| Revision as of 07:35, 7 April 2021 editHueMan1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers82,882 edits →Are schools notable?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:06, 23 January 2025 edit undo182.18.242.72 (talk) →Please move Morcón (Filipino cuisine) to a namespace without diacriticsTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Disambiguation links added | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Tambayan Philippines/header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Tambayan Philippines/header}} | ||
| <div style="position:relative; overflow:hidden |
<div style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; padding:15px; font-size:100%">{{shortcut|WT:TAMBAY|WT:PINOY}}This is the discussion page of ''']''', where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the ] with respect to Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the '']'' for Misplaced Pages concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.</div> | ||
| <!-- end of header --> | <!-- end of header --> | ||
| <!-- Off topic warning |
<!-- Off topic warning --> | ||
| {{Not a forum|the ] and other Philippine-related topics|Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages.}} | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| <!-- Off topic warning |
<!-- Off topic warning --> | ||
| <div class="mainaction action">{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Start new topic|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines|action=edit§ion=new}}|class=oo-ui-buttonElement-button|style=margin:1em; padding:8px; padding-left:16px; padding-right:16px; width:auto; height:auto; font-size:large;}}}}</div> | |||
| {{old move|date=9 August 2024|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|result=Not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1241061358#Requested move 9 August 2024}} | |||
| <div class="mainaction action">{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Start new topic|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines|action=edit§ion=new}}|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=border-radius:4px;font-size:2em}}}}</div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{Archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|minthreadsleft=4|auto=short|collapsible=yes|collapsed=yes}} | |||
| {{archives|search=yes|list= | |||
| ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] {{!}} ] | |||
| }} | |||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| {{WP:Tambayan Philippines/Social Media}} | {{WP:Tambayan Philippines/Social Media}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(14d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 46 | |||
| |counter = 53 | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive%(counter)02d | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == |
== User:Naniwoofg == | ||
| {{User|Naniwoofg}} has been making problematic "update of images" in several articles. The ] image problem is just the tip of the iceberg; the user's talk page shows numerous messages regarding their problematic edits, many of the messages were from me. One example is their insistence on ] (claiming it as updated image of ]), even if the image does not properly show the sculpture as the fireworks obfuscate it and distract the intended subject of the image. They were also involved in changing ] image twice (to the images that are inferior to the currently-used infobox image). | |||
| Hi. Have you had seen the UP NOAH website? I think it is a good source for accurate provincial, municipal/city and barangay boundaries. (tested it myself a day ago) The tab for the boundaries is at the left side and it says that data are from the PSA and the UI is great, too. I think it would be great to be applied in LGU locator/location maps, especially the town/city maps because some of the lines at present maps are soggy and are surely inaccurate. And most of these I believe are outdated. Thanks. ] (]) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If this is indeed accurate, then it proves that ] is contiguous only as much as you can consider that a quadripoint on the summit of Mount Dos Hermanos means two jurisdictions border each other if they "face" (Utah-New Mexico or Arizona-Colorado) each other. Our current maps don't show this quadripoint, instead showing Echague separating Dinapigue from the rest of its district. Would be an interesting court case if someone brings it up. ] (]) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Interestingly, it also shows that Santiago-Cordon does not border Jones-San Agustin. This was a bad gerrymander. ] (]) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| With numerous issues on images involved by this user, is it ripe to sanction this user? I'll leave the reporting of this user to ] to other users, but I hope this discussion serves as the start of multiple discussions concerning the problematic behavior of this user. