WP:OTD at Selected anniversaries/July 4. We don't have a directly relevant WP:Featured article, but there might be time for someone to nominate a Featured pictures that can be used for WP:POTD if anyone has one in mind. Most easily, there is time to write and nominate some articles for WP:DYK ( who currently has one Philippine diplomacy-related hook in a prep). CMD (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related, there's already a scheduled POTD for this June 24th, which will be the 450th anniversary of the Spanish founding of Manila. See Talk:Manila. —seav (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noticed that when I was looking at potential Featured Pictures! June 24th is a bit sooner, but if anyone comes up with any Manila-related DYKs, or perhaps Spanish colonization DYKs, we could see if they could go up at the same time. CMD (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

NAMRIA basemap
Should we use this map for our locator maps and etc? Everything in this map came directly from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the standard map should stick to provinces (or maybe provinces+independent cities?), as drawing every LGU to that level of detail makes for quite a substantial file. (It's large enough that I'm unable to manipulate it on my inkscape, although I note you appear to have created it in inkscape.) However, could be a useful base for provincial/regional locator maps? CMD (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there's a version for all levels. I did this on purpose because these boundaries serve as my reference points for other maps such as congressional district maps and historical maps. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't manipulate it, try to unlock the layers of the map. I locked them so I won't mess up other layers while working on a different layer. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I suspect it's a very useful base to have around, I just prefer to keep file sizes smaller if possible for say whole-country locator maps. One possible improvement would be to make a text-editable version. Would the NAMRIA data allow you to add titles and/or path names to all the LGUs? CMD (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have encountered a problem: projections. The NAMRIA is using at least three different projections: polyconic, Mercator and web Mercator. The effects of this inconsistency is negligible for small scale maps (like maps of Metro Manila), but in a large scale, it is ridiculous. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 09:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How many different data sets are you pulling together? Maybe someone at the Graphics lab would be able to convert the data points between projection. I'm afraid it's been awhile since I've used GIS software myself. CMD (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just two (from https://data.humdata.org/ and https://www.geoportal.gov.ph/). The polyconic map I'm talking about is this JPEG map from NAMRIA's website. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 08:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Umiray-Angat Transbasin Project
Hi guys! I need a bit of help here. I was wondering if anyone can create a .png to provide a map and diagram of the project. One of the best illustration I can find is the ADB Project Completion Report's page 8. How much I would like to lift it from the ADB page, I know this will not be accepted by Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance! Bootkinero (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issues at Ateneo de Manila University and subarticles
This article and its subarticles contain copyrighted text (since 2005!) and may need to be rewritten completely to fix the Copyright problems (thanks User:The Banner for flagging this!). See Copyright problems/2021 June 13 for what I know so far. Probably Talk:Ateneo de Manila University is the best place to coordinate cleanup. —Kusma (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential Museum and Library PH Flickr Copyright
Do photos published by the Presidential Museum Flickr account fall under PH Copyright Rules: "works of the government of the Philippines exempted from copyright as stated by Republic Act No. 8293."? SanLeone (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, as we don't know whose work they are. For example, the first photo I navigated to,, is attributed to a different source and labelled all rights reserved. CMD (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Unfortunate but makes sense. SanLeone (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * this is reflected at the Section 176.3 of the R.A. 8293 (or the IP Code of the Philippines): "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." So be extra cautious when dealing with images published in Philippine Government portals and websites like those of PTV and Flickr's Presidential Museum. And BTW, for some reason much of images of the Presidential Museum are licensed as "All Rights Reserved" instead of acceptable "Some / No Rights Reserved". So I assume much of the "collection" (images) come from various sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the further explanation. I looked through more of the Flickr photos and the vast majority are credited to non-government people/organisations SanLeone (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:List of Filipino Singers
Kumusta po sa lahat, gumawa ako ng listahan ng mga mang-aawit sa Pilipinas, ngunit hindi ito tinanggap. May makakatulong po ba rito? CutePeach (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was declined because it's unsourced. What classifies as a "singer" though? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * does a list of singers with their own articles require sources? I saw many lists of singers in Lists of singers. CutePeach (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. But still, what classifies as a "singer"? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 05:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest for sourcing? I guess what classifies them as singers is they are mostly vocal musicians. CutePeach (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of Refugees of the Philippines
Can someone kindly check and clean Refugees of the Philippines? Some parts of the article appear to be lopsided and/or essay-like. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kiwi Camara
Hello! Sarah here, attempting to update and improve the Kiwi Camara article on behalf of DISCO. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and shared a link to a draft article at Talk:Kiwi Camara, but I have not received any feedback from other editors yet. I've identified problems with the current article, which is mostly a Background section with two Controversy sections related to the same incident. I've also tried to draft a more well-rounded biography which relies on news organizations over student newspapers. Are any WikiProject Tambayan Philippines members able to review the concerns I've identified alongside the draft, then update the live article appropriately? Thanks in advance for any assistance! Sarah DISCO (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

