Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
 
Main MainDiscussion DiscussionAssessment AssessmentRequests RequestsMembers Members Articles
(Featured · New · Popular)		Sources SourcesPortal 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.
Start new topic


Using West Philippine Sea in articles revisited

[edit]

It's been around seven months since I first opened this topic (see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 53#Using West Philippine Sea in articles). I have been reverting some instances of WPS to SCS (see here), using the said discussion as rationale. However, it appears there have been recent changes from SCS to WPS especially in some meteorological articles. Searching the term shows it is being used in meteorological articles like Tropical Storm Gaemi (2012) and 2022 Pacific typhoon season.

Should we now embrace the term and start to use it in various articles, from Laoag and Occidental Mindoro to 2025 Pacific typhoon season and Typhoon Bualoi? Or, should we maintain the current status quo at only using names officially recognized by the International Hydrographic Organization (even if it appeared to show pro-Beijing bias concerning Benham Rise which was substantially condemned by many Pinoys), just like the enWiki consensus concerning Gulf of Mexico vs. "Gulf of America" (both WPS and GoA were made possible through declarations by a PH and a US President, respectively).

I'll ping several users for their comments, inputs, and critiques:

I hope there is a way for this topic to be retained (no archiving) for the meantime, until there is firm and concrete consensus within Tambayan Pilipinas WikiProject on whether to use West Philippine Sea in articles or not. Possibly, a mention on WP:MOSPHIL to be made by an editor uninvolved in this discussion. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another ping, @Quake1234: who created the Typhoon Kajiki (2025) article with the sea name used as default. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written with only one use of West Philippine Sea later in article when the Typhoon entered this area as defined by Philippine Met Office in source this seems appropriate use of the two terms to me. Even as originally written it quickly noted emergence into South China Sea which simply reflected over reliance in my view by original editor on Philippine orientated sources - neutral news sources like Reuters/BBC or even better something like GDACS which were available in same time frame can have advantages even for breaking developments when used to develop the lead for sudden onset significant disasters. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More pings: @A1Cafel: who expanded the Tropical Storm Gaemi (2012) article with the sea name used as default; @Wiscomiller: who substantially contributed to "Tom Villarin" article, using WPS as the default name for the sea; @NameDeustorm: who expanded a section of 2022_Pacific_typhoon_season, using WPS as the default name; and @Deadjurists: who expanded the "Philippine Law Journal" article in 2014 with WPS name used as a default. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Philippine Sea should be fine to use in articles. It is not the same as the South China Sea and is delineated. -Object404 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that "South China Sea" should remain the default term to be used. The term West Philippine Sea is not used internationally. When they do get mention its like "portions of the South China Sea which Manila calls as WPS" by AFP, Reuters, et al.. Its only our media, the Philippine media which uses West Philippine Sea in weather reports. Officially, West Philippine Sea is the eastern part of the South China Sea. We aren't here to WP:SOAPBOX to push our government's POV.
Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view is that WPS should be fine to use, especially now that it's now explicitly stated under Philippine law in RA 12064, along with the prior tribunal result which is recognized by international countries. By the way, the article should be updated to reflect the new law. Regards, 👦 14:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hariboneagle927, using the common international term is the guidance of WP:UEGN. There is a bit of a technicality in WPS being used as noted to mean only part of the SCS, however in a similar spirit if external sources are not commonly making that distinction neither should we. CMD (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Hariboneagle927. More generally, the International Hydrographic Organization publication titled Limits of Oceans and Seas, which serves as an international standard for hydrographic surveying and nautical charting, should be the go-to definitive reference for relevant naming in Wikipedia articles. Deviations from this should be clarified either inline or in an explanatory footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that "West Philippine Sea" is not actually a body of water (in a geological or hydrographical sense) but is rather a legal delineation of sovereignty that the Philippines claims. So when you are referring to a real body of water, then the "South China Sea" would be the preferred term. For example: "Mindoro Strait is a body of water in the Philippines that connects Sulu Sea to the southeast with South China Sea to the west and separates the island of Mindoro to the northeast with Busuanga Island to the southwest." —seav (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest South China Sea must remain the default as West Philippine Sea is not understood well in what is an international encyclopedia. All I can say is that in my recent experience rational discussion of the names of geographical features is hardest when two religions have differing names for the feature, which does not apply to this debate. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I’m concerned we are bound by the common names in Wiki articles. There is no reason for the local project to take greater precedence over the encyclopedia as a whole in that case. Borgenland (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct analogy that we use PAGASA names for typhoons instead of JMA's, would it also be correct to use WPS vs. SCS, especially if the source uses it?
FWIW, I would prefer to use SCS, but there could be issues if the WP:RS uses another term. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may leave the "declaration of consensus" and modification of MOSPHIL rules to an uninvolved editor. I'll also leave the job of searching for the WPS or for the SCS terms to other editors/users. Partially due to personal and off-wiki things, and partially to focus more on wikis that are less known to most Pinoys, like Wikimedia Commons, Tagalog Wikipedia, and Hiligaynon Wikipedia (the last mentioned is still confined in the Incubator Wiki, though). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Panfilo Lacson#Requested move 11 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Panfilo Lacson#Requested move 11 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was closed as a no consensus defaulting to status quo. Would've wanted more input for us to have a definitive decision on this and on other similar cases. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the "legally recognized, populated place" notability standard