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Like HTD says, hopefully it is accurate. If so, I agree that it would be nice to update all the maps of the 1634 LGU's and 120 provinces. Big task though, we'll need some volunteers with good graphic skills. Unfortunately, I have no time to take that on... -- ''']''' <big>]</big> 15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that they have published problematic edits for several months now. I checked their contributions and saw that they had dozens of reverted edits. Most were edits that replaced images with new "good" or "high" quality images. Now, I can't check them all since they amount to more than 50 revisions, but judging by how many notices there were on their talk page, I'm a bit surprised that this user is not sanctioned yet despite this. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is accurate at least in places I know where there are welcome arches or signages separating political entities, and some usual border conventions that I am aware of. It is also noteworthy that, according to these maps, much of the political boundaries up to the barangay level are shared with waterways and rivers or at least run near the said water courses. I am just unsure why PSA didn't "explicitly" publish the maps. Well, yeah, it'll need much time to update the maps here. ] (]) 15:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This user seems to put recency at a premium. As with the Quezon Memorial Shrine example above, I've reverted his edit on ], as the photo, while still far away, may still violate FOP, and for chamber articles, the indoor photo is preferred. The indoor photo is older than most kids, but it hasn't changed from the current one, unlike the House, so it still is "recent". ] (]) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some of this user's recent edits now appear to involve unexplained removal of infobox images. ] (] • ]) 10:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also to add, the user was involved in some attempts to use Commons images of Philippine monuments in which the monuments themselves are incidental or trivial, while at the same time removing the fair use images of the monuments (therefore risking the activation of a 1-week countdown to deletion by bots). The user does not seem to understand the reason why local and lesser quality images of such public monuments are needed, considering the Philippine law (RA 8293) not granting ] of any sort for any public objects still under copyright. Example: . _ <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::AFAIK, most of the boundaries in the Philippines are unofficial based on the fact that these have not been surveyed yet, especially on mountainous areas. There are still court cases with LGUs disputing barangays. If we're following the U.S. precedence, the actual surveyed boundary will be ''the'' boundary instead of what was in the law, which was supposed to guide surveyors. ] (]) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I've yet one more unconstructive edit by Naniwoofg. {{U|Naniwoofg}} apparently doesn't understand the ''absence of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines''. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd be very much willing to help make these maps since I've already been doing it for about two years now (maybe even three). Unfortunately, Felipe Aira's ], the basemap that I used for my projects, came out to be inaccurate so I had no choice but to halt the rest of the project and make a new map out of scratch (it's right ]). Though, it is worth mentioning that I did "finish" all regional/provincial locator maps but ] were only used for a brief moment and were replaced by the ]. —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It says in the NOAH municipal borders maps that those were based on both PSA and NAMRIA, which is again where we should be basing all our maps from, the central mapping agency no less. i doubt PSA makes maps other than demographic so my guess is they also rely on NAMRIA. Hows the progress on our district maps and new more accurate province locator maps? :) The current ones we use are fine, i like that they are plain and without labels or too many colors making their locations stand out. Although i would suggest adding like zoomed insets for those really small provinces like Camiguin, Siquijor, Biliran, Guimaras, Romblon, Batanes, etc. They are barely noticeable in those maps :)--] (]) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user has not engaged outside of edit summaries and has inconsistent ''implicit'' rationale for their image updates. What I observe is they often, but not always, insist on using higher resolution images even if the image is subjectively inferior, content/context wise] (]) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Here is my experienced opinion.''' The barangay boundaries used by UP NOAH and displayed on their maps was compiled in 2015–2016 as part of the efforts of Information Management Technical Working Group (IMTWG) of the ] (NDRRMC). The boundaries are derived from the internal dataset used by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in conducting their census and have been cleaned up to be consistent with NAMRIA's coastlines and added with PSGC IDs. This dataset is considered indicative at best and quite inaccurate at worst (see the boundary of Post Proper Southside and Post Proper Northside in Makati, and the barangays in Las Piñas with weird exclaves, for examples). I know that PSA ''strongly'' discourages the use of their dataset outside of humanitarian contexts and without the express permission of PSA (despite the Intellectual Property Code). (Source: I personally know people in NOAH who worked on the dataset and I attended several of the IMTWG meetings as a representative of the OpenStreetMap Philippines community.) | |||
