This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

These have been mass reverted linking to an already archived discussion months ago. There was previously consensus before there was an opposition to this by User:Katya2017 and there was no consensus on the archived discussion to revert to the original. Here's where we see on where the community stands on this. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep the changes

1. Howard the Duck ( talk)

Revert to the original colors

The Liberal Party used to be represented by khaki  , it is now represented by gold  . PDP–Laban used to be represented by gold  , but it is now represented by khaki  . I cannot comprehend that I have to explain to an editor as experienced as yourself that arbitrarily swapping the pre-established colors of two parties causes confusion and inconsistency. What's worse is that these aren't two minor parties from some far off era. They are parties of the present ruling administration and the major opposition party. We now have a situation where critical articles relevant to present day politics are inaccurate because these colors are used in various places to represent both parties. For example, the gold polling line here represents Duterte of PDP–Laban but gold is used elsewhere in the article (including in the key to the same graph) to represent Roxas. If you want to use gold and khaki in the color scheme, I have no issue with that, they're perfectly good colors. But why not have the colors represent the parties they were already representing? This is not a defensible change.

The Nacionalista Party used to be represented by pale green  . It is now represented by red  . Akbayan is also represented by red  . The two parties are of no affiliation to each other, both are major parties and both are represented in the Senate. Where we used to have all major parties represented by a unique shade, we now have major parties being represented by similar shades in the same Congress. This renders composition diagrams ambiguous where there once was clarity. This is not a defensible change.

You've impressively managed to mangle both of the above concerns into one in another very interesting case. The medium blue of the LDP   is now used to represent Lakas–CMD  , a party previously represented by pale blue  . The LDP's new dark blue color   is the same shade as the dark blue of KAMPI  . Not only is this a case of two unaffiliated parties sharing the same shade in the same Congress ( 12th Congress and 13th Congress) but you've also transferred the medium blue when you could have used it to represent the party it was already representing thus needlessly causing further inconsistencies in the process. This decision becomes almost comically non-sensical when you consider that KAMPI is a party that was affiliated with and later merged into Lakas–CMD so if you really needed two parties to share a shade there's a seemingly obvious choice which parties to this scenario should—and it's not the two parties you've chosen. This is not a defensible change.

Prior to your changes, each major party had a distinct and unique shade that was used coherently throughout Wikipedia. Now, three months after the change, we have multiple major parties represented by very similar shades within the same Congress and incoherent use of the new colors across Wikipedia, at times even within the same article, including within critical articles on present day Philippine politics such as those of the last electoral cycle. The former color scheme is superior because it is concise and unambiguous. It should be restored. Katya2017 ( talk) 04:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather go with the correct shade than having a "distinct and unique shade" that's entirely wrong. The Nacionalistas have been red since 1907, the Liberals have been yellow since 1947, and Lakas has been some sort of royal blue since 1991 (now whether or not the current Lakas party uses this color is debatable). PDP-Laban has been a minor party until 2016, and their shade of yellow has been ill-defined for the most part; they don't get dibs on golden yellow that's been associated with the Liberals for the last 70 years. The shades of Akbayan (a minor party until 2016 when it won a single Senate seat); they don't get dibs on red that has been associated with the Nacionalistas for 110 years. I'd even say that the pale green that's been associated with the Nacionalistas here in Wikipedia is totally made up. The colors of LDP and KAMPI though are understandable though, and there had been discussions on changing KAMPI's color to something else. Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is NO wrong. As I explained, in the July discussion, the purpose of color is not to make Wikipedia look pretty. It is not required or even necessarily recommended that the colors used in diagrams "represent" the parties in some real world symbolic or meaningful manner. The sole purpose of color is to make date, graphs and diagrams easier to understand. You are advocating a color scheme that causes ambiguity where there once was none, that causes inconsistency where there once was consistency and requires needless changes to be made across Wikipedia that in the three months since the change you haven't followed through on. This is NOT a defensible change.

As a full disclaimer here, I want you to know that I don't actively edit Wikipedia anymore and haven't for years. The only times I ever really come out to play are when I see experienced editors, like yourself, make decisions that I believe to be unequivocally poor and that won't realistically be challenged if I don't challenge them. When I first saw your changes, I was expecting vandalism because it is as though the colors you have chosen are deliberately trying to cause confusion for all the reasons listed above. Even now I can't comprehend that I'm seriously articulating "ambiguity = bad, clarity = good" to you. I am reverting the changes you have made on the grounds that your argument in the July discussion ("the colors are pale") is not a reason for having made the change in the first place and that your argument here ("the colors are wrong") is false and makes zero attempt to address my argument. If you wish to move for dispute resolution, I leave that up to you but I really feel an editor as experienced as yourself should be able to see the flaws in your decision. Katya2017 ( talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"The sole purpose of color is to make date, graphs and diagrams easier to understand." That's patently false. WP:COLOR makes no mention of this (although I'd be glad to be corrected otherwise). "It is not required or even necessarily recommended that the colors used in diagrams "represent" the parties in some real world symbolic or meaningful manner." Where are you getting this? It is recommended. We can't use the color green when referring to Manchester United F.C.. That's wrong. "There's no wrong." What utter bollocks. The Nacionalistas are red, the Liberals are bright yellow, and PDP-Laban's color is in flux, but it's definitely not bright yellow as it is denoted currently when you reverted for a second time, with no discussion on the consensus of reverting to the original, overturning the previous consensus about this.

Filipinos will be checking out the upcoming local elections articles and wondering why is PDP-Laban color's bright yellow? Isn't that their main opponents, the much maligned "dilawan" (loosely translated as "Yellow Party", referring to the Liberal Party). The Nacionalistas are going around the country wearing red, and they'd see Wikipedia with the dull green color, asking themselves, "is this even right? I know this has been the same way for years, when are they changing this?" Would you, an editor as experienced as you, allow blatant misinformation and fake colors as espoused in Wikipedia to continue? Howard the Duck ( talk) 08:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you haven't even attempted to address my issues regarding ambiguity and inconsistency at all. Neither have you pointed me to the policy page stating that political party colors are supposed to be meaningful. Politics is not football—Senators don't wear football kits. Regarding my revert: 1. There was no consensus to not revert the colors. The July discussion had two participants, you and I, with no clear agreement. You simply stopped talking. 2. I reasonably assumed that your silence was a concession of my logic. 3. I did wait a full three months to see if my opinions on the colors changed but they haven't I still think they're inconceivably poor choices. Given I felt I had the better argument and you'd stopped talking, I reasonably opted for a bold revert. 4. Your reverting of my revert was unnecessarily aggressive given I've made clear my willingness to talk and you were the one who stopped talking first. You should have sought discussion instead of reverting.

Regardless, at this point it's clear we're not getting anywhere. If you feel this strongly on the matter move for dispute resolution. I've made my case in great detail above and am happy to let third parties decide. But I'm not happy to just stand aside while you implement changes that are ambiguous and confusing for reasons of "unofficial symbolism" based on an alleged Wikipedia policy you haven't quoted. Katya2017 ( talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to insist that colors are indeed meaningful. And in fact, meaningful enough that their inaccurate use might lead to confusion among readers aware of their contextual significance. For better or worse, elections (and by extension, politics) in the Philippines have been pretty established to be horseraces — and Senators do indeed wear sporting kits of a kind. Isn't that why the infobox for political parties has a parameter for party colors? In that sense, I feel their use on Wikipedia ought to reflect their use in the real world, subject to standards of verifiability.(I've seen media coverage specifically making much of the parties' choices of colors, so I doubt there'll be much of a problem there, except perhaps in the case of Lakas.) On the other hand, the party colors are confusing even in the real world. (I'm color blind, so you can imagine how much more confusing this discussion is for me. I've always found NP confusing, for example, because to me, sometimes they look KBL Red, and sometimes they look PMP Orange.) Laban and LP have historically BOTH been yellow - both were Aquino-led parties at one point, after all. I think the colors need to be discussed individually.

When considering both distinctiveness and accuracy, the old and new palette each have their strengths and weaknesses. The LP-Laban colors confusion in particular can be resolved by using the old color (light/lemon yellow?) for the LP, and the new color (mushy yellow... is that what you call "khaki"?!) for the LDP (maybe making it less Red to avoid confusion with the PMP, which would obviously also have to follow the new scheme). The new colors for LDP, Lakas, and NP are definitely better. I have no comment on KBL and am okay either way. Just one thing... does the NPC even have colors? (And does it matter?)

Just my thoughts. Remember, I'm partially color blind. Which makes me want to add a final note: I agree that we need more comments for this discussion.- Alternativity ( talk) 14:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've always though the election boxes using colors was a bad idea due to this. Either way, color isn't the sole way in identifying parties, except for things such as maps. This is an issue for WP:ACCESS for another day. I can relate though as I have bad eyesight, but not color blind.

