Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

Main

Discussion

Assessment

Requests

Members

Articles
(Featured · New · Popular)

Sources

Portal

Shortcuts

This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, 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 Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.

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.

Start new topic

On 9 August 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Pinoy Wikipedia on social media

Watching edits of Philippine politics-related pages in line with the upcoming elections

I've been watching Philippine politics-related pages for some time now (including edit history, months before I recently became a user) and noticed an increasing trend for these pages to be vandalized recently, most likely related to the upcoming elections. I understand Wikipedia policy is to not pre-emptively protect these pages, but it stands to me that it is a good idea to watch these pages for edits (at the most basic level, for vandalism) as this a battleground for misinformation and declining article quality.

Perhaps there is interest in this community to make a concerted effort to better maintain or edit these pages? Perhaps a project subcategory can be made for all Philippine politics-related pages, so that they can be easily watched. I would do this myself, but I do not know how yet. Content-wise I am still learning Wikipedia's editorial policies as well, so what I do watch I would not necessarily know how to approach with editing immediately. WhyEdit? (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of subcategory do you want? We have Category:Politics of the Philippines, and more specifically Category:Filipino political people. CMD (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Category:21st-century Filipino politicians? Not everyone's there though. A related changes view may help spot vandals. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon

By any chance, has anyone of you made a draft for the movie? Borgenland (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not me but if you haven't, you can create a draft for that yet to be released movie. -Ian Lopez @ 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of local broadcasting stations

I've noticed that some local television station articles are being nominated for deletion, with DYTL-TV and DXNL-TV currently under discussion. The most recent deletion was DWHL on January 29, 2025. The primary reasoning behind these nominations is that these stations fail WP:GNG, as argued by the nominators.

Currently, there are 63 stations listed under Category:Philippine television stubs, specifically those beginning with the letter D (for clarity). I've reviewed 20 out of 63 so far, and among those, the following articles are completely unreferenced:

In the ongoing AfD discussions for DYTL-TV and DXNL-TV, another editor, Wcquidditch, pointed out that the Philippine broadcasting topic area is rife with insufficient sourcing and GNG failures. Given that notability is determined based on GNG, does this mean that the notability of other stations in this category could also be challenged through AfDs?

I'm posting this here to gather input from other editors. How should we approach these cases? Should we start checking local station articles to see if they meet notability guidelines? Your thoughts and insights would be appreciated. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If proven to be legitimate, such articles can be redirected to List of XYZ radio/television station articles if such are extant; if not, the page may be redirected to a list of stations for a given region. If the articles in question were created by proven hoaxers or their sockpuppets (usually those that have entries in the sockpuppet investigations or long term abuse pages), am more inclined for them to be summarily deleted without going through the normal process.

As for the lack of sources and GNG failures regarding that topic, it would have been preferable if an industry publication or trade magazine would cover relevant developments (closest example would be Broadcast) but I digress. -Ian Lopez @ 14:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianlopez1115 just a sample: the first two stations mentioned by Astrookai were created by MariaOzawaTV1 (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised that account hasn't been sanctioned for blatant impersonation. Borgenland (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is should be nominated on AfD, if there's a reliable sources, should be keep. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information could be merged to the existing lists (List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations, List of GMA Network stations, List of GTV (Philippine TV network) stations, List of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation channels and stations, List of People's Television Network stations and channels). CMD (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that I nominated DWNC-TV for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWNC-TV. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte#Requested move 5 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte#Requested move 5 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Borgenland (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a faster procedure at WP:RM for undisputed requests? It's not like someone is arguing a Filipino girl group formed in 2019 is more notable than some random African village founded centuries ago... Howard the Duck (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are in the right place? Borgenland (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests Howard the Duck (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fast procedure is a bold move, but that expects no RM is opened. I had a look at given the unanimity I was thinking of closing it earlier than 7 days per WP:RMEC, but five hours would be really short. CMD (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should've went there before creating an RM, TBH. This is a current event, and titles should be current. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, easy enough to say "Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte were successful", currentness isn't a problem, and the actual article content is being updated. CMD (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably best to have the article updated before moving it, I suppose. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue though that since this is a descriptive title, if anything changes that affects the descriptiveness of the title, currentness is factor for this to be speedily resolved. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a COI if someone decided to move it unilaterally? Borgenland (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uninvolved closes the RM, it isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, per the RM tag, the discussion needs closing. Per the closing instructions, early closes that aren't withdrawals/opposes need to be very sure and "closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on". I'd give it 24 hours. CMD (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the way the discussion is going it appears to be going Snow. Borgenland (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it either, I expect after a full day it'll be the same and we can Snow it. CMD (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been moved. This is how an IAR faster than usual move looks like. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for History of the University of Santo Tomas

History of the University of Santo Tomas has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]