| :BTW, contrary to expectations, NAMRIA isn't the authoritative agency for PH boundaries; that would be the ] under the DENR. AFAIK, the LMB doesn't have a complete dataset of boundaries down to the barangay level because the work of delimiting the boundaries and resolving disputes is still not finished. | |||
| ] | |||
| :P.S. Isabela isn't even the most egregious in terms of non-contiguous districts. That honor would go to Bohol's 2nd district (illustrated). —] (]) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The exclave seems to be ]. On the new Bohol political map, it has a 90 degree border with ], so you can argue it's connected to one point in space. The Isabela district still takes the cake though as it has 3 exclaves of roughly equal size; this just has two. | |||
| ::Also, as per my expectations, there still isn't definitive dataset. We hope there's one soon. I'm also quite surprised that an agency of the DENR is doing this; I thought this was the DPWH as they have their municipal boundary markers all over the place; maybe those are for their own usages only and is still not official. | |||
| ::Has anyone seen ]'s municipal maps? Recently, their storm signals are now down to per town, instead of the vague "northern Camarines Sur" that we were used to. ] (]) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Howard the Duck}} I saw a NAMRIA map that shows a quadripoint of Echague, Dinapigue, Maddela (in Quirino), and Jones. Echague is not touching Aurora's northernmost municipality, Dilasag. —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|HueMan1}} I love how that district's contiguousness still isn't resolved. You know a province is held by one family if no one sued this for its constitutionality. ] (]) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|Howard the Duck}} I found that NAMRIA map here: . I wonder what I could do with these... —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 13:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Speaking of maps, the map of the Philippines in ] has an error. As of today, when clicking the Pangasinan area for instance, it will send you to Northern Samar/Eastern Samar articles. Thank you. ] (]) 07:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Crear2000}} Someone messed it up on ] (]). It should be fine by now. —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 08:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Crear2000}} actually it is full of errors. When clicked on Cavite it will land you to the article ]. When clicking the name (name, not the pointer) of Central Luzon in the WPS it will lead you to ]. You are also sent to ] if you click an area of the sea to the west of Zambales. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#FFA500">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is also at the point where Marikina and Rizal is at the inset of the map. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#FFA500">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 07:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Are there any actions made to sanction this user, at least temporarily? They continue to do the same edits, in different articles, and some of the user's edits were reverted, like , , and . _ <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Expressway name abbreviations == | |||
| :Maybe reporting the socks can help? ] (]) 01:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It has been years since we improved our article on expressways by adapting the article structure observed by ], ] and ], but one remaining problem is how we should writing abbreviations of expressway names (i.e. NLEX vs NLEx, NAIAX vs NAIAx). So far, in my experience, with the exception of MCX, STAR, SEMME, the usual way of writing them is all caps and the concessionaires themselves also use them (e.g. NLEX Corporation). ] (]) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :He keeps insisting on edits without proper communication. Most questionable edit was in ] (obscuring the view with the fountain) and ] (night photo with the buildings) barely visible. I don't want to resort to ] but it comes to a point the this may possibly be feigned ignorance. Contentious edits on certain pages are merely said to be "updated photo or infobox" or something vague. ] (]) 11:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For NLEX, SLEX, SCTEX, TPLEX, MCX and NAIAX, overwhelming practice is ALLCAPS. Isn't ] spelled that way? ] (]) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally raised this in ANI for something to be done. ] (]) 12:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: The STAR is all caps as the acronym of its ], but not the Tollway suffix; in addition, the article should have been named STAR Tollway, not the little-used full form of STAR. Have you looked at all the expressway or highway articles that still use the forms with small x (i.e. NLEx, SLEx, CAVITEx, SCTEx, TPLEx, NAIAx, CLLEx, SFEx, CALAx/CALAEx, CCLEx)? -] (]) 22:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Re: "STAR Tollway", yes that's how it is exactly spelled. People are apprehensive with moving to acronyms on roads (see ]) but I'd support ]. | |||