As for the parties that are using yellow. We have several problems:

• Liberal Party owns dibs on the primary yellow color, as they are the oldest and still relevant party using this color.
• PDP-Laban has used yellow in the past (this was Corazon Aquino's party, after all) but with the new logo it has diminished the usage. The color of the fist used looks like yellow though, and if you'd ask me, I'd prefer to use that shade moving forward.
• Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) used yellow in its earliest days but was changed to dark blue. It's change to a darker shade of blue shouldn't be an issue. That shade, after all, is the one used in the logo.
• United Nationalist Democratic Organization used some sort of yellow, and I dunno what shade we'd use for this defunct party.

As for the parties that are using red:

• Nacionalista Party owns dibs on the primary red color, as they are the oldest and still relevant party using this color.
• Kilusang Bagong Lipunan can use the darker shade of red. There shouldn't be an issue with this.
• Akbayan's color is the one used on the red. They've been using yellow recently though. They're self-proclaimed social democrats and red seems to be still a good color for them. If we'd be deviating from the shade used in the logo, I dunno if it'll be lighter or darker.
• People's Reform Party is using light pink. With the death of Miriam Defensor Santiago I dunno how the party will continue, but their current color should be ok.
• Parties associated with the Communist Party of the Philippines actually refrain from using red (it being a color primarily associated with the Marcoses, their #1 enemy in life and in death). They use different colors, with the primary Makabayan alliance using purple, and other parties using red, blue, etc.

As for the parties that are using orange:

• Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino owns dibs on the primary orange color, as they are the oldest and still relevant party using this color. I recommend Laban ng Makabayang Masang Pilipino and Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino use whatever hex code the PMP is using.
• United Nationalist Alliance can keep its current burnt orange color. This has no change and surely no one will object.
• The parties using the yellow color may have some overlap with the orange ones.

Parties using blue:

Lakas-CMD (1991) can probably go with using the blue found on their logo, while the post-merger using green, although we haven't seen it's color yet nor its logo. Our article assumes they'd be using the old Lakas logo. Either way, the old Lakas has dibs on the blue color being the oldest party using this color.

Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI) doesn't actually use colors of any sort in its campaign, but has used dark blue here. This is different with the light brownish shade used in their logo. I actually dunno how someone came up with the dark blue color here.

The Nationalist People's Coalition actually uses the color green. That's what we've been using and there shouldn't be a change. The National Unity Party uses dark green here, and that's the color used in their logo. Alternatively, they can also use light green, but I prefer on not making any changes for these two parties. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that me and User:Janbryan had already agreed on making the changes as discussed earlier this year, and you, User:Alternativity has said some change has to be done. Every election, someone asks about these colors, implying they'd be changed, or at least be discussed about, then I say, this is what we have been using since 2004, then they'll say, let's change it some other time. This is the time. I do hope other WP:PINOY people chime in to this, as it's important to get this right for the upcoming election. Howard the Duck ( talk) 02:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Alternativity's comments, I disagree. Yes, I like it when a party has an official or traditional color that we can co-opt onto Wikipedia but the use of official colors cannot be absolute. Clarity must come first. For example, the German parties SPD and Linke both use red (and a very similar shade of red at that) as their official color. Despite this, we do not represent both parties with red on Wikipedia. Instead we use purple to represent Linke (a color that has nothing at all to do with the party officially or traditionally) as demonstrated through articles like German federal election, 2017. We do this because accuracy of data presentation is more important than accuracy of "symbolic color". The use of color on Wikipedia is functional, not aesthetic. Clarity must come first.

With regards to Howard the Duck's comments and the comments below, I know we've had disagreements but could I just check what we do agree on. Are we in agreement that the new color scheme as proposed in July is flawed and that the old color scheme is better? And are we also in agreement that the old color scheme, while better, is also flawed and that we need to approach the re-coloring on a party-by-party basis? If we're all in agreement here I'm happy to work on a third version color scheme with you. Regards Katya2017 ( talk) 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The new color scheme for the party that were discussed is perfect. The parties that were included either own the dibs on those specific colors (like the Nacionalistas owning the color red, which is indisputable in Philippine politics. I can't even believe we are even discussing this!), or it assigned the correct shades on parties included that had similar colors (such as Lakas getting the darker royal blue and LDP getting the darker blue, and PDP-Laban switching to the golden-orange-yellow and the Liberals getting bright yellow, which is again, indisputable in Philippine politics (the Liberals using yellow), it boggles the mind that one person went against consensus and reverted -- twice! -- the revision. If it causes confusion to other party's colors, then those (such as Germany's Die Linke vs. SPD) have to adjust. I've already started discussions on every template that you have reverted days ago, and I await suggestions either here or there. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A color scheme where multiple major parties share the same color is not perfect. It's confusing. A color scheme where you swap around the colors of the two most significant parties of the present day so that in some articles the administration is gold and in others the opposition is gold is not perfect. It's confusing. We're going around in circles here. And I've already explained my reverts. My bold revert came after you fell silent on the last discussion and after I spent three months reflecting on whether your changes had any merit. My second revert was because you reverted my revert when there was no consensus to not revert the colors. Also, I suggest you re-read my comments on SPD and Linke as I feel you've misread them. Katya2017 ( talk) 03:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

All of the major political parties were involved in the last change. The Philippines has 10 parties outside of the party-list system in Congress, and this would lead to several parties having similar colors. There are additional 30+ parties in Congress from the party-list system, a handful parties that didn't win a Congressional seat, and one (Akbayan) that participates in both district and party-list elections (I dunno how this is allowed). The Congress of the Philippines is the most pluralistic legislature on Earth. There's bound for parties to have similar colors.

Your first bold revert came after months after the current color scheme is used, and parliamentary diagrams and maps, at least for those articles about the current and recent periods, having being changed. This now threw off the color scheme used in articles and, LOL, causes even more confusion than leaving it alone! No objections were raised in the interim, you had no consensus to revert at all.

The second revert was even sadder. You basically had a super-vote, overturned consensus by yourself, and now we have two color schemes at least for the most visited articles. Tell me who caused confusion. I can understand being concerned for the 12 or so people who'd be confused when they visit the 13th Congress of the Philippines article, but to make the 5000 people who visit the 17th Congress of the Philippines and the 11000 people who visit Congress of the Philippines article ([as per this) is making your concern misplaced by several degrees of magnitude.

SPD and Linke both use red, and a very similar shade. SPD, being the larger party, has dibs on the primary color red, and Die Linke has to use a secondary color. Presumably, purple is their secondary "customary" color. That's all well and good. You reverted the color of the Nacionalista Party, the oldest party in the Philippines and one of the five currently largest parties, from red, which is its primary color back to pale green, which was never used in its history. Confusing? Yes! PDP-Laban, the ruling party, abhors, detests, just add your synonyms here, the Liberal Party, calling them "Dilawan" (literally "Yellows") pejoratively. But here they are in Wikipedia, using the bright yellow color the Liberal Party is associated with. Confusing? Yes! I dunno, but if there's someone who caused confusion, at least to waaaaaay more people, it's not me. Howard the Duck ( talk) 03:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Except you didn't involve all the major parties and at what point have I objected to the colors of minor parties? They're a class of their own. You complain about my revert months after the new color scheme had been used. I get that and sympathise considerably because that's exactly my issue. Your change to the party colors came years after the old color scheme had been established. In your own words, "This now threw off the color scheme used in articles and, LOL, causes even more confusion than leaving it alone!" You weren't even thorough. This graph wasn't changed. Or this one. Neither was this diagram or this diagram or this diagram. And that's just on the pages for the 2016 elections. I've got a century full of pages to go through if you want me to walk with through it. Do you see the issue I have yet?

No, SPD doesn't have "dibs" because it's the largest party. And no, purple isn't traditionally associated with Linke. Someone arbitrarily decided it'd be smarter to represent the party with a different color to the SPD. The "customary" tag you've drawn from the article simply references that we use purple in place of red for the sake of clarity which is the whole point of my argument. Clarity. Do you think in diagrams like this one we should use the same red color to represent both SPD and Linke? I'm hoping your answer is no. Then why are you happy to use the same bright red to represent the Nacionalistas and Akbayan? Why are you advocating we use the same dark blue for both LDP and KAMPI? Please just admit your scheme is flawed relative to the original (due to the duplicates and swapped colors) and then I'm happy to move on to a party-by-party review with you. But I can't move forwards if you genuinely don't get what I'm saying. Katya2017 ( talk) 05:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"Your change to the party colors came years after the old color scheme had been established." So what? These colors have not been static for years. LDP was previously yellow, Aksyon Demokratiko was previously pink. That's why we had a discussion on this to find consensus on what colors to use moving forward. Which, you, unilaterally disregarded. Sad. Granted not all files were changed, but again, so what? Wikipedia has no deadline. {{ sofixit}}. All of the primary images used in all presidential election maps, and diagrams have been changed. And yes, the municipal breakdown is quite hard to do you'll redo the shades about 1550 times, plus islands. (LOL.) I wholly appreciate your concern for the two people who the 2016 presidential polling chart in the past 20 days, though. Massive confusion right there. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have never advocated that we use the same red color for Akbayan and the Nacionalistas, and the same blue for LDP and KAMPI. Where are you getting that? That's a basic misunderstanding of what I'm saying, which is Nacionalista gets red, and LDP gets blue, as the major parties that were previously tackled. Akbayan and KAMPI were not tackled (KAMPI lightly so), and those two and several others should have be changed at a later time. The 700-seat Bundestag elects 5 parties per election. The 24 seat Senate of the Philippines has seen eight different parties, excluding independents. There are only seven colors in the rainbow, there's bound to be parties having similar colors. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Discuss each party individually