 * 43	He's Into Her	58,475	1,886	Stub	Low
 * 60	Guillermo Eleazar	49,857	1,608	Stub	Low
 * 150	Michael Cinco	29,335	946	Stub	Low
 * 171	Cariñosa	27,227	878	Stub	High
 * 173	Candy Pangilinan	27,011	871	Stub	Low
 * 185	Johnriel Casimero	25,893	835	Stub	Low
 * 201	Antonio Carpio	24,501	790	Stub	Mid
 * 253	Philippine National Police	21,276	686	Stub	Top
 * 265	Banana ketchup	20,364	656	Stub	Low
 * 273	List of programs broadcast by GMA Network	19,894	641	Stub	Low


 * Tambayan Philippines/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Move to José Laurel Street
Apparently, someone moved the article of a Manila street adjacent to Malacañan to José Laurel Street without giving reason of the move. Mention here the user who moved it,. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. That user has a long history of not discussing anything.
 * We should also have a discussion if we would still have diacritics in names for Spanish era yndios. Short answer: No. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * God, that user mass moved a lot of pages. Another wasteful time in Wikipedia. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So that user moved a name of 21st century PBA player to one with accents. Amazing. I'm done with reverting. Good thing all of those can be easily reverted. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sibagat barangays
Are all articles of Sibagat barangays notable or having reliable sources? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No. And all of them are bombed with unreliable sources. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 01:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Change Template:Philippine Stock Exchange data from Bloomberg to PSE EDGE
Hello!

This is a proposal to switch the data used in the PSE template from Bloomberg (a third-party source) to PSE EDGE (the primary source), which is in line to other stock exchange templates, such as Template:New York Stock Exchange, Template:Euronext, Template:Singapore Exchange, and Template:Tokyo Stock Exchange. This isn't a one-and-done operation however, EDGE uses the listed company ID in its URL instead of the listed company ticker, which means that the pages which uses the template needs to be changed, which obviously means that the template can't be switched without a transition period. Additionally, the template also accept a second ticker (which based on the documentation seems to be made for ABS-CBN Corporation but the page now only uses a sole ticker ABS), which a) is not in line with other SX templates, and b) requires checking each page in Category:Companies listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange if some pages needs to be restructured (or alternatively restructure the template to allow secondary tickers).

As a separate note, there's 137 pages in enW which uses this template.

Edit: Here's an example for PLDT (to allow comparison between the sources).
 * Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/TEL:PM
 * PSE EDGE: https://edge.pse.com.ph/companyPage/stockData.do?cmpy_id=6

So, here are the possible choices:


 * Do nothing and retain Bloomberg as the source: no modifications will be needed in this case
 * Replace Bloomberg with PSE EDGE silently: if the listed company ID is supplied, use EDGE, otherwise Bloomberg. This is intended to be temporary, requires a bit more work in the template to allow for seamless switching, possibly breaks some pages which uses the double-ticker (if there are such pages).
 * Replace Bloomberg with PSE EDGE, and put a warning to pages without the company ID: if the listed company ID is supplied, use EDGE, otherwise Bloomberg but with clear warning that the listed company ID is missing. This is intended to be temporary, requires a bit more work in the template to allow for seamless switching, possibly breaks some pages which uses the double-ticker (if there are such pages).

Thank you for considering this matter.