| ::: Re: Small "x". I'm not sure, but in the old days it was actually "NLE", then "NLEx", then the "x" just grew up. People still use "SSH" for "South Superhighway". I suppose saying that "it's wrong to use 'NLE'/'NLEx'," may be stretching it, and you can say that either is a variant that's sometimes used. ] (]) 22:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == What do we do with the ] article? == | |||
| :::: I see, but the main problem with our articles is that existing articles may contain one of those variations. We may mention the various abbreviations of the North Luzon Expressway in the lede, for example, but we should choose the best form for use in the rest of the prose, as well as junction lists or tables in other articles.—] (]) 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Edit: '''Sorry for those who were pinged on this post. I thought the article had a lot of outdated routes based on my experience of seeing buses using their old route names instead of their new ones, which prompted me to inconclusively ask whether the list of routes was outdated. Please disregard. Thank you. ] (] • ]) | |||
| :::::I believe the general consensus on expressways and highways is for spelling out those acronyms and using their full names to make them recognizable even to people not very familiar with these roads. Another argument for this is the inconsistency in acronyms and abbreviations as you demonstrated above with those examples. The north and south Luzon expressways spell Expressway as EX or Ex whereas the Muntinlupa–Cavite and NAIA expressways spell it as just X, as in MCX and NAIAX not MCEX and NAIAEX? As for STAR, the official logo itself does not carry the suffix Tollway so might be better to stick to this base name of just STAR. I agree with the mention of all known abbreviations, acronyms and nicknames in the lede, but as for the standard abbrev to use in tables across the project, we must first determine the most widely used ones for each expressway. I have a feeling it's those in allcaps too. Then you can also add these title and abbreviation conventions once finalized as a supplement to our WP:MOSPHIL or as a separate guideline page similar to ] or ].--] (]) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| :::::I'd suggest using whatever abbreviation is used by the ] that is being used to cite that statement. Pre-Noynoy, "North Luzon Expressway" was just "NLE". So for those cases, use "NLE", then use "NLEX" whenever it started to be used. ] (]) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC discussion at ] == | |||
| ::::::I'd argue that use of small 'x' still floats around: the ''Inquirer'' , and its use of small 'x' and big 'X' is inconsistent. That said, I would think that we can point this in the lead, and then use an agreed-to version everywhere else. I personally use small 'x', but the difference between this and big 'X' is pretty much inconsequential. --] <sup>(])</sup> 07:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a RfC discussion at ]. I highly recommend to join to vote on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. ] ] 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| The 500th anniversary of this is coming soon, so if you guys want to fix this up for ], please do so. ] (]) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| == ''Po and opo'' article? == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP sock? == | |||
| Shouldn't the ''Po and opo'' section in ] be a separate article, as it is only loosely related to the hand gesture? –] (]) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Sanglahi86}} Yeah or maybe move it somewhere else since it's very short. —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 05:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Can anyone see if these are socks of a banned user? Their behavior sounds familiar (trying to intimidate other editors from rv-ing them and placing tons on misleading and ] content) but with the abundance of ] editors that have been blocked for trying to ruin this project I could no longer remember exactly who. | |||
| == "Technical specifications" and "Features" sections in expressway articles == | |||
| *{{vandal|139.135.241.10}} | |||
| Alongside adapting consistent use of expressway name abbreviations, I think it's time we should get rid of the "Technical specifications" and "Features" on our expressway pages. Well, our expressway articles now mostly follow the standard used in North American highway articles, but we still have "Technical specifications" and "Features" sections which are a holdover from the early forms of those articles and seems to violate ]. Most toll road articles I have read (such as those of American tollways, e.g. ], ]) don't contain sections about features or technical info (vertical clearances, lanes), and if there are (such as lane counts), are covered in "Route description". ] (]) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{vandal|202.57.44.130}} | |||