• I've went ahead and added individual discussions at every template talk page that was reverted. Howard the Duck ( talk) 02:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I largely agree with the proposed change to make the colors relevant for each party. But I also see the point that avoiding confusing colors and making charts and maps easier to interpret is a good objective. On that note, I think we should try to make the KBL and NP red much more distinguishable. Maybe make KBL darker and making NP a tad bit lighter? — seav ( talk) 02:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  The reverted NP and KBL colors have already been changed as NP is lighter now, and KBL is a bit darker than its old red color (literally the HTML red color). I can go with KBL going even darker still as the reverted NP color is already used on much more maps and diagrams than KBL's. How about   9B0D1B to current   BE1021? Howard the Duck ( talk) 04:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  This maroon color is definitely an improvement. — seav ( talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Summary of changes

• Can we include all party colors here regardless if there is a change or not so that we can also compare if there is color confusion across the board? — seav ( talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • One moment as let me fetch all templated colors on here. Howard the Duck ( talk) 03:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added parties up to letter "K". Many of these are party-lists and shouldn't be a problem as their colors are sparingly used in election boxes/templates. Howard the Duck ( talk) 03:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Do all of these party-list parties really have "official" colors to speak of? Can't we just lump them into a "gray" neutral color to denote that they are party-list parties in parliamentary diagrams and maps? Well, maybe we could have colors for significant blocs like the Makabayan bloc. — seav ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • FWIW I do lump the party-lists in parliamentary diagrams under the dark gray color (see House of Representatives of the Philippines for an example). We'd only be using these templates if these participate in an election other than the party-list election. FWIW only Akbayan ran candidates under their party's name; other politicians associated with a party-list get drafted on a mainstream party or run as independents. Howard the Duck ( talk) 08:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • User:Seav, are you waiting on me to post the rest of the parties at Category:Philippines political party colour templates because I'm lazy and I don't wanna do it (lol). Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Uh, no. I get the point that adding the colors of party-list parties is pointless. I expected the colors of the large parties (including defunct ones) you listed above but also thought that focusing on current and recently active parties should be enough. — seav ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
          • That's understood. Now we get to have this sorted out as there's an election upcoming. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Template for another option

This is my proposal. There are four main "types" of political organisations in the Philippines and we should deal with each type separately: major parties (which I'm defining as parties that have held the presidency, vice presidency, a Senate seat or more than a dozen seats in the House), political alliances (groupings, usually temporary, of multiple parties), party-lists (organisations that only contest the party-list election to the House of Representatives) and minor parties (national parties with minimal electoral success and small local parties that contest few national districts).

Every major party needs a unique, distinct and unconfusing color. I'd suggest political alliances should adopt the color of the most significant party within the alliance such as how K4 used the same power blue of Lakas–CMD or how LAMMP/ KNP both used the orange of PMP. Party-lists, as far as I can tell, don't really use color anywhere other than infoboxes on their own page. The House composition diagrams use a generic dark grey for all the party-list representatives. Perhaps we should use this neutral dark grey for all party-list organisations that don't qualify as major parties ( Akbayan) or political alliances ( Makabayan) as per the above definition. I'd also suggest using a common color for all minor parties for the simplicity of reducing the number of parties requiring a unique color. Perhaps a medium grey between the light grey used for independents and the dark grey used for the party-lists?

If this proposal is acceptable, it's simply a case of identifying the major parties and then arguing about what colors they should have. All the political alliances can be easily mapped over the top once we have an agreement while all the party-lists and minor parties can be converted en masse. Katya2017 ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as the earlier list is getting a little unwieldly and Howard's (understandably) gone a little numb from repetition, I've thrown together a list of major parties and their old-scheme colors by era. Katya2017 ( talk) 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's tackle current parties and deal with historical parties later. I'd oppose on sight on using an identical color for several parties, such as the local ones. These parties have their own colors. No one's raising a stink on how the colors are used in the Knesset, right? More parties means the higher probability that parties will have similar colors. I can agree with party-lists getting the current dark gray treatment, but what if other parties "graduate" and contest non-party-list elections on their own? Any color chosen would be clashing with what we already have.

It's indisputable, and I don't really understand why this was reverted, on having these parties use these colors:

• Liberal Party: The bright yellow that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• Nacionalista Party: The red that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• PDP-Laban: Any color save for the bright yellow that they're using now.

These parties need minor tinkering:

• PMP: The darker orange that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• PDP-Laban: Probably the flesh color used in the logo, to avoid confusion with the PMP and UNA. This was the color agreed upon, but was sadly unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• All iterations of Lakas: Probably the blue color used in the logo that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• LDP: Darker blue than Lakas that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus.
• KBL: Darker red than Nacionalista that was unilaterally reverted despite consensus. There's a consensus on a modification on this above.

These parties weren't discussed upon, and almost certainly will need no change:

• NPC: Bright green
• NUP: Dark green
• UNA: Dark orange
• PRP: Lighter red than Nacionalista
• Makabayan: As a coalition, purple. Its constituent parties have their own individual colors.
• Bangon Pilipinas: Yellow green.
• Aksyon Demokratiko: Blue-purple, was formerly pink. Would've wanted to revert back to pink.

These parties weren't discussed upon, and almost certainly will have to be changed:

• Akbayan: From red to something else
• Bagumbayan: From red to something else; probably lighter red.
• Lapiang Manggagawa: From red to something else; probably darker red.
• KAMPI: From dark blue to something else

Long dead parties get to keep their color, but the KALIBAPI color may be too similar to KBL's and other parties using red. The hex value is the color of the supposed party flag, though. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there are only two contemporary "yellow" parties, could we perhaps consider just eschewing the "bright yellow" entirely and opt for a light yellow (lemon yellow)/dark yellow scheme? I dunno about others but whenever the "bright yellow" option shows up, the contrast gets so mixed up that I start having trouble distinguishing the colors (lemon yellow looks white and dark yellow looks orange). The high contrast approach of using lemon yellow/dark yellow resolves this, although I'm not sure what it does to the oranges (which I can't really see anyway, so no further comments from me there.) - Alternativity ( talk) 02:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess the Liberal Party is the primary contemporary yellow party, and the PDP-Laban is the other. Is that right? I particularly like the bright yellow color since there's essentially one yellow party after all of this (the Liberals) which means they'd "own" all of the yellow shades whenever you make gradient maps. This is something that would be hard to do with if there are two parties using dark yellow and lemon yellow. The primary objective is one contemporary party owns at least one primary or secondary color thereby removing any sort of confusion, while minor parties use tertiary colors. I understand that this is of no use to people with color blindness but we'll figure out a way for you guys in the future. Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, this is how it would have been done:

• Maroon: KBL (Unilaterally reverted to red)
• Red: Nacionalista (Unilaterally reverted to light green)
• Light red: PRP (No change)
• Orange: UNA & PMP (No change; these parties usually don't run against each other.)
• Yellow orange: PDP-Laban (Unilaterally reverted to bright yellow)
• Yellow: Liberal (Unilaterally reverted to light yellow)
• Green: NPC (No change)
• Dark green: NUP (No change)
• Blue: Lakas (Unilaterally reverted to light blue)
• Dark blue: LDF (Unilaterally reverted to blue)
• Purple: Local parties provided they are grouped together, otherwise, they'd use their own specific color templates in infoboxes and election boxes.
• Pink: Aksyon? (Currently at blue-purple)

All of these parties have had nominees in the presidential and vice presidential ballot (save for NUP). If we're making gradient maps and there two parties using yellow (such as in 2016) it would have been confusing AF. Not to mention a third party used orange. The original version of File:Presidential Race 2016.png used the reverted colors for the Liberals and PDP-Laban and even those who had good eyesight would've guessed which party won in Ilocos Norte (as it's far away from other yellow-shaded parties). The current version is much better. The new colors are also an improvement. Compare the old 1992 presidential election map. The old one would have led you to believe that Taiwan invaded Batanes as you'd need a magnifying glass to see it; the non-usage of the pastel colors in favor of the actual colors that the parties are actually using (or variations thereof) helped a lot in pointing out that Ramos won in Batanes in 1992. Looking at it, I'd now agree with KBL's color not being dark enough (considering we have darkened this already), I'll get back to that. Now, let's just hope this won't be reverted to the original version because "some people will be confused"! Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, and defer to the wisdom of those with... er... (literally) better vision. Hehe. Thanks for the explanation. Alternativity ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'm going to make a comment on your conduct here. You need to quit bringing up "reverted despite consensus" and "unilaterally reverted" in every comment you make. As I have previously explained, twice now I believe, after a very lengthy discussion in July in which I was not satisfied that you had answered my criticisms regarding the changes, you fell silent leading me to reasonably assume that you were conceding to the logic of my arguments. I waited a few months just to be sure that my rejection of your colors was actually based on objective faults rather than just unfamiliarity before figuring out that, sure enough, it was a flawed color scheme. After restoring the old color scheme you unreasonably, less than three hours later, unilaterally reverted my restorations without seeking dialogue or consensus. In response, I reverted and posted a very lengthy explanation as to why my reverts are necessary. An explanation you still haven't entirely addressed. It's becoming increasingly difficult to approach this conversation in good faith when you, at literally every irrelevant opportunity you get, choose to bring up your own infantile grudge. My reversions were absolutely justified. Your reversion was not. You may think otherwise. I don't care. Leave it behind.