49.147.31.169 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

2020 census results
The results of the 2020 census have been released:. Let's try to update Wikidata and PH census as quick as possible before we get a flood of edits here that we'll have to revert afterwards. Thanks. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Premature cityhood of Calaca
While Calaca, Batangas' cityhood has been approved by President Du30, there is no indication of plebiscite result that officially ratifies its cityhood. No sources presented if plebiscite has been conducted. Please revert the article to its correct version. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Mention 5 latest contributors: . Is there really a plebiscite that affirms Calaca's upgrade into a city? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RA11544 law has been approved by the president on May 26th, 2021. I am currently checking if in case the absence of ratification within 90 days or 120 days from May 26th will automatically make Calaca a city. gerryyabes 14:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're describing the mechanics of a pocket veto; it is different in the Philippines vs. other countries. If Duterte himself did not act on the bill, it becomes law, and a plebiscite will be held to ratify it. As he apparently signed this into law, this is moot. Next, it has to go through a plebiscite first before Calaca becomes a city. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No plebiscite scheduled yet for COMELEC to officially declare cityhood of Calaca, Batangas. gerryyabes 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is not yet time for us to declare Calaca, Batangas a city, then so be it. Jabolero (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Speed limits in the Philippines is trash!
This article has been long piece of trash, this one being more of a list of speed limits for each expressway as well as a few other roads. This page doesn’t even have any info about background laws (particularly RA 4136), enforcement and proposed changes (past and present). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here I've made an edit to the article intended as an initial edit towards correcting this situation. Other editors interested in improving articles about the Philippines are invited to further improve this article before I get around to working towards that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Several Philippines related articles are hot garbage. Still, I see what I can gnome up in the article.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 03:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:University of Santo Tomas § Redirected colleges
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:University of Santo Tomas § Redirected colleges. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding more Filipino languages to Template:Infobox Chinese
There's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Chinese. Your input would be appreciated there. --Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we have school districts in the Philippines?
Question in the title. I was thinking if we can redirect non-notable schools to their respective school districts rather than keep unsourced stubs. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is actually a good alternative. I think they're called "school divisions". — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 03:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno about this. I tend to think the districts are even more obscure than schools. More people would recognize a hypothetical Bayanan West Central School than they would a Bayanan West Central District. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Flags in LGU info boxes
Just to note, I’ve been seeing more or less automatic edits removing flags from LGU info boxes (I.e. infobox settlement) in the last days, but I don’t see any local consensus for such a move. To me, we should keep them unless we agree to have those gone. - TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Flags in infoboxes are generally deprecated by global consensus, at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. CMD (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated Template:Philippine Stock Exchange from Bloomberg to PSE (main website, not EDGE)
Rationale is provided in this archived discussion: Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47.

Funnily, the PSE website was updated between this discussion and now and now have nice links like (for example) PLDT: https://www.pse.com.ph/company-information-TEL/. Since PSE magically updated their website, I've replaced the template links from Bloomberg to PSE. This made my job easier. - 49.147.76.81 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Francisco Macabulos
Francisco Makabulos is the common name today of course. Asado (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Novaliches
Novaliches was recently created, apparently based on info in Quezon City. But the QC article was restored and has much more info (at least in length). This should be sorted-out somehow. Either redirect Novaliches to QC the way it was, or make Novaliches the main article on that area. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 03:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * has been creating barangay stubs these past few weeks and I don't really know why. Barangay articles should only be created on a case-by-case basis. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 04:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Novaliches is not a barangay. It is more of some sort of area, district, or region within Quezon City, like Diliman and Cubao. It is equivalent to Binondo; Quiapo, Manila; and Paco, Manila. I think it is now the right time to have an article for Novaliches, and also all areas of Quezon City. Perhaps WP:SPLIT. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's an article that could be written here, especially with regards to its historical presence. I don't actually see where it was copied from Quezon City, however it has a more major issue as it appears to have been copied directly from its sources. CMD (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so, too. The historical municipality of Novaliches is more, or less, notable. I actually have a draft of it, but I think I'll just discontinue it now that we have this article. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 04:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit history says it was split from QC, and the QC article has had some thrashing in the Novaliches section. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Forgive me if I copied some text as I am trying to improve the article from time to time. I am trying to expand Quezon City and related articles and I am doing my best to do so. I have rephrased the sentences that are identical to the pna article and is continuously improving the article. PH 0447 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * however, the identical text can still be accessed via article history. Because of this, there is a need to redact revisions which contain identical or poor paraphrasing texts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we redact text that appear in the edit history? PH 0447 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To redact you tag the article with, but at the moment that paraphrasing is not enough. The best way to deal with the issue is to remove the copied text completely and then rewrite it from scratch. CMD (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Journalist Jose Guevara
Kumusta, I put a draft of something on the late Manila columnist Jose Guevara:


 * Draft:Jose_Guevara

However, its AfC request has been marked decline. It is too thin to move into mainspace as it is, and I don't have the background or the access to media to fill this out. A few more paragraphs on the man and some more references would be a good thing. Perhaps someone has access to Manila Bulletin and Manila Times archives in print or online. It was recommended I check with folks at WikiProject Tambayan Philippines or WikiProject Journalism. Anyone capable of picking this up? Zelchenko (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the draft and moved it to main space. It was two sentences when I started and is eight sentences now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania 2021
Our biggest Wikipedian / Wikimedian gathering is a few weeks away! It will be on August 13-17. It is free and open for everyone! Go to https://bit.ly/wikimania2021 to register. For more information, you can go to the Wikimania wiki. See you there! --Exec8 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Taal Volcano article
The section Taal Volcano claims: the northern half of Volcano Island falls under the jurisdiction of the lake shore town of Talisay, and the southern half in San Nicolas.. However, it appears this is wrong for the whole time.

The statement implies there are only two towns that administer the island. However, this Rappler article implies there are three towns governing it:


 * Barangay Calawit, which is part of Balete in the Taal Volcano Island, is on permanent lockdown.


 * Barangay Alas-as and Barangay Pulang Bato, which are part of San Nicolas in the Taal Volcano Island, are on permanent lockdown.