| ] (]) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| :{{U|TagaSanPedroAko}} I agree. In fact, I already removed all of the said sections in the Tagalog Misplaced Pages equivalent articles (though much of them were added by me during my translation works around late 2016–2017). Like ]. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#FFA500">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 04:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I came across these two articles which seem to have some considerable overlap. Are heritage houses meant to be distinct from ancestral houses? ] (] • ]) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|JWilz12345}} I've already done away with those subsections on NLEX, SLEX, Skyway, and STAR Toll. I'm busy with Canada articles now (mostly adding redirects that use two-letter postal abbreviations for various articles of cities, towns and villages throughout Canada), so you can do away with the others. -] (]) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Re|TagaSanPedroAko}} right now, my focus is on Commons. Perhaps other editors may help. Ping {{ping|RioHondo|HueMan1}}. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#FFA500">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :See lead of Ancestral. It openly synonymizes heritage. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|TagaSanPedroAko|JWilz12345}} {{done}}! —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 05:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Going by unsupported info in those article leads, the terms appear not to be synonymous. | |||
| :::::Sorry, but I haven't completely removed those at NLEX (at "Technical information"). Would do a final sweep. Content in question is already covered elsewhere in the NLEX article.-] (]) 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] says that those are officially desugnated and, they number exactly 60 as of 2025. | |||
| ::*] implies that there are lots more than 60 of those, that they include both designated Heritage houses and common "]", and does not rule out inclusion of houses not fitting either of those categories. That linked article reads as if there are lots of those and says that they are commonly known as Ancestral houses. | |||
| ::I take it from that that the term ''Ancestral house'' refers to houses in a broad category that includes both of the other more sharply defined categories plus, likely, some houses that would not fit into either of those two. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 22:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Please move ] to a namespace without diacritics == | |||
| == Are schools notable? == | |||
| We don't use diacritics in Filipino anymore so it should just be at ]. Most common spelling. ] is already for the Spanish original, and ] is a disambiguation page. ] (]) 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Most school articles (especially high schools and elementary schools) doesn't have references and sources (and if there are, it would be a primary source or an unrelated source which has nothing to do with the school in general) and highly doubt that there would be anytime soon. I believe that most of these articles are way far from meeting the general notability guideline but it's surprising that no one cares about them being filled with original research and directories. If there's a way to save them (or fix them, whatever), please speak up, but if there are none, can we just delete them for goodness sake? —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I assumed this would have to get past the Schools lobby, but per ] consensus changed in 2017, so apparently they can now be deleted. ] (]) 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Chipmunkdavis}} Should we initiate AFDs now? —<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tw Cen MT;color:black">] (] <small>•</small> ])</span> 07:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 23 January 2025
 Main |  Discussion |  Assessment |  Requests |  Members |  Articles (Featured · New · Popular) |  Sources |  Portal |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Philippines and other Philippine-related topics at the Reference desk. Please limit all discussion to topics pertaining to this WikiProject or its pages. |
 | On 9 August 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Pinoy Misplaced Pages on social media [REDACTED] 
This box: |
User:Naniwoofg
Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been making problematic "update of images" in several articles. The Taft Avenue image problem is just the tip of the iceberg; the user's talk page shows numerous messages regarding their problematic edits, many of the messages were from me. One example is their insistence on this image (claiming it as updated image of Quezon Memorial Shrine), even if the image does not properly show the sculpture as the fireworks obfuscate it and distract the intended subject of the image. They were also involved in changing Kalaw Avenue image twice (to the images that are inferior to the currently-used infobox image).
