Contents

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

Main

Discussion

Assessment

Requests

Members

Articles (Featured · New · Popular)

Sources

Portal

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics at the Reference desk. Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages.

Pinoy Wikipedia on social media        This box: view talk edit

In light of the regional weekly publication ceasing their operations next month, I created a draft article so that other contributors can make the relevant improvements and hopefully move it to mainspace before the release of its final article on July 21. -Ian Lopez @ 08:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To those who heeded the call to make relevant improvements to the said page, thank you. I'll be submitting the draft for review. -Ian Lopez @ 15:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that they've officially shut down. If there are articles in which the BMC was cited, the refs are still alive as of now tho ofc these have to be archived. Borgenland (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently involved in an investigation regarding a WP:NEWSPAPER and WP:COPYVIO case of a user who is not a member of Tambayan but is also engaged in editing Philippine articles. For transparency, I am not the one under the spotlight but now I am confused since the said other user is alleged to be the sock of an old banned user under the name JudgeFloro or something similar to that. Can anyone enlighten me as to what happened before that? Borgenland (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judgefloro was a prolific photo uploader who was blocked for sockpuppetry. Per WP:DENY, this isn't really something I'd discuss further here. For further action on socks, follow the WP:SPI process. For further action on on-wiki copyright violations, follow the WP:CCI/WP:CPN process, whichever applicable. Chlod (say hi!) 14:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland are you referring to me (the other user who is not a member of Tambayan)? I just mentioned a concern by Commons/enwiki admin Explicit when they posted the possible Valenzuela400 sockpuppetry on my talk page. Of course, their concern should not be ignored. Also note that I earlier posted this concern on Just Step Sideways' talk page (he was once critical of Judgefloro's uploads (read here); Just Step Sideways' former username was Beeblebrox). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the other user (who is also not in this project). Borgenland (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland speaking of WP:NEWSPAPER, would Valenzuela400's contribution at SMNI (edit) be a breach of it? It was made in May. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, the details are concise enough. But I think the title should be shortened into Lawsuit/Libel lawsuit and a lot of common terms need to be delinked. Borgenland (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done making the edit. No need to link Rodrigo Duterte as the link already exists two times in sections above. Still, cyberlibel needs to be linked as it is a term not used outside the Philippines (aPhilippine English-exclusive invention). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for an admin to revert the move, back to UAAP Season 61. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The law splitting the brgy was signed on April 5, with a plebiscite expected to have been held before earlier this month? Any updates? Borgenland (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COMELEC's announcement on June 20, the plebiscite for Bagong Silang, Caloocan will be held on August 31, 2024. -Ian Lopez @ 09:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland: Made relevant edits in this revision. -Ian Lopez @ 12:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Buendia station (PNR) § Merge with Dela Rosa station, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 360kong (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that our wikiproject doesn't have a Online RS list to discuss to if pinoymountaineer.com is a WP:RS or not?