Now, regarding the colors:

• Your approach (current parties first, historical parties later) is completely backwards. The Nacionalistas exist across all three of the political eras above while the Liberals, KBL and PDP–Laban exist across the latter two eras. The priority should be ensuring these four parties hold distinct colors within their respective eras and then working the colors of the "lesser historical" parties around them.
• I like maroon for KBL. As the existence of Katipunan (1892–1897), KALIBAPI (1942–1945) and KBL (1978–present) don't overlap with each other, I'd be content with using maroon for all three. They're never going to appear in the same congress compositions charts or election maps as each other. The only place they'll appear at the same time is the list of presidents and vice presidents though, given that the parties there are listed by name and that they're secondary information to the presidents themselves, I can't see this being a major issue. It will mean the Nacionalista splinters need rethinking but they need re-thinking anyway.
• I'm also open to the idea of using a brighter yellow for the Liberals but only on the condition that the brighter yellow does not resemble the old-scheme gold used by PDP–Laban. Assigning a color previously used by another party to a second party encourages errors through incomplete conversions of old files to the new complete schemes. A perfect example is the polling chart I referred you to above. You know, the one where Duterte is represented by the gold line but which after your changes that rendered the Liberals as gold presented a key that suggested Roxas was the gold line and was therefore leading the polling according to the chart when in practice he was not thus rendering the whole chart erroneous? You know, the one you falsely claim was seen by just 2 people in the last 20 days but that's actually been seen by the 10,000+ people who've visited the 2016 presidential election page because, as any idiot will tell you from a cursory glance at the article, you don't need to open the file itself to be able to read it? The one that will be seen by ever increasing numbers as the next set of elections come around? Perhaps something approaching UNIDO yellow instead?  
• For PDP–Laban, perhaps purple?   It's not used by any other major party in the above list so is completely unique.
• Regarding the Nacionalistas, I still don't understand why you've married them to red. 1. Red was most recently Duterte's campaign color. Duterte is not a Nacionalista. 2. Red is associated with social democracy and socialism which the Nacionalistas are not associated with. 3. We already use red for Akbayan (which is associated with social democracy and socialism) who explicitly designate red as an official color in their party constitution. 4. The pale green color is entirely distinct. It serves it's purpose and can't be confused with any other party.
• I'll get into the other major parties once we've worked out the above four but I agree that NPC, NUP, UNA and PRP are fine as they are. Give me a day or two to think through your comments on minor and local parties.
• I'm glad we have consensus on a common dark grey for the party-lists. I'd suggest dealing with "graduating" party-lists on a case-by-case basis. As far as I can tell this is a fairly recent development. Only four party-lists have contested the Senate directly: 2010 (PROMDI, Bayan Muna), 2013/2016 (Akbayan, Makabayan). Interestingly, Roque ( KABAYAN) and Alejano ( Magdalo Party-List) filed for the 2019 Senate elections as major party candidates (PRP and Liberal respectively) which is how party-list representatives used to make Senate bids. If the trend for party-list Senate bids continues we can deal with the headache later.

Katya2017 ( talk) 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have any problems with my conduct correctly pointing out that your conduct is out of order, there are plenty of places that you can go to here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't go to any of these since I didn't have to do this myself as I haven't seen conduct as blatant and disappointing as seen here. I would actually be interested on what proportion of 10,000 viewers did see those graphs because it's so far down the article, and I'd imagine that's not the thing you'd look at the TOC. What's a fact is 2 people viewed the image page in the past 20 days. Hopefully they're not idiots!

The oldest era, pre-World War II, can be safely disregarded. I can tell you that the colors there are all made up. What we have clearer understanding is that the post-war parties that existed up to now, and the post-EDSA parties all have their clear-cut colors that everyone in the Philippines at least has an idea on. We can safely discuss about this in a later day since we practically have no sources on what the colors actually were, if any.

You can safely (again) ditch your political party colors as used elsewhere. The Liberal Party isn't yellow because all other Liberal parties (save for a major few) use yellow; it came about since when Benigno Aquino, Jr. was coming back to the Philippines after his exile, people tied yellow ribbons around trees. Well, he was assassinated and never got to see those ribbons. Most reliable sources use a bright yellow color for the Liberal Party. It's important for people to use the colors that they are seeing elsewhere here in Wikipedia as well (which is the entire point why there was consensus on said changes.) The hex value that had consensus that was reverted is at,   FCD20E while UNIDO is at   FFFF00. PDP-Laban is at   ffd700. TBH, if you prefer using UNIDO's color for the Liberal Party, I won't oppose, but at glance your proposal is actually closer to the old PDP-Laban color than the version you unilaterally reverted.

I actually do not know why the Nacionalistas are red, but Alan Peter Cayetano, one of the three vice presidential candidates from the Nacionalista Party in 2016 said in 2013 that the " The Nacionalista color is red." This was even before Risa Hontiveros won a Senate seat in 2016, or even before the Akbayan was founded. We can safely use another color for Akbayan, purple or lavender. (Lavender is preferred; see below.) Nacionalistas have never been associated with the pale green color. Not by them, not by reliable sources, but only in Wikipedia. I could probably tag that as {{ citation needed}} if needed.

This article has some of the history: Nacionalistas were red, Liberals were blue until Aquino was assassinated, turning it into yellow. Binay's United Nationalist Alliance is orange. The Marcoses were red, Aquinos were yellow, Estrada was depicted to be red (probably the writer doesn't know about Estrada using orange for the longest time), Arroyo being supported first by the Aquinos (yellow), then by the old political elite (red), and the younger Aquino using yellow once again, with the article predicting the rise of the orange, but Duterte happened.

PDP-Laban is never, ever associated with purple. It's probably okay to make up colors for parties that do not exist any more, but it's like assigning orange to the Republican Party right now when everybody else is using red, the color of social democracy, which the Republicans are against! PDP-Laban was associated with yellow. After all, it was Corazon Aquino's party. But the elder Aquino later decided not to associate herself with any political party and we had a time where PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bayan and UNIDO were all using the exact same yellow hex value. Now, its supporters abhor the color yellow and use the fist symbol. The party itself is not associated to any color ATM; Nacionalistas were red, but Manny Villar used orange in 2010, much to Joseph Estrada's chagrin. Duterte used red because he said he was the first elected center-left candidate in Southeast Asia, now even the communists and the socialists hate him (LOL). We can't keep on changing the PDP-Laban color to match the campaign color of who is its presidential nominee. We can use the hex value of the color of the fist in the logo as its color. This sorta preserves the yellow that it was previously associated with, without actually outright using it.

Akbayan wasn't the first party in the unilaterally reverted color scheme that used red in the Senate. Previously, Richard J. Gordon was a Bagumabayan-VNP member and used red until 2010; AFAIK this was the first time that a red color was used in Senate diagrams. The thing is Gordon lost in 2013 as a member of the orange United Nationalist Alliance and won in 2016 as an independent. TBH I won't have an issue with Akbayan using red, even the current red. In 1992, the Partido para sa Demokratikong Reporma used the color red in presidential maps as Renato de Villa won in a few provinces. That's another case of a red-colored party. As I've said earlier, there'd be instances where other red parties may be elected into the Senate; are we going to change those as well if it happens? As much as possible, either we anticipate these things because we don't want to do this again 15 years from now assuming Wikipedia still exists by then. Either we accept that parties having similar colors are inevitable or we'd have long, drawn out discussions such as this one every time there's a conflict in colors.

As for local parties, purple is the one being used. I prefer to keep this one distinct from all others as no party is current using, or has used AFAIK purple. I prefer using purple in maps because local parties also use some of the colors of the national parties and would actually lead to more confusion, which you are avoiding. I'd prefer to keep purple for local parties. Now if a major party used purple in the future it wouldn't be a problem since we can then look for a new color for local parties without making massive changes as these are fewer than say, changing all presidential election maps because we've changed Nacionalista Party colors from pale green to red. Local parties can't run in the Senate under their banner. Using purple for these is safe.

