Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
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.

WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY - Deletion Sorting (Philippines)


Start new topic


00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 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

Find us on Facebook   Find us on Twitter   Find us on Google+   Find us on

Find us on YouTube   Find us on UStream
This box: view  talk  edit

Notes from the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Wikipedian-in-Residence , 8 July 2018 -- “Crash Course: Wikipedia” and beyond.[edit]

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 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

Numbered highways in settlement Infoboxes[edit]

Should we even add numbered highways in City/Municipality infoboxes? It's quite irrelevant for the lead but articles sections may do, anyone with me? --hueman1 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I find the routes in the infobox as informative. I second with this point. However, I would qualify that it should instead be limited to major cities of the Philippines. In US articles, major cities like Los Angeles and Houston have their major highways on their infoboxes but smaller cities like Minot don't have such.--ERAMnc 03:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@ERAMnc: I agree, but speaking of Major Cities, how about Quezon City? There are 19 numbered routes in the city if I'm not mistaken. --hueman1 (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@HueMan1:I see. That would make QC's infobox as somewhat clutter-y. Perhaps delimiting it to expressways and national primary roads would do? However I'm on the view that national secondary roads are likewise important for, in some cases, they link cities to national primary roads.--ERAMnc 17:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@ERAMnc: I guess we should just limit the use of it to highly urbanised cities and other notable tourist destinations. --hueman1 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@HueMan1: I agree on that point. --ERAMnc 12:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ERAMnc: Or maybe provinces too. --hueman1 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ERAMnc: Should this be included in settlement guidelines? --hueman1 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@HueMan1: On provinces i find that there's nothing wrong with adding routes on provinces. In comparison with US states, some states like Texas or Montana did not list such routes in their infobox but have it in their transport section. Other states like New York, did not mention any US routes at all.--ERAMnc 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@HueMan1: On settlement guidelines, WP:Settlement is currently silent about it. --ERAMnc 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion here. I don't see what helpful info this provides. Without context, it is just more infobox clutter. It is much more helpful to describe it in the Transportation section. -- P 1 9 9   19:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@P199: Fair point. (By the way, do have any opinions with the bus company-related articles? Thanks!) --hueman1 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that it is clutter because I far as I can tell the only place the numbers exist is on government documents and a few scattered signs. I have never, ever heard of anyone referring to any numbered highway except maybe in Metro Manila when talking of the C5. Numbering is irrelevant here on Panay. Unless and until the numbers become just as important as in the U.S. (think Route 66) or the U.K. (the M1) they will just be clutter. Right now highway numbers just seem another dead-on-arrival government project. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. The Minot article does list the numbered highways.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed on the Minot and LA articles that the numbered highways listed in the infoboxes are actually links to articles on those numbered highways. Are there articles on the numbered highways in the Philippines? Maybe only once we have the articles should we put them into the infoboxes. If they are not notable enough for an article, then maybe they are not notable enough for the infoboxes. Most of the numbered highways in Philippine highway network do not have articles and many of those that do have article titles that are not the number but are names like the MacArthur Highway or Circumferential Road 5. In general Wikipedia should be descriptive not prescriptive. We should describe things as they are and not try to push a particular effort, such as trying to mainstream highway numbers. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Found out that there were numbered routes on Minot too. I stand corrected. But regarding on highway numberings, would it be considered that perhaps we limit the numbered routes in the infoboxes of major cities to EX and NXX highways only? That might resolve the issue regarding cluttering in the infobox. --ERAMnc 14:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thus, if we would apply such for example, in the infobox of Iloilo City, only N5 would appear in the numbered routes in the city's infobox. Surely that would seem not to be cluttery.--ERAMnc 15:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I still do not think that numbered highways are important enough. I think that including any numbered highways is to give them WP:UNDUE weight. Are we including them because they are important to the Philippines or because numbered highways are important in other countries? I have never heard anyone refer to numbered highways in the Philippines. I have heard people refer to numbered highways in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, but not in Japan where highways tend to have names. I lived and driven in Iloilo for 15 years and I could not tell you anything about Hwy 5, where it goes, what it is, etc. I have never heard anyone say, for instance, "take highway 5 north out of the city". I see an occasionally random sign stuck in some out of the way place, and that's it. Is there any common, third-party reference that refers to highway numbers (as opposed to SCTEX or C-5)? Has there been an article in the Inquirer or the Manila Bulletin that refers to a highway's number, when not talking infrastructure or the building of roads. If not, I think that it is just giving it undue weight. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It might seem that there were no news articles in the past related to such numbering which may fall under WP:UNDUE, but we must likewise note that the numbered highway system in the Philippines is relatively new and were only recently imposed. In fact, the DPWH implemented such highway numbering system just last year. See: [1]--ERAMnc 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to Pinoy edit a thon @ OSU[edit]

WikiConference North America 2018 logo.png
San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png

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.

Straw poll on changes in political party colors made earlier this year[edit]

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[edit]

  1. Howard the Duck (talk)

Revert to the original colors[edit]

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:
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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Collapsed color chart
Party Current Old
Other parties
Ako Bikol
Aksyon Demokratiko
ACT Teachers
Ang Kapatiran
Bangon Pilipinas
Bayan Muna
Bigkis Pinoy
Bukidnon Paglaum Same as LP
Centrist Democratic Party
Democratic Alliance
Democratic Party (20th century)
Democratic Party (21st century)
Kabalikat ng Bayan sa Kaunlaran
Kapayapaan, Kaunlaran at Katarungan
Kilusang Diwa ng Taguig
K4 Same as Lakas-CMD
Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino
Kugi Uswag Sugbu Same as NP
  • 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[edit]

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)

Pre-Independence major parties Pre-Revolution major parties Post-Revolution major parties
     Katipunan (revolutionary society)
     Nacionalista/ Nacionalista Consolidado
     Nacionalista Colectivista
     Nacionalista Unipersonalista
     Nacionalista Democratico
     Nacionalista Democrata Pro-Independencia
     Popular Front
     Citizens'/ Nationalist Citizens'
     Aksyon Demokratiko
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)

What are considered as RS for Pinoy Songs and Albums?[edit]

Question is in the title. While assessing stuff, I found that several musical artists, song and album articles are lacking in sources. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Have the artists in question made any notable impact in the OPM scene at least? Also, the problem here is with 2000s and earlier acts and songs as sources for them can be a pain to come by. Heck, this is true with any Filipino mainstream media in general. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it's quite a pain. I was only able to source Blakdyak's article because of his recent death --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format[edit]

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)