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

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

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

How to call commissioners of constitutional commissions

So I was creating Category:Chairpersons of the Commission on Audit (Philippines), then there's this Category:Commissioners of constitutional commissions of the Philippines, and I figured, why not a category of commissioners for each commission?

Until I realize that "Commissioner of the Commission on Elections" sounds awkward. However, category names are pluralized, so "Commissioners of the Commission on Elections" doesn't sound that awkward. Of course common parlance refers to these people as "COMELEC commissioners" (COA and CSC are much less mainstream than the COMELEC, so the terms "COA commissioner" and "CSC commissioner" may not be as popular); how should these commissioner categories be named? Ultimately, if we're saying "COMELEC commissioner", we might as well WP:RM Commission on Elections (Philippines) to COMELEC. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...probably "Commissioner of the Commission of ___"? To keep it consistent with the naming for the categories of the chairpersons. I'm partial towards the complete name instead of the acronym because I'm assuming that outside the Philippines, other readers won't know what COMELEC, CSC or COA stands for. (The necessary disclaimer: my grandfather is a former Commissioner of a constitutional commission.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... off the top of my head, "Commissioner of Elections." I haven't looked into pros vs. cons of this at all, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Supreme Court cases and the common way the commissioners themselves are addressed are "Commissioner of (position)", as evidenced in court cases involving the COA, the COMELEC, the CSC, the BI, the BOC and the BIR. That said, for the purpose of creating Wikipedia categories I would be fine with using "Commissioners of the (name of commission)" as the standard naming convention. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former National Government Agency employee, I have to say "[a/the ]Commissioner of the (name of commission)" is not actually that uncommon. "(Name of commission) commissioner" is common largely because of media coverage, where there's a premium on space. (Although of course the most common usage is "Commissioner NAME of the (name of commission)." - Batongmalake (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I've created Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Elections (Philippines) and Category:Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (Philippines). I haven't created the CSC counterpart as we don't have articles for any of the commissioners. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request section

On the main project page, the tab for requests for Philippine-related articles, media, or templates currently displays "Requested articles." This label might suggest that the tab is exclusively for article requests, while in reality, it covers all the previously mentioned types of requests. Is there a specific reasoning for that or can we change it to be more suited for its page?

Regarding the media request section, it could be beneficial to find a way to incorporate other requests for the same Philippine-related articles, such as those that are in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Philippines or Category:Wikipedia requested maps in the Philippines, to ensure they are also appropriately addressed. JETH888 (message) 19:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we could make it as its own tab to better reflect this. Do you suggest the tab being called "Requests" or is there a better way or wording it? I was thinking of naming it simply as "Requests" but it sound ambiguous. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might sound ambiguous, but it is more appropriate and less misleading because it serves as an umbrella term for different requests, not just articles. Since there are no other objections against it, I believe we have reached a consensus, and I will proceed with renaming the tab.

As for my other concern, do you have any thoughts or opinions about it? JETH888 (message) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox military conflict usage

I*n discussion here, I observed that articles related to the Philippine Revolution, the Philippine theater of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War seem to tend to flout instructions in the docs for template:infobox military conflict saying that the commander paramatrers are optional and, , "For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." Besides those linked articles, I also mentioned the OEF-P article. Perhaps this needs some project-level thought and guidance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining information on COVID-19 protocols and mandates on articles

Since most COVID-19 protocols and mandates have been relaxed or have been completely abolished, I noticed there are some articles where editors are removing all mentions of the COVID-19 protocols previously in place such as on the MRT-3 article and the Manila Light Rail Transit System article. Should these be retained in a shorter form or is it in agreement to remove all traces of it like that? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support trimming of articles. I think it's too detailed so maybe a mention. I would even suggest merging the info in Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic where it would make more sense for our readers. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the info still deserves a mention; maybe incorporate it under History sections, but summarized like what Lenticel said. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that in most cases, some of this information will be important to preserve, if they are relevant to future emergencies and pandemics, or if they otherwise shape the way the subject is approached. For example, a quick mention of the protocols implemented on the LRT, or a summary of the pandemic response of the Pasig LGU, ought to be preserved. These are both historically significant and useful for decision makers and the general public. - Batongmalake (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]