 * Sitio Tabla and Barangay San Isidro, which are parts of Talisay in the Taal Volcano Island, are on permanent lockdown.

The cited source, an archived webpage of Batangas Provincial Government website, shows a map of Batangas that does not mark boundaries on the island. So I suspect this was WP:OR the whole time.

More inputs may be needed here, as this part of information regularly appears on Google searches when asking for which towns that administer the island. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Another Rappler article mentions "Barangay Calawit, San Nicolas". San Nicolas, Batangas mentions a barangay "Calawit" as a founding barangay but there no longer is a name barangay named as such by now. Rappler seems to be crappy reference for things such as this. Balete, Batangas's official website says that "Ang Barangay Calawitay humigit kumulang 300 ektarya ito ay nasa gitnang bahagi ng dagat ng Balete. Ito ay daabab ng mga bangka. May 10 kilometro mula sa Kapitolyo ng Lalawigan ng Batangas holos 3Kilometro mula sa Municipal Hall ng Bayan ng Balete."
 * There's no reason to believe another municipality has jurisdiction to Volcano Island save for these two that we already know. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

University of the Philippines Singing Ambassadors mass revert
I've reverted University of the Philippines Singing Ambassadors article to its 2011 version. There are so many copyvio from https://www.upsingingambassadors.com/ that I just reverted to its earliest version. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