On that topic, should we create one? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Borgenland (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an existing proposal for a RS list that was started by @Ianlopez1115 and can be found here. We can build off the list of sources there, which are already quite plenty. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support expanding Ianlopez1115's list. HueMan1 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support expanding Ianlopez1115's list; query: how to add the Northern Dispatch (a Northern Luzon / Cordillera focused online news website) to the list? - MistahPeemayer (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Vouching for Ian's list, though some partisan sources e.g. SMNI could be questionable at best especially given Quiboloy's recent legal troubles. A number of scholarly sources have deemed SMNI to exhibit far-right bias, not to mention that they use it to sing praises of their leader Kim dynasty style. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the responses above, I moved the proposal for a RS list from my sandbox to a subpage. As for the Northern Dispatch entry, I added it to the list under "Local and regional". -Ian Lopez @ 09:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the list created by @Ianlopez1115 now formalized, I think we can now close this discussion. Anyway, excellent list that can be a supplement to WP:RSPSOURCES for Philippine-originated references. The question is, where will the discussions and/or consensus-reaching regarding the reliability of sources take place? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subpage's talk page itself --> Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, I envision that discussions about reliable sources be centralized to the reliable sources noticeboard; however I wouldn't mind if relevant discussions are held at the talk page (this is also done at WikiProject Video games' RS list). -Ian Lopez @ 10:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a few more steps back from this particular tree to get a wider view of the forest, it occurs to me to wonder whether some sources often cited in articles related to the Philippines ought to have entries at WP:RSP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rappler is already listed there. —seav (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be a task force for Philippine Infrastructure? I don't know the name of the task force (if supported) but I'm just reaching out to see your thoughts on this.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this strictly limited to transport or will it include government institutions? Borgenland (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland: Sorry, I meant for economy, meaning for Transport, Government Institutions, Buildings, Structures, and everything like that. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland re-pinging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope feels strange to me. Could you expound a bit more, perhaps? When it's specific, the topic feels too small. When it's inclusive, the topic feels too nebulous. This is something I would support, but I am not sure the terminology is clear to everyone. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the economics task force, it will include everything which is man-made (except events), 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was that big. Maybe we should call it something like that? It's a lovely idea. - Chieharumachi (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have had Senatorial districts of the Philippines, but we don't have the "at-large" district that is currently used. I've thought through several ways to present this, with the idea that the presenation should not be markedly different with articles such as Philippines's 1st senatorial district. I've made a mock-up at User:Howard the Duck/sandbox7. There are two versions to this: One includes the term of office in the cell along with the name and party, while the second one has a separate columns of terms of office. If you have other ideas on how to do this, just let me know. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit off-tune but okay, I suggest the first one. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually settled on one format for all tables when you had commented, and I've indeed went along with the first. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Alabama's at-large congressional district on how it can be represented. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bar topnotchers section of Philippine Bar Examinations takes up more than half of the article page. It has been previously tagged for splitting to List of Bar topnotchers in the Philippines. Might someone do the split now? The section just keeps getting longer with newer entries. Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is a split tag but no discussion. The idea of the split makes sense to me, although there is a mixture of prose and list. Perhaps shifting the tables and bare lists leaving the prose, and then shortening that prose for the List article lead? CMD (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good suggestion. Although I had no idea the prose is also large; I had thought maybe it is just easier to move the entire section to Bar topnotchers in the Philippines (and omit the "List of ")? Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest ripping out the entire Bar topnotcher section, move it to the List and leave the very first paragraph as a summary. Borgenland (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is indeed sufficient as a summary. I could do the split later when I have enough time. Sanglahi86 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the "In the past, non-law school graduates..." paragraph as well, but on a closer read much of the rest is fluff and trivia. That said, perhaps better to omit "List of" for now if that much prose will also be transferred. CMD (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The split has been done. Thank you for the suggestions. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine English vocabulary contains several entries that are unsourced. As the page was previously tagged as possibly having original research, I added citations and also new entries. A new editor has also been active in adding new entries, though several were unsourced. I had contacted him about citing sources, and he added sources for some new entries he added like in this revision. However, I am unsure if a mere mention of the term in the source (like in the MMDA source in the revision above) constitutes inclusion in the Philippine English vocabulary article. For the entries I added, the terms were explicitly specified as terms used in Philippine English. Maybe you could give some suggestions on the criteria for inclusion of entries? Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a thing as WP:CRINGE I think it would apply to pekpek shorts for as long as a decent ref can’t be found. Borgenland (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Talk:Philippine English vocabulary#Criteria for inclusion, which I believe didn't reach a meaningful conclusion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A major concern is also WP:LASTING as some may only be in vogue for a few years before being forgotten as jeje. Hopefully Eyyyy does not meet the same fate. Borgenland (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyyyyy is almost exclusively used in Tagalog. Are we sure it is being used in English? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]