I know you want a distinctive color for each party but since there are plenty of parties in the Philippines, both current and dead, a party "owning" a color is rather difficult. Aside from using a single specific color, we'd also have to take into consideration things such as gradients. We have three parties in the current color scheme sharing green, and two of these have ran presidential candidates in the past. If we're going to create a gradient map for this, it would be a terrible mess. I'd rather go with what the parties are currently using; if there's the same colors, I'd be okay with keeping the color that they actually prefer, but that's the only reason when we'd be "making up" colors if we've ran out of colors. Howard the Duck ( talk) 01:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In April 2018, the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation, – which maintains a Quezon City-based center containing a memorial, museum, and library dedicated to remembering and honoring the heroes, martyrs, and victims of the Philippines' Martial Law era under Ferdinand Marcos – invited a Wikipedian, User: Alternativity, to serve as Wikipedian-in-Residence for a 3-month pilot project. The pilot phase has been extended for another month until the end of July, while the Bantayog works out a way to transition the project into a longer-term program.

One of the things the project has tried to do was to help Bantayog’s network of volunteers and core constituents appreciate Wikipedia.

In the last four months, the project has worked on empowering Bantayog’s staff and core constituency through its series of “CrashCourse:Wikipedia” workshops. Four of these workshops have been held so far, with participants including Bantayog's research staff and museum administrators, Journalists, advocates, historians, economists, academic publishers, and Bantayog's group of volunteer School Lecturers - many of whom were themselves victims of torture and other Human Rights violations during the days of the dictatorship.

At first, some of these participants – especially those senior Journalists, who had cut their teeth while fighting media repression during the ‘70s and ‘80s – started out antagonistic to the idea of spending time and effort to build up a freely editable encyclopedia like Wikipedia, but the workshops soon convinced them of the importance of Wikipedia as tertiary literature. “Now that I’ve seen how much work goes into the process,” one esteemed Journalist remarked, “I’ve gained a new respect for the work Wikipedia does.”

Now that the project is looking at a potential expansion, it hopes to expand these events from Crash Course Workshops to full on Edit-a-Thons, tapping the resources of the Bantayog Library, and the contextual expertise of the Bantayog museum staff, and inviting Wikipedians who are interested in enhancing Wikipedia’s coverage regarding the heroes and martyrs who fought the Marcos dictatorship.

While a great many books about the Philippines’ Martial Law era have been written, many of these only got limited publishing runs and were dispersed unevenly through the Philippines’ various university Libraries. Because the Bantayog Library specializes in books of that era, it’s one of the best places in the world to have access to key print sources.

We’re trying to organize at least two Edit-a-Thons at the Bantayog during the last two weeks of July. Space is limited, unfortunately, so please please get in touch with the Bantayog ng mga Bayani’s Wikipedian in Residence at wir.public@gmail.com to coordinate your attendance. It’ll also let us update you regarding the themes and mechanics of the Edit-a-Thons, which will partly depend on which of Bantayog’s curators will be available to help facilitate the sessions.

See you! -- User: Alternativity || Wikipedian in Residence || Bantayog ng mga Bayani

Who: All members of the public

What: Filipino American History Month-themed Edit a thon at Ohio State University.

When: Saturday 20 October 2018, 4:00PM EST / 1600 until 4:55PM PST / 1655

Where: Eighteenth Avenue Library, Ohio State University

Sponsor: WikiConference North America 2018
San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast ( talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

I guess you guys might want to keep watch on Our Lady of Porta Vaga, Our Lady of Pillar of Imus and a few others due to a quarrel going on here. I don't mean to pre-empt but since I've heard from my brother (who happens to be a Marian devotee) that their respective articles sparked some unneeded and frankly irreverent serious business, and I'm afraid this could spill over here. Blake Gripling ( talk) 12:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American History Month#NBA Filipino Heritage Week . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 05:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Filipino Wikipedians! This year's Wikipedia Asian Month is now on! You're all highly encouraged to join and get postcards for writing Asia-related articles (including articles about the Philippines). :) -- Sky Harbor ^{( talk)} 08:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. — howcheng { chat} 03:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Bankster has unilaterally renamed w/o discussion several article names. We had this issue before and these were renamed back to 21st century naming conventions. These are the articles that I can't move:

• Carlos P. Garcia
• Jose P. Laurel
• San Sebastian Stags

Admins, please move these back ASAP, if possible. Howard the Duck ( talk) 07:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Barangay and barangay-related articles needs some action regarding its notability. -- hueman1 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What action exactly do you need? We don't have any specific guidelines for the notability of barangays and therefore they are subject to WP:NGEO, which states that they are generally presumed to be notable being "populated, legally recognized places". Therefore, the actual notability of barangays should be done on a case-to-case basis subject to WP:GNG. BTW, the question on whether barangays are notable or not has been discussed to death here in the Tambayan especially before 2010. Just search the archives. — seav ( talk) 12:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

On it @ Seav:. Thank you! -- hueman1 (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, can someone vote for their nomination for deletion. -- hueman1 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Seav: The votes for my nominations are "Keep." What should I do? -- hueman1 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As stated, barangays are presumed to be notable WP:NGEO. If someone's into deleting this, an argument saying that WP:NGEO doesn't apply to barangays has to be made. Hint: It always does. Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Howard the Duck: Puroks and sitios are "obviously not notable" right? -- hueman1 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

They might be per WP:NGEO, or could be seen as falling within the scope of the parent barangay article. Not all neighborhoods are notable per WP:GNG (though it could be argued they are instantly notable per NGEO.

IMHO if a topic can have sufficient content to pass the requirements for a DYK article, and meet NGEO, there is no need to call for a merger proposal; otherwise gain consensus for merger or non-merger and abide by consensus accordingly.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 02:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point "obviously not notable" is practically impossible to prove. "Obviously notable" is much easier though. Howard the Duck ( talk) 23:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What about in the case of Barangay 1896 in Cavite? It was originally known as Barangay 96th Street, but was later renamed in honour of Andres Bonifacio who resided in that place during the namesake year. Other than that, not much has been said regarding the street's notoriety. Blake Gripling ( talk) 02:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bring this article to AFD to find out. Howard the Duck ( talk) 23:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of barangays and similar local government units are indeed dependent on a case to case basis. When there are sufficient sources to create the said article, it is likely that the barangay is notable enough for retention. Arius1998 ( talk) 00:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It has been a more than a month since Cordillera Administrative Region was tagged with a potential copyright issue, and the most of the page contents had been blanked pending investigation. Might anybody look into this, as there seems to be no update/action since then. — Sanglahi86 ( talk) 15:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Could this have been reverted to a pre-copyvio version? Howard the Duck ( talk) 06:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that the offending link has a disclaimer of "All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." This is correct since the content is produced by a government agency and the tag is erroneous. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone check on which was first? Other website, such as government ones, routinely copy from Wikipedia. Maybe it was the reverse. Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I compared both versions (or website), and five paragraphs appear to be the same. -- hueman1 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are some of the things I've found:

• According to Wayback Machine (Archive.org), the oldest snapshot of the government website was on 17th November 2016.
• Wikipedia's version was created sometime between 2014 and 2015.

-- hueman1 (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

With this, can someone make a recommendation to the appropriate drama board on what's the best course of action here? Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Howard the Duck: It's been two months, still no progress? -- hueman1 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No one's doing anything. Howard the Duck ( talk) 04:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: What's with the copyvio issue here? It's been two months and the content of the article cannot be seen. -- hueman1 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've explained a bit more on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 September 15. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

These articles being used to attack or promote their subjects, obviously for political reasons. I've requested help at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte with no response.

I have no interest in looking through the background and history of these articles. I've removed large portions of the articles as a stopgap.