LGU articles with dead links to their websites
It’s been a long problem we’ve been maintaining dead links or non-existing websites for a lot of our LGU articles. I don’t know how many of them, but I still see a lot of those supposed LGU websites in places like Lipa, Batangas, San Pablo, Laguna, and many rural municipalities. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just use Link rot. I made an archive version of the Lipa Official website at Lipa,_Batangas -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 PDP–Laban dispute
Is this so-called "dispute" notable? I think it's a little bit unnecessary to have a dedicated article for it. Unfamiliar readers might even think that there's a civil conflict because of the infobox. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 07:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We love to create articles such as this, then ignore far more important articles such as the actual PDP-Laban article itself. See for example, the 2020 Philippine House of Representatives leadership crisis that was merged back into 18th Congress of the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we merge it then? This topic would be forgotten after a few months. For example, articles such as Death of Christine Dacera and 2021 PNP–PDEA shootout did not have lasting effects and I think this one won't too. We also have an article for a public market occupation that only lasted for a couple of hours and killed nobody. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 01:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the first two examples you mentioned are still remembered by the people even up to this day; notability doesn't mean it should have "lasting effects". This isn't the first time this happened, as parties have been split into different wings during election time. You can AFD this if you want to, to see where the discussion goes. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has enough coverage imo, probably needs a rewrite for cohesiveness. Merging the article with the main PDP-Laban page would give undue weight to political squabble of Pacquiao-Pimentel faction with Cusi/Duterte. I think its too early if this would not have lasting implication. On the side note, the 2021 PNP–PDEA shootout did have lasting effect (PNP-PDEA Unified Coordination Guidelines) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason why there'd be undue weight is because we don't have anything on about another earlier dispute involving Nene Pimentel and Peping Cojuangco in the 80s-90s, that led to the creation of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, the article discussed that with only a couple of sentences. Presumably the Duterte-era disputes can also be summarized into such. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FafaJH edits
Can someone inspect this guy's edits? (FafaJH) The editor created redirects to the Liberal Party (Philippines) article such as Dilawan party and Dilawan Party. Also, they created a redirect to the People Power Revolution article as 1986 Philippine coup d'état, the edited the said article and threw a bunch of NPOV templates and added that the CPP sponsored the EDSA Revolution without providing a single reliable source. They also threw a lot of NPOV templates here, here and here. -WayKurat (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Dilawan Party and Dilawan party was just a redirect, i also used r from incorrect template. We must face the truth WayKurat. Joma Sison was arrested during Marcos regime because of communism, and later release during Aquino administration. What was the release from? Isn't that Joma Sison is a part of Plaza Miranda Bombing. Isn't that Neutrality. My goal is to bring back neutrality to this pages. Why are you protecting this communist/terrorist leaders? - FafaJH  (talk) 1:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OMG THEY'RE HERE! Howard the Duck (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, most sources outside-the-Philippines classify the two EDSA Revolutions as coups, and they are included at Philippine coups. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FafaJH is now blocked. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 13:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fake news in the Philippines
has raised some concerns regarding the neutrality of this article (please see Talk:Fake news in the Philippines). — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chowtime Na!
Chowtime Na! has been listed on AfD. Any thoughts on this considering how unremarkable this is compared to the more mainstream shows such as Wowowee? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose if we'd be taking the spirit of WP:GEOLAND where all barangays are equal, there's a similar WP:SNG for TV shows that all TV shows are equal. TV shows aren't barangays though where there are 42k of them. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The show ain't remarkable though, being obscure at worst and low-rent at best. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You've been here for a long time. A TV show being unremarkable and having low ratings isn't what we are looking for in deleting articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer well written and sourced list of television program articles where we can redirect these articles to. Unsourced and poorly written articles just reflect badly to WP:PINOY.--04:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am just basing my rationale on GNG and WP:TVSHOW. I doubt that it achieved the same degree of notoriety or notability as it was for Wowowee e.g. the Ultra stampede, or the obscenity controversies with Revillame's subsequent shows. Then again it all boils down to getting the much-needed sources to establish notability which Chowtime lacked. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you translate Dyaryo, Bote to English?
I'm currently working on the Cesar Lacbu Nucum article when I saw the term. While I know the term, our readers probably don't. I was thinking of redirecting it somewhere, probably on a non-existent Recycling in the Philippines article. Paper recycling and glass recycling are separate articles so a redirect to either of them is not feasible. Any ideas would be welcome. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is the English WP, we don't need a redirect for this foreign-language (Tagalog) term. I doubt very much that it will ever be used as a search item, especially since it appears only in 1 article (as noted above). It is better to just explain it there. Moreover, redirecting it as suggested above is not helpful if there is no mention of it in the target article. Regards, --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * probably the best course of action. I'll just add a note that explains it. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Treatment of the Wikiproject Philippine history talkpage template
The Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine History has its own talkpage template, Template:WP Philippine History. I think that this is understandable and a reasonable distinction to have, as it provides a more focused look on a large set of articles. This leaves the question of how it interacts with the main Template:WPPhilippines tag. My instinct would be that the history template is a more specific subtemplate of the main template, much like categories, and so where it is in place there should be no need for the main template. Currently application is inconsistent; some pages have only the history template, some have both, and some have only the main template. (If the reason to have both is a technical one, I think it would be best to implement a technical fix. For example, WikiProject Former countries functions as a subset of WikiProject Countries, with articles tagged as Former countries appearing in WP:Countries Article alerts.)In summary, I have two separate questions, 1) what should be done in theory, and 2) what the current technical situations is. If there is agreement on these questions, instructions should be added to Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine History about how to apply the template. Thanks for any input, CMD (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this is currently put as a task force, why not integrate the two templates into one? Template:WikiProject Military history is an example where you can tag the article as being under military history plus any number of additional task forces, such as WWII, Spanish, Aviation, Biography, etc. —seav (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That would also work well, it looks like all the Military task forces are able to track their own articles. The |attention= and |needs-infobox= fields could be incorporated into the main template. CMD (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Raised at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. CMD (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As part of this process I have created Category:Tambayan Philippines articles needing attention and Category:Tambayan Philippines articles needing infoboxes, which should become operational once the template is updated. CMD (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Story" instead of "Storey"
Hi! I frequently see the word "storey" used when describing the floors of a building, integrated with an article written in American English. The British English spelling is "storey", and it would be great for consistency if we would use "story" instead. <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-style: italic;"> J ET H 888 <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-size: 90%;">message me  07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not use "floors"? That's legit PhE for you. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) both use "storey". Since these are considered as the bibles for structures, this spelling of the word should be used.  Hiwilms   Talk   20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. See here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a clear difference between PhE and AmE that doesn't get covered by WP:Commonality, it would be nice to put it in Template:Philippine English instead of the current simple repeating of AmE examples plus some nouns. CMD (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. This makes more sense than strictly using American English. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-style: italic;"> J ET H 888 <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-size: 90%;">message me  07:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is kbl.org.ph a reliable source on Philippine History?
I noticed that the Project Santa Barbara article relies greatly on the kbl.org.ph. That is the party site for the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. First question: is kbl.org.ph considered a reliable source for Filipino History? It seems that a political party website would likely be biased. Second question: if it's not a reliable source, what do we do with sites that rely heavily on it? Thanks you for your opinions. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably usable as a source in some cases, but it definitely isn't a great source for general historical info. If there is a particularly questionable usage, you could tag it with Template:Better source needed if you don't want to remove it. CMD (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It can be used as a reliable source per WP:PARTISAN. However, caution is advised and an editor should consider several factors whether the source meets the requisites for reliability. --<b style="color:purple">ERAMnc</b> 23:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sergio Osmeña Sr., Zamboanga del Norte
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sergio Osmeña Sr., Zamboanga del Norte that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Viva TV (Philippine TV channel)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Viva TV (Philippine TV channel) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lopez Group of Companies
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lopez Group of Companies that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Itchyworms
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Itchyworms that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Miss Cebu
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Miss Cebu that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chief of the Army (Philippines)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chief of the Army (Philippines) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Metro Manila rail colors
Hello! The Department of Transportation released this map of Manila railways, changing the colors from 2012. Here are the colors used: I propose to use these colors instead of the 2012 assignments, but let MRT-7 have a brighter shade of red to distinguish it from MMS. Old PNR services such as the current Metro Commuter Line can continue to use orange. Maps, diagrams, and tables would have to be updated. Itsquietuptown  t • c 10:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * {{legend|#f8fa09|LRT Line 1: #f8fa09}}
 * {{legend|#a366c5|LRT Line 2: #a366c5}}
 * {{legend|#0db7ef|MRT Line 3: #0db7ef}}
 * {{legend|#b27b54|MRT Line 4: #b27b54}}
 * {{legend|#d45c61|MRT Line 7: #d45c61}} (retain bright red to distinguish from MMS)
 * {{legend|#dc6b72|Metro Manila Subway (Line 9): #dc6b72}}
 * {{legend|#739a13|PNR Clark: #739a13}}
 * {{legend|#6597c7|PNR Calamba: #6597c7}}