.jpg){kind=link}
With numerous issues on images involved by this user, is it ripe to sanction this user? I'll leave the reporting of this user to WP:ANI to other users, but I hope this discussion serves as the start of multiple discussions concerning the problematic behavior of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that they have published problematic edits for several months now. I checked their contributions and saw that they had dozens of reverted edits. Most were edits that replaced images with new "good" or "high" quality images. Now, I can't check them all since they amount to more than 50 revisions, but judging by how many notices there were on their talk page, I'm a bit surprised that this user is not sanctioned yet despite this. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This user seems to put recency at a premium. As with the Quezon Memorial Shrine example above, I've reverted his edit on Senate of the Philippines, as the photo, while still far away, may still violate FOP, and for chamber articles, the indoor photo is preferred. The indoor photo is older than most kids, but it hasn't changed from the current one, unlike the House, so it still is "recent". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of this user's recent edits now appear to involve unexplained removal of infobox images. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Also to add, the user was involved in some attempts to use Commons images of Philippine monuments in which the monuments themselves are incidental or trivial, while at the same time removing the fair use images of the monuments (therefore risking the activation of a 1-week countdown to deletion by bots). The user does not seem to understand the reason why local and lesser quality images of such public monuments are needed, considering the Philippine law (RA 8293) not granting Freedom of Panorama of any sort for any public objects still under copyright. Example: this one concerning the Statue of the Sentinel of Freedom. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've yet reverted one more unconstructive edit by Naniwoofg. Naniwoofg apparently doesn't understand the absence of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The user has not engaged outside of edit summaries and has inconsistent implicit rationale for their image updates. What I observe is they often, but not always, insist on using higher resolution images even if the image is subjectively inferior, content/context wiseHariboneagle927 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Are there any actions made to sanction this user, at least temporarily? They continue to do the same edits, in different articles, and some of the user's edits were reverted, like this, this, and this. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe reporting the socks can help? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He keeps insisting on edits without proper communication. Most questionable edit was in Bonifacio Shrine (obscuring the view with the fountain) and Escolta Street (night photo with the buildings) barely visible. I don't want to resort to WP:BADFAITH but it comes to a point the this may possibly be feigned ignorance. Contentious edits on certain pages are merely said to be "updated photo or infobox" or something vague. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally raised this in ANI for something to be done. Borgenland (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
What do we do with the List of bus routes in Metro Manila article?
Edit: Sorry for those who were pinged on this post. I thought the article had a lot of outdated routes based on my experience of seeing buses using their old route names instead of their new ones, which prompted me to inconclusively ask whether the list of routes was outdated. Please disregard. Thank you. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs)
Requested move at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV
There is a RfC discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV. I highly recommend to join to vote on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. Royiswariii Talk! 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
IP sock?
Can anyone see if these are socks of a banned user? Their behavior sounds familiar (trying to intimidate other editors from rv-ing them and placing tons on misleading and WP:UNDUE content) but with the abundance of WP:NOTHERE editors that have been blocked for trying to ruin this project I could no longer remember exactly who.
- 139.135.241.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Borgenland (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage houses of the Philippines and Ancestral houses of the Philippines
I came across these two articles which seem to have some considerable overlap. Are heritage houses meant to be distinct from ancestral houses? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- See lead of Ancestral. It openly synonymizes heritage. Borgenland (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Going by unsupported info in those article leads, the terms appear not to be synonymous.
- Heritage says that those are officially desugnated and, they number exactly 60 as of 2025.
- Ancestral implies that there are lots more than 60 of those, that they include both designated Heritage houses and common "Bahay na Bato", and does not rule out inclusion of houses not fitting either of those categories. That linked article reads as if there are lots of those and says that they are commonly known as Ancestral houses.
- I take it from that that the term Ancestral house refers to houses in a broad category that includes both of the other more sharply defined categories plus, likely, some houses that would not fit into either of those two. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Going by unsupported info in those article leads, the terms appear not to be synonymous.
Please move Morcón (Filipino cuisine) to a namespace without diacritics
We don't use diacritics in Filipino anymore so it should just be at Morcon (Filipino cuisine). Most common spelling. Morcón is already for the Spanish original, and Morcon is a disambiguation page. 182.18.242.72 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)