• January Navares-Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted)
• Mocha Uson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paolo Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald dela Rosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sara Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sebastian Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Those are from the the edits of Juanelo1931 ( talk · contribs). I've not looked further. If these are typical of Philippine political BLPs, then there's a huge problem to address. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A new editor is concerned about the content removal, and brought up Bong Go as having similar problems. From a quick skim, the content for Bong Go is more thoroughly referenced but does look like it has POV problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt a consensus will ever be reached with a community that is this inactive. I would not be restoring nor making any additional changes nor contributions to any more wikipedia pages out of respect and reverence to the army of editors who think anything controversial about a public figure is a BLP violation and would remove their changes, throwing away the hours of effort you put in actual research and verification. After all, I'm just a newbie, an idiot who shouldn't mess with them, right? Sctcooper ( talk) 11:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sctcooper - Please be patient and remain calm and civil with your tone and your words. You're reaching out during our most inactive hours of the day (as well as the most inactive hours of the week) and where the majority of our experienced and respected editors are signed off for the night. If things can't be resolved here and between those who watch and frequently look here to help, there are ways and noticeboards that can be reached out to in order to ask for participation. Thanks - ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess in invitations of third opinions, this notice board is pretty much as dead as EJK victims. Howard the Duck ( talk) 16:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Following up Sctcooper's observation on how the article is being handled, I've asked for help at Talk:Rodrigo_Duterte#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte. It's B-class, indef semi-protected, has a large number of notices on the article talk page, and has had very little discussion in the past year. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys, my edits were reverted again. AfDs were declined either. -- hueman1 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If AFDs upheld the existence of the articles you cannot do anything much about deleting it... Howard the Duck ( talk) 13:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Should the "new" color schemes (LRT-1 as green, LRT-2 as blue, MRT-3 as yellow) still be followed? LRT-2 still uses violet in its trains and stations (esp. the new renovation at Betty-Go Belmonte) ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 03:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what the reliable sources say. WP:NOTTRUTH. Howard the Duck ( talk) 05:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I was reading the infobox on certain city then in the native language i saw the following (during 1/9/19 9pm local time):

• Tagalog
• Taglish
• Swardspeak

please edit the PH wikidata vandalism as I have no idea how to do it :D 112.206.42.64 ( talk) 13:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 61#Need valid source(s) about Viva TV on IBC, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/ ^{talk/ cont/ mail} 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I just read the long thread on the request to remove the Cebuano Wikipedia last year. I agree that we should not delete the Cebuano wikipedia as a whole since others did contribute using non-bot method. But because most of the article are just stub and do not add value to the wikipedia itself. I like to initiate a call to vote that the Philippines wikimedia chapter allows a mass deletion of the bot articles. I think this is already embarrassing that the Cebuano wiki will overtake English soon even though there really are no substantial real article. In the end a Filipino-based wikipedia community will be blamed as a reason why wikipedia quality has dropped as a whole because of inaction. I know there are only few active users in Cebuano wikipedia, hence the Philippine wikimedia chapter needs to take the initiative to do this. Other country wikimedian do not want to touch since it should come from the home wikimedia chapter. If we vote to delete the articles we can then ask the technical ways how to do it. ironically thru bot again. 202.246.252.97 ( talk) 11:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, no Philippine affiliate has control over the projects, so the proposal that an affiliate should do something won't fly. That said, this is something currently happening on a project-by-project basis; on the Tagalog Wikipedia, for example, we've deleted thousands of bot-generated articles. -- Sky Harbor ^{( talk)} 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to clarify. There isn't any bot-generated articles in the Tagalog Wikipedia. Perhaps, you are referring to the "one-liner" or "one-sentence" entries, which were contributed through the years by various accounts that aren't bots. Those are the ones that have been deleted due to lack of information for a very long time. Only three Tagalog Wikipedia admins who are actively doing the deletion and they are Bluemask, WayKurat and me. -- Jojit ( talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is no ownership (responsibility) of those sites. But if I create lots request for deletion on each of those bot-generated article, there surely would be the same uproar as with deleting the whole wikipedia site? 202.246.252.97 ( talk) 02:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

202.246.252.97, Can you tell me what is patently defective with this one - Aethopyga_pulcherrima? Other than it was written by a "bot".Can you give me a good reason why you should delete it? It is even linked to wikispecies as shown on the left sidebar of the page.

By the way it is not even a machine translation. If you want to use machine translation in your favorite edition of wikipedia, I suggest you read this https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/01/09/you-can-now-use-google-translate-to-translate-articles-on-wikipedia/. JinJian ( talk) 23:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think it drowns out the organically created articles by volunteers of Cebuano, Waray Waray wikipedia which may be sharing new knowledge that may only be shared in Cebuano/Waray-Waray only wiki (For example they can only read in those language).
  • Assuming there are 5 millions bot generated articles out of the 5.3 millions of article in Cebuano as an example, I think only a fraction of bot generated articles is updated/edited by actual wikipedia user after the bot/stub article is created.
  • So, If i am a native Cebuano/Waray Waray only native speaker, I think most people in that category are not even interested in reading Wiki Species / Wiki Geo related articles that is only a stub since they know those articles are rarely edited/updated. Most likely people that read wikipedia of native Cebuano/Waray Waray speaker would most likely know other language (i.e. English since that is medium of instruction in the Philippines for higher education). ::::**If you agree with the above assumptions, those stub articles are really just drowning out the real knowledge shared by volunteers/editors.
  • About reading auto translated language, I agree with that. But I just think there should be a clear distinction of stub / bot-generated articles and organically generated articles. 61.125.33.96 ( talk) 06:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• It would seem ridiculous to suppress knowledge just to highlight others. Besides, there are other ways to do it. And why would we be so stingy to share all knowledge in all language platforms. In this digital age, data processing and storage are getting cheaper, we just don’t throw away knowledge that easily anymore.
  • I cannot speak for the Cebuano Wikipedia, they are better equipped in handling their situation than me and more likely even than you. But you can still talk to them, help build consensus with them. If you will succeed – congratulations, but if they do not agree with you, then you should respect their position. It is their gawasnong ensiklopedya, they can take whatever calculated risks they want; so, as long as they do not violate the terms and conditions of Wikimedia Foundation, their consensus is paramount.
  • I hope that you are not drifting away from the great Wikimedia Vision. I hold all the world’s languages in high regard, but why should we put a particular language especially a non-native one on a pedestal?
  • Again you should consult with the community involved, because your personal preferences may be different from theirs. But, yes, we can do that, for example in Swedish Wikipedia, if I am not mistaken, they have one random button for “human” made and another for bot-made articles. But I think that this distinction gets problematic once the bot-created articles become more and more updated by humans or vice-versa. By the way, would it become “organic” if I delete a bot-created article but subsequently resave everything manually? JinJian ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, this same article [1] in English Wikipedia was also created in a similar fashion, years ahead of Waray Wikipedia, and has been existing for more than ten years already. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Metallic-winged_sunbird&oldid=146919295 JinJian ( talk) 04:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that English Wikipedia also have bot-generated article. But looking at the percentage of those created in English wiki vs Cebuano/Waray-Waray . Also, English Wikipedia articles that are initially bot-generated have more chance of being edited later by organic users that in Cebuano/Waray-Waray it has more editor in those field which may be interested in editing those articles. 61.125.33.96 ( talk) 06:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry, Wikipedia is patient and kind. Knowledge sharing process is a gargantuan task and never ending – but still Wikipedia encourages us to do so anyway. JinJian ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add OSM mapframes in every city or town pages using {{ Infobox mapframe}} like in here? The OSM Philippines community is active, but adding this to infoboxes ({{ Infobox settlement}}) will encourage Wikipedia visitors to do some map improvements in their hometowns, so it will be a win-win situation for both OSM and Wikipedia.

As of now, there is no parameter in Infobox settlement for an OSM mapframe, but it is being discussed, so I used the image_map1 parameter to add the mapframe in the La Trinidad page. Any thoughts? — Sanglahi86 ( talk) 02:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Sanglahi86: Looks informative for me. Since the old static PNG maps looks confusing for people who are unfamiliar with maps (they're quite confusing sometimes). -- hueman1 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL) was ratified the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is created and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is abolished according to BOL itself at least. This is stated in Article XV, Sec. 5.

However the media possibly due to journalists not being aware of this or the the fact that the actual interim Bangsamoro government is yet to be established despite the BOL nominally abolishing the ARMM and establishing the Bangsamoro, continues to mention the ARMM as still existing or describing the establishment of the Bangsamoro Autonmous Region in a future tense. Including a Philippine News Agency report where Presidential Peace Adviro Galves states:

there was still much work needed to be done to ensure a smooth transition and the formal establishment of the BARMM.

There are several other questions in mind that needs to be answered as soon as possible but as of this posting is left unanswered by at least a reliable source:

1. When is the BOL ratified, the plebiscite date (Jan 21) or the date Comelec proclaimed the BOL as "deemed ratified" (Jan 25)?
2. Is the office of the Regional Governor (as well as the Vice Governor) abolished too? The BOL doesnt mention this aside from 25 elected official (the two mentioned officials plus members of the ARMM Regional Assembly) being automatically included in the Bangsamoro Transition Authority. Also ARMM Governor Hataman just issued an official statement condemning the Jolo bombings.
3. Does the BARMM exists as of this moment?

This needs to be confirmed:

1. The Bangsamoro Transition Commission plus 25 elected ARMM officials heading the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region until the constitution of the Bangsamoro Transition Authority leading the BARMM

Other questions needs to be answered/confirmed

1. If Lanao del Norte municipalities voted to be included in the BARMM in February do they remain part of their mother province?
2. Same for North Cotabato barangays. Do they remain part of their mother municipalities AND mother province?
3. What are the regional ordinance unaffected by the BOL as per BOL Article XVIII Final Provision. National laws and orders are mentioned but no regional ordinance or orders are specifically mentioned to have been ammended or still in effect. Does this affect the regional act adopting a flag for the ARMM.

Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted my edits, and followed reliable source than original research (interpretation of the BOL itself) Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 11:11, 27 January 2019, (UTC)

Putting the editorial discussion about naming aside, see my recent edit here. Perhaps some cleanup and updatiing of cites and/or of the assertions in support of which they are cited is indicated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually am at a loss how to handle this. Unlike the Negros Island Region which is pretty easy to handle, this whole Bangsamoro thing is very disruptive (from Wikipedia's point of view). I personally will just let other editors edit as they please, then I'll wait for how the Philippine Statistics Authority will handle this region succession after their 2019 1st quarter update of the Philippine Standard Geographic Code which should come up in early April before trying to clean things up and make things more consistent. — seav ( talk) 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't currently have the availability to do much work on the Bangsamoro and ARMM pages, but Carolyn Arguillas of MindaNews answers a few of these transition questions in her [ January 26, 2019 article]. Basically the BTC needs to be appointed first so it can take over from the ARMM on June 30, as per the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro. Hope this helps. I shall look for more sources as soon as I am able. - Alternativity ( talk) 09:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

According to DPWH's ArcGIS application and their latest road atlas, the Metro Manila Skyway has no route designation (neither expressway [route] nor national routes) for its entire length. Anyone have thoughts about this? -- hueman1 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Skyway is assigned E2 for its whole of its length on the larger Metro Manila road map by DPWH. Maybe you are confusing Skyway with SLEX, and you assume E2 is only for SLEX (E2 is used for Skyway also, FYI).-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 03:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@ TagaSanPedroAko: If E2 is both designated to Skyway and SLEx from Magallanes Interchange up to Sales Interchange, how about the section of Skyway from Magallanes Interchage up to its current northern terminus at Gil Puyat Avenue? The [yellow] line ends at Magallanes Interchange and only displays "SLEX (NB)" and "SLEX (SB)" for SLEx.

File:DPWH website screenshot 1.png The Skyway / Osmeña Highway segment has no route designation File:DPWH website screenshot 2.png SLEX (NB) File:DPWH website screenshot 3.png SLEX (SB)

I thought of the same thing (E2 is designated for both SLEx and Skyway) but when I saw their website there's no Skyway at all. -- hueman1 (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think DPWH might be considering SLEX and Skyway as just one route (somewhat treating Skyway as express lanes).-- TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 21:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they will designated Skyway after connecting it to NLEx. Like it would carry E1 instead? -- hueman1 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans#Population . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. An anon has been editing Ma-i recently, adding uncited information in some of the edits, and reverting cited information from one of my edits in another case- see here. I don't want to pursue an edit war without seeking others' inputs right now, so I was wondering if others might want to give the relevant edits a look? Thanks. - Alternativity ( talk) 14:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The article was recently protected because of an edit war regarding the "Controversies" section of the article. After the article protection expires, we really need to make the article more neutral... ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 11:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Where does the Pamana ng Pilipino presidential award fit in?

Please see: Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Philippines#Pamana ng Pilipino

Aoziwe ( talk) 10:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I would like to ask for a discussion with regards to the Philippines' currency signs as this will affect a very large number of Philippine related articles. According to Chapter II, Article I, Section 48 of the Republic Act No. 7653 or the New Central Bank Act it states that:

SECTION 48. The Peso. — The unit of monetary value in the Philippines is the “peso,” which is represented by the sign “P.” The peso is divided into one hundred (100) equal parts called “centavos,” which are represented by the sign “c.”

This means that the Philippine currency signs that we use today, which is ₱ and the ¢ for the centavo, is a misconception as these are not the official signs. I have learned this last year, after I have attended a commercial law review in San Sebastian-Recoletos. The lecturer said that these ₱ and the ¢ signs were used during the time of the Central Bank of the Philippines and were abandoned or replaced after the enactment of the New Central Bank Act which had established the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. But I have researched the charter law of the Central Bank, and according to the said law:

SEC. 47. The peso.—The unit of monetary value in the Philippines is the “peso,” which is represented by the sign “P.” The peso is divided into one hundred equal parts called “centavos,” which are represented by the “c.”

So this means that even before the Central Bank time P and c were the official currency signs and not ₱ and the ¢.

So, what do you think? Should we change everything here in Wikipedia, especially in Philippine peso and Philippine peso sign articles? 'Cause if you ask me, I think we should.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be safe we should ask the concerned agencies about this matter. I bet at least some of them wouldn't just care the least in practice, but eh... Blake Gripling ( talk) 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You should ask the BSP. There are many factors to consider here. For one, you are linking to digitized copies of the 1993 and 1948 laws and it's possible that weird symbols like the peso and centavo signs were lost in translation and replaced with their closest ASCII equivalents. In any case, back when the 1993 law was signed the lawmakers probably used Windows 3.x to type the law and they would most likely be using the Windows-1252 character set which obviously did not have the peso sign (though the cent sign "¢" was already available though not easily typeable). Second, note that the peso sign was only added into Unicode in March 2002 when version 3.2 was released together with baybayin and three other Philippine scripts. I assume that this addition was an official submission from Philippine government agencies to the ISO and Unicode Consortium making the peso sign official. Third, we've been using these symbols in daily public life since who knows when (not even the Philippine peso sign article says) and unless we have actual guidance from the government or BSP or the Department of Finance that using the stroked Ps and cs are actually wrong, I would assume that the framers of the law intended for the symbols to be these symbols notwithstanding the limitations of publishing technology at the time the 1948 CBP law was introduced (and copied verbatim into the 1993 amendment). So you need to take into account the legislative intent and not just what is actually printed on the signed copies of the law. — seav ( talk) 04:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That I couldn't have said better myself. The fact that we're still using a US 101-key keyboard to this day also accounts for this, and it might be likely that they're typing it either on an early Macintosh or an MS-DOS system which also obviously did not support the symbols in question. I remember my old man using Wordstar around that era so typing it on DOS is also a possibility back then when the old-gen OS isn't dead yet. Blake Gripling ( talk) 06:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a frequent editor of articles about the Philippines, but I'm not a project member. Even so, and even though I'm not into article assessment, I propose that the Sovereignty of the Philippines article be reassessed to B class and High importance. Barring objection, I'll probably do this myself in the name of the project. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I support Wtmitchell's proposal as the article does seem to match the standards for B Class and High Importance. - Alternativity ( talk) 12:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I could also support this article being of Top importance instead of just High because a country's sovereignty is such a fundamental part of its identity. — seav ( talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note: I don't agree that one needs to be a member of a WikiProject in order to update article assessment levels. Also, Wtmitchell's interest in PH-related articles makes him a de facto "member" of this WikiProject. His maintenance of the PH flag and anthem articles are commendable. In addition, if this article would be updated to B-class, it should be somewhat simple to improve it to Good article status. — seav ( talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made the reassessment change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Any consensus if Rappler is a reliable source? Popular articles such as Rodrigo Duterte and other related pages ( Philippine Drug War, and Protests against Rodrigo Duterte) have several content cited as being from Rappler. In Rodrigo Duterte article itself, Rappler article titles use words and phrases that are either misleading or exaggerated. The difference with other older, established sources can clearly be seen in this edit I made on Rodrigo Duterte article, with Rappler showing more bias against the President than the more neutral sources. Besides, Rappler began just in 2012 and have been involved with alleged cases of "fake news". Any thoughts? – Sanglahi86 ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times at WP:RSN, the last time starting in January 2018 and where a consensus decided that Rappler is reliable. You are of course free to start a new discussion but unless you have anything new to add, you might have a hard time overturning the existing consensus. For the record, I think the accusations that Rappler peddles fake news is overblown. Almost every reliable source from The New York Times to The Washington Post to The Guardian have been accused of publishing fake news by critics. — seav ( talk) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Tambayan,