 * Mentioning major contributors Do we proceed with the changes or not?  Itsquietuptown   t • c 10:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree: Since those line colors officially came from the Department of Transportation. PH 0447 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree: For the same reasons mentioned above. Additionally, we'll need to decide what line colors shall be used for the Makati Intra-city Subway as it's already under construction. Raku Hachijo (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can continue to use gray for the Makati subway as it's not really part of the nat'l government's planned rail network. Itsquietuptown   t • c 01:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ concern: I am amenable to those changes however as someone who is color blind it is a little difficult to distinguish Line 4,7, and 9 but otherwise I'm okay moving to the new colors. Sabaybayin (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are we calling the lines " Line" just like the GMA days? If yes, which is the "Blue Line" and "Red Line"? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A compromise there, especially if we're really bringing back the color nomenclature (which would help clear up the number system, if you ask me), would be to limit colors to rapid transit lines and keep the PNR lines with their names. --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 04:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned map uses the LRT/MRT # nomenclature, although it refers to MMS as "Subway (MMSP/Line 9)". I have seen some media sources refer to the LRT 2 as the "Purple Line" (Manila Bulletin, Philstar) but not the other lines. Itsquietuptown   t • c 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Reply to both): Well of course, current WP:RS still refers to the currently operating lines as "LRT-1", "LRT-2", and "MRT-3", even by the operators themselves!
 * I suppose these lines would also be called by " line" in the future, or it will be prominently displayed in stations, or WP:RS took note of it. Unless that happens, we should probably leave colorful infoboxes out of the question. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been two weeks since the last reply, and I see no objections. I suppose we can switch to these colors? Itsquietuptown   t • c 03:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Has this been adopted IRL? Or at least mentioned by WP:RS? Again, nobody answered my earlier question: Which is the Blue Line? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * IRL it seems that this hasn't been fully implemented/adopted. LRT-2 signages, route maps, and station design still reflects the purple color, while LRT-1 uses green on signages and is green on both LRMC and LRTA's new maps IRL. MRT-3 is more complicated - the stations and rolling stock use blue, on route maps its yellow on LRMC and red/blue on LRTA. IMO these are overridden by the DOTr standards. Itsquietuptown   t • c 08:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We should wait until this has been adopted IRL and WP:RS recognizes what's going on. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we follow usage IRL not impose it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further looking, I found a map from GMA News reflecting the new colors. There's also a slightly older map from ABSCBN. In these two, all but the MRT-7, MMS, and MRT-4 are consistent. Do these count? Itsquietuptown   t • c 09:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. I don't understand the rush to get these done though. Is there a deadline? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would seem that MRT-3 is referred to by the DOTr back to its original blue line per the official website of the DOTr as seen here: [1 ].--<b style="color:purple">ERAMnc</b> 19:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree: I see nothing else to comment, save for the workarounds that may be done for accessibility. Even with the 2014 color changes, Line 3's fleet and signages predominantly used blue. Let the switch take effect.  07:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Negros Island
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Negros Island that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What do I need to do with Draft:Ma_Ceres_P._Doyo to get it to acceptable stub length?
Hi. Is this where I ask for reviews of articles? I made a stub for journalist Ma Ceres P. Doyo, whom I'm sure you all know. Two paragraphs, six references. But User:MoonlightVector decided it was too short, so he moved it to to a draft and the original got deleted. But he never told me what to improve, just told me it was too short. I have seen plenty of shorter stubs. Can someone tell me what to fix please so clicking the redlink doesn't keep telling people that the article on an important journalist was deleted? I want to move on to other journalists already. - MoxiePH (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Im not the one to judge, but i'll get a mod to judge when it should be done. Moonlight  Vector  18:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do I find these mods? - MoxiePH (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously. Why is everyone in a rush? This draft is less than 4 hours old (LOL). Have you read what's on top of AfC submission? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Howard the Duck. MoonlightVector added the AfC submission template a few minutes after my last message here and just before your comment. So no, I hadn't. But that's hardly my fault. I was confused and uninformed by what felt like a random deletion. I'm less "in a rush" and more "confused that a perfectly good stub on a notable subject was deleted." I'm new here, but for now my reason for being here is to increase the number of articles for Filipino feminist and women writers, human rights workers, komikeros, and Pinoy visual artists.  So what I want to do is make as many well-sourced stubs as I can on notable people, let the community grow them if they like, and come back and expand them myself later if (and my hope is that it won't be) necessary.  So the thing with me is: I want to be very clear on what is suitable as a "good enough" (MoonlightVector's words) stub, so I can stop, move on to the next writer, and then come back. I see some people seem to really dislike stubs.  But the existence of stubs is what made me want to get into editing in the first place.  - MoxiePH (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The message on top of Afc submission is in big letters. You can't miss it. As someone who is doing AfC, it is on you to know what you are doing. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I went ahead and WP:BOLDly moved the article to the mainspace from the draft space. The current article is substantially more than a short stub, with plenty of WP:RS to establish notability. Heck, this article is even longer than the last two bio-stubs that I created (Sean Patrick Villanueva, Benito J. Legarda). —seav (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazing. It's like customer service, but you'd have to spoon feed stupid people on what to do step-by-step. It's true nobody learns the reader manuals! Did this even go through the proper AFC process?
 * Anyhow, I have a "policy" for myself not to review AfC and DYK submissions about Filipino topics. That introduces biases and COI onto things. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for that! After going through all that, I'm a little afraid to move on to the Boni Ilagan article, though. How do I avoid that again in the future? I still prefer to do stubs first and then just grow them later. - MoxiePH (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal milestone is 1500 characters (not including formatting and references) so take that with a grain of salt. 1500 characters is the minimum length that is eligible for WP:Did you know. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for creation has all you need. Seriously, don't rush. My last DYK needed 5 weeks to be approved. There's no deadline. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Howard, while I completely understand that people shouldn't rush the AfC process, the process itself has a hefty backlog. Even if people read the manuals and do everything by the book, it makes no sense for people to have to wait weeks or months for their articles to be properly reviewed. Even more so if it fails once and it has to be redone and reviewed again.