I rarely post request but this recent one is a bit disturbing to be honest. If you are updated with the news, you know what's been happening to Jim Paredes (APO Hikings) in the past 24 hours. It's kinda sick. And a simple search in Google gives you the edited Wikipedia page of Jim Paredes. I haven't checked the page though (will do later after this rant). Regardless of your political inclinations, can we please be at least neutral and be objective here in Wikipedia? Thanks in advanced, mga kabayan. Allenjambalaya ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Allenjambalaya. I've protected the article - I think we were both trying to untangle the history of vandalism at the same time, and you found a better "clean" revision to revert to than I did. I also blocked one of the user accounts that was involved. Warning all the IPs is probably a waste of time, at this point. However, if you notice similar activity on other related pages, and it persists after warnings, WP:AIV is the place to go to get quick help from an admin. Let me know if there's anything else we need to clean up. Regards, ST47 ( talk) 02:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello ST47. Thanks for the speedy response. I actually failed at first but upon reading it, I just copy and pasted a better version. Politics in the Philippines is sure a hot topic. I will let you know if something catches my attention. Thanks! Allenjambalaya ( talk) 03:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a new account, Sbrteamrevilla ( talk · contribs), who is exclusively editing the Bong Revilla article supposedly to prevent unfounded negative text from being added to this WP:BLP article. While there is no evidence that this is a real case of WP:COI—the editor (or editors) may simply be a supporter of the politician—there is definitely a concern that this could result in violations of the WP:NPOV policy. — seav ( talk) 08:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing new here. This has been going on for the longest time and usually heightened and intensified during election years. I notice there are only two narratives being pushed here. One is that of the Liberal media with their usual partisan sources ganging up to protect the BLPs of known allies, and "attacking" their favorite targets, including but not limited to Rodrigo Duterte and family/allies, Ferdinand Marcos and family/allies, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and family/allies, Joseph Estrada and family/allies, Jejomar Binay and family/allies, and now the PDAF senators. The other narrative is the one that is usually defensive and would normally quote less Liberal-aligned media like Manila Bulletin or Philippine Star. Such is the polarization caused by partisan media, and unless the media sources agree on a particular description for BLPs, which usually take years, if not decades like in the case of Marcos and Estrada, these articles will continue to be attack pages for either camps quoting their opposing sources. If there was wikipedia in the 1930s and 40s, we would be dealing with supporters of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo outquoting each other lol. Bottomline--political BLPs should best be quoted from literature and books, but until they come out, there's really not much you can do but deal with partisan newspapers. :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 11:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There was actually anti-Revilla (and Jinggoy Estrada edits that were clearly untruths last year. There was this anon who kept on adding the falsehood that these two were convicted of the PDAF scam months before Revilla was acquitted. Either that's a blatant lie, or the person didn't know the difference between the promulgation and indictment. These articles are WP:BLPs: if it's not cited at all, get rid of it or cite it or edit it. Tagging it doesn't do much. Howard the Duck ( talk) 00:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing at c:COM:VPC#Category:Coins of the Philippines which might be of interest to this WikiProject. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I created a new task force for Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics focusing of American currency, and since the Philippines were once a US territory, Philippine currency is also focused on. The task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/American currency task force is still starting up and does not have many members. If anyone is interested in helping, feel free to do so. - ZLEA _T\ ^C 15:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamusta mga kaberks, I will be in town week after Labor day for community consultations about Wikimedia Movement Strategy.

I appreciate your time for me to discuss it to you personally and also get your take on it.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20

Salamat po! -- Exec8 ( talk) 11:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can someone explain what filial fies means? thank you for your time. :-) Lotje ( talk) 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably a typo for filial ties (i.e., unrelated to the ruling family). - Windows72106 ( talk) 13:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Windows72106. Lotje ( talk) 08:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Health of Filipino Americans#Merger Discussion . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's good to see a lot of Filipino native dishes being served for us on WP. Having said that, i am having serious doubts on the notability and even ingenuity of some of those food articles that have been put up here. Granted these are articles with foreign sounding names, and may appear authentic Malay at first, but..... sinabawang gulay??? I mean, come on. Lol That's when you dug up a few veggies from your fridge in their early rotting stages, and saw some leftover pieces of meat (or not), then you reach for those cute little chicken or beef stock cubes, drown them in running water, then bring it to a boil. I know whats next. Sinabawang isda and sinabawang manok! Lol It's not only too generic, but i worry that some chef is forcing his own recipe for something that could be really anything depending on taste, like sinabawan or sabaw could be however anyone wants it to be, if one decides to add tamarind paste to the mix so that itll taste a bit like sinigang (or ginger so it would taste like tinola), wouldnt it sinabawang gulay anymore even when its practically still a veggie soup? Binasang gulay na may konteng patak ng ginataang patis, anyone? :> Can someone check on the authenticity and notability of these articles? Thanks, the ginataang series is turning to be like WP:CONTENTFORKING, I mean Ginataang gulay, ginataang ampalaya, ginataang kalabasa, ginataang munggo, ginataang langka and even a ginataang mais, ginataang santol and ginataang Kuhol! and ginataang alimango, ginataang antipolo, ginataang curacha, ginataang hipon, ginataang isda, ginataang kamansi, ginataang laing, ginataang manok, ginataang paksiw na isda, ginataang reema, ginataang sugpo, ginataang totong?? You forgot, ginataang kambing, ginataang baka, ginataang baboy and ginataang yung leftover kagabe ;) -- RioHondo ( talk) 06:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Need your input guys before i start nominating these articles for deletion and or merger. Also there is a problem with the nomenclature of longganisa, which i find troubling. The main article is at longaniza, and yet the Filipino sausage articles are named longganisa like Pampanga longganisa. If we should stick to the old abakada spellings, we should at least be consistent and name the article Pampangga longganisa. Using two different types of orthography in one phrase or title is very unencyclopedic if you think about it, Pampanga longganisa basically translates to Sausage for the jaw. Either name it as Pampanga longaniza or Pampangga longganisa. Im not being smart, im just ranting at the lack of linguistic system or rules here. Lol peace;). But the notability and authenticity issues with the above articles are more urgent of course. We also have to self-moderate when it comes to writing articles on Pinoy everyday food, obviously not all of them would be notable but there are some that would stand out which should be the focus of Filipino food wikipedia task force. :/-- RioHondo ( talk) 05:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I generally take an expansionist view on this. How are these dishes not notable enough that they warrant deletion, if they're dishes that are commonly found in Filipino cuisine? -- Sky Harbor ^{( talk)} 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's right, it is too common in fact for it to have its own article imo. Sinabawang gulay is just vegetable plus soup equals vegetable soup (sorry still cant get over it lol). How is this soup different from any other soup in Asia anyway? And what makes it stand out, when this could just be mentioned as the Tagalog translation for it somewhere? It's as common as i would say pritong manok, come on. It's just a sabaw with a gulay hehehe. And regarding the ginataang issue, i actually wanted to know if this was violating the rules, like i said youre just replacing one ingredient of a certain dish but the process and taste remain the same, is this not a violation of WP:Contentforking? We don't have pork adobo, chicken adobo, beef adobo, adobong pusit, adobong talong, and every other veggie in the nipa hut song lol. We dont right? ;)-- RioHondo ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I just go with redirecting the bunch to their parent article (variant?) like Congee. If there's some cites supporting their notability then just make a section on the parent article about it.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 03:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was about to move the External links section of an article I was just editing into the position I remember as having been long specified by WP:GTL, but I checked before moving it and found that the guideline on that at WP:GTL#Names and orders for section headings had been loosened up. I also saw there, "Some WikiProjects have developed their own style advice pages which include section naming and ordering recommendations. See Category:WikiProject style advice." I checked there and found no guidance for articles about the Philippines. How about setting up a barebones Policies and guidelines page as a starting point -- perhaps similar to this one but, unless there are some, without the content seen there about an ongoing discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like duplication of MOS:PHIL. What guideline are you thinking of that can't be added there? -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Negros Oriental is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Negros Oriental until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So I have pictures of memorabilia (bust, medals, etc) and primary sources of deceased politicians taken from public museums. To what extent can I upload them on Wikimedia? Can I upload them at all? Verbosmithie ( talk) 01:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If the museums in question are willing to release images of their collections in public domain, then there shouldn't be a problem with uploading them. But to be sure I'd rather have you ask them on their copyright status first so you could upload them on Commons should they give you the green light. Blake Gripling ( talk) 04:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup, there are certain limitations as to the kind of images from the Philippines that you can upload in Commons. You might want to check out the Philippine copyright rules first to be sure: Commons:COM:Philippines.-- RioHondo ( talk) 16:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Verbosmithie ( talk) 03:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 12#People by country of descent and occupation . RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 21:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's me again. I was looking for the right category for politicians who were part of the 1st and 2nd Congress of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. So far, I've found none even Category:Members_of_historical_legislatures_in_the_Philippines. Are these subcategories worth making? Thanks again. Verbosmithie ( talk) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD — seav ( talk) 01:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If there are enough articles to categorize them under, perhaps there would be no hurt in doing so. Arius1998 ( talk) 01:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have another question. How to put map in infobox? I'm looking at this Cebu Provincial Capitol. I already included the coordinates in Rizal Library, but it just doesn't seem to work. Thoughts? Verbosmithie ( talk) 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There is already a map. Why add another one? -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions on where to get References for articles on Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines? Naraht ( talk) 11:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Manila is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Manila until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,
I have declined the speedy deletion of this article. Looking at the deleted versions, it appears the deletion discussion was about a The Smashing Pumpkins song. Please let me know if I can assist with this in any way.
Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear fellow Tambayan dwellers,

In light of the new scholarship related to the golden statuette (new research suggests that it is not a Buddhist Tara but it is actually a Vajralasya of the Tantric Buddhist tradition) and re-examination of old materials regarding the naming of the statuette itself, it is now being discussed in the talk page what should be the new title of the Wiki article. Everyone interested is invited to participate in the discussion.

Stricnina ( talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)