 * Between waiting for notable Philippine topics to get out of that pipeline and bypassing it altogether when the topic clearly demonstrates notability, I'd much rather do the latter and save AfC for edge cases where we can't be sure of one's notability or there's serious doubts as to the viability of a particular article. --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 19:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess my point was we should let usual Wikipedia processes take its course. We're not putting up AFDs, RFCs RFPPs, FACs, DYKs, and RMs here, aren't we? We're still all using them as is. What makes AFC different? What makes Doyo different? I know we have pet articles, we all hate Marcos, and push our own pet topics (agendas be damned) but seriously, WP:PINOY have most wanted articles for almost a decade now and those haven't been created. Why not start there? We have presidential candidates, senators, congressmen who are red links. Then this... gets created just like that? Central Luzon Plain (the geographic feature, not the administrative region) is a requested article since at least 2008! Howard the Duck (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think my own point had less to do with the AFC process, and more with the arbitrariness that someone took that article from the mainspace and turned it into a draft without giving any objective reason or guidance why. If I had been uncertain of the stub's value, I would have gone through the AFC process. (Although if I were that uncertain about a subject, I probably would just have moved on to another subject.) I didn't actually come here to complain about AFC. I ultimately came here to ask kung saan ako nagkulang (where I fell short), given that the stub I created (before I expanded it) provided lots of context for future expansion, and clearly demonstrated the notability of the subject. If it had been tagged with notability issues I would have tried to address them. But all I was told was that the article was not done. Well, of course. That's what a stub is supposed to be. I guess I'm also scared for the past stubs I've made. And the ones I want to create in the future.  I have free time to make, like, one of these things a week.  And that's what I feel I can contribute.  Arbitrarily saying "that isn't enough" and not explaining what I have to do to bring it up to par? That might as well be the same as kicking me off Wikipedia editing most of the year (as long as I have to attend grad school). - MoxiePH (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You just described the AFC process. That's how it works. The tag slapped on the article sets expectations on what's next. The fact that we have editors who wish the bypass the process doesn't make what happened right. To be honest, I really don't think what you looking for. It's all there. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One factor that played into this is that the person who turned it into a draft didn't actually add a tag until after I posted this here. So I was working with nothing but his edit description on the article history. - MoxiePH (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I saw the article, the tag was added within 30 minutes. I suppose you were able to see see the tag when it was added and expectations were set on you?
 * Again, this is hurrying as if there's a deadline. Is there an anniversary coming up? You guys want this on DYK? What? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would've said asking the editor who turned it into a draft what happened. Apparently we don't do that here any more as we have someone who bypasses the process. Are we going to put up similar things for AFDs and RMs? The RM I did almost three weeks ago is pending. Can someone look into that? I'm in a hurry!!! Howard the Duck (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Flags
Please could someone knowledgeable comment on the request to change flag templates at Template talk:Country data Philippines? Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark Anthony Carpio
Hello, Tambayan Philippines,

I was deleting an expired draft related to Mark Anthony Carpio which led me to their page and this bio is completely unsourced with just a few external links. It's been tagged for having insufficient references since 2018. If anyone has an interest in this type of music and improving content, this BLP could use a little time and attention. Or maybe it should go to AFD, I'm really no expert on choral music. Thank you in advance for looking it over. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I found a few references and added them. - Sparryx (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Gawad Genio Awards for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gawad Genio Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gawad Genio Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Notable people" sections
Is it proper to add a “Notable people” section on articles, e.g., Pasay? If so, are there any guidelines regarding this section? What should and what shouldn't be included? Because it seems like everyone that is born from that place and has an article is being added. <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-style: italic;"> J ET H 888 <span style="font-family:Old English text MT,courier;font-size: 90%;">message me  13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is proper under general guidelines on city artices per WP:CITSTRUCT, as long as the names included in the list also have their corresponding WP article. --<b style="color:purple">ERAMnc</b> 03:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And the person must have been born or actually live there, not have ancestry or parents/relatives in that place. If there is a large list, it will be helpful to have 2 subsections: one for "Born in " and one for "Residing in ". --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are some people who are associated with a place, but neither was born or resided there. One example is Sharon Cuneta, who is associated with Pasay (and is probably that city's most notable person associated with that place), but was never documented to have been born or live there (she was born in Santa Mesa, Manila, and lived in Forbes Park during her heyday, dunno where she lives now). How about them? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In what possible way is she associated with the city? Either you were born there or live(d) there. I don't think this list is for people who work there... --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess you are younger than her supposed fandom. We all know Sharon has been a has-been for much of the 21st century, but during the post-EDSA period, Sharon was the attraction, and her association with Pasay was well known. Her dad was the mayor there for the longest time. Cuneta Astrodome was inaugurated with a concert starring her.
 * For a people of a certain age, Sharon is to Pasay as Manny Pacquiao is to GenSan. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Marawi
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Marawi that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bulusan
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bulusan that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Bulusan (municipality), which I started today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of Antonio Luna
Antonio Luna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested article for "C5 Road Bridge"
Hi, I just wanted to ask for clarification on one of the requested articles for a "C5 Road Bridge" article. Because as far as I know, there isn't a bridge explicitly called the C5 Road Bridge, especially among the bridges that make up the C5 route. Ganmatthew (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * it seems to be a common name for C.P. Garcia Bridge. Google Maps labels it as "C-5 Bridge" while OpenStreetMap (via my OsmAnd app) labels it as "C-5 Bagong Ilog Bridge". However, I made the two links (C.P. Garcia Bridge and C-5 Road Bridge) as redirects to a relevant section at Circumferential Road 5 that discusses the bridge, as I doubt the bridge passes WP:GNG and may not survive an article for deletion nomination. The bridge must establish a recognition on its own via reliable, independent sources that do not promote it. Being part of a road network (C-5) does not inherit notability. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:OFFICIALNAME for the bridge connecting Pasig and Makati's sections of C-5 is "C.P. Garcia Bridge" as per Google Street View. Interestingly, we have articles for most bridges over the Pasig River, but not this and a few others. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we use “Route XXX” over “NXXX” for national highways?
Yes, Nxxx may be the way DPWH would like to to its numbered national highways for inventory purposes, but as the sign you would see along the way doesn't bear the N and “Route X” (or sometimes “Highway X”) is becoming the name way of referring to many national highways (except tertiary ones) where there is no local name, should be it time to refer to numbered national highways as “Route X”? For article names, we should probably move away from “Nx highway (Philippines)” to either “Philippine National Route X” or “National Route X (Philippines)”. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Highway route lists
I'm currently working to replace our existing route list tables, starting with List of expressways in the Philippines, trying to emulate what the guys from North America has been doing. That would do away with the unnecessary photos that I don't see in similar lists elsewhere, and we should provide US/imperial conversions in addition to metric.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is CALAX really part of E3? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 00:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There are signs pointing to E3 approaching Santa Rosa exit (see Street View). Would assume it has already been numbered since opening.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do remember a sign pointing to an expressway route whilst traversing the Tagaytay–Calamba Road, but I couldn't figure out whether it was E3 or E2. I also remember seeing a directional sign on CALAX with an E3 shield, but the letters were covered. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)