[edit]

Please see here to take part: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#RFC on the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard, which touches on the notability of Barangays. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: The discussion is longer than most WP:FAs. What's the deal on this? Is the discussion about removing this clause, or the removal of the WP:SNG? Or something else? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's ultimately about whether the "legally recognized, populated place" standard should change. A !vote to disagree signifies that you are satisfied with this standard. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance "legally recognized, populated place" seems to be reasonable, but we'd have to determine what "legally recognized" and "populated place" means. For example, in barangay AFDs, I brought up the example of Manila's Barangay 666 vs. Bataraza's Rio Tuba. Someone said that since Rio Tuba is geographically saeparated from the rest of the Bataraza main settlement, it counts as a separate settlement, a "populated place". There are several hundred cases such as this in rural Philippines where the barangays are far apart from the poblacion. Meanwhile, Barangay 666 is not a separate "populated place" as it is a part of the larger Manila megapolis; someone could argue that Santa Maria, Bulacan to Batangas City is one big "settlement", probably not "legally recognized". Rio Tuba was later was redirected to Bataraza by Hueman in 2021 without benefit of a discussion, after the Tarusan AFD, but one could argue that it indeed is a separate settlement from Bataraza, as it can sustain the population by itself. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bataraza>Rio Tuba example above brought to mind that three barangays of the Romblon, Romblon are Logbon, Alad, and Cobrador islands (Logbon and Alad are visible in this image in the municipality article -- Cobrador is a bit northwest of Alad [1]). Contrasting this, three batangays of the municipality of Malay, Aklan, Balabag, Manoc-Manoc, and Yapak, are located on and together cover Boracay island. Offhand, I would say that Boracay as a whole is a "populated place"; the other islands mentioned as well, probably. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three barangays of Boracay together are indeed a "populated place", but collectively as a whole is not "legally organized", unless Boracay per se becomes its own municipality, so Boracay as "an artificial feature" fails WP:GEOLAND. Boracay the geographical feature itself should pass WP:GEONATURAL, a geographical feature which also happens to have a permanent human population. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tiendesitas#Requested move 21 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tiendesitas#Requested move 21 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distruptive user changing the coat of arms in Philippine historical articles.

[edit]

This is frustrating, it seems that an anonymous user keeps making disruptive changes. For some reason they keep making random (often anachronistic changes) such as using a Marcos era presidential seal for Manuel Roxas or changing the coat of arms in the Republics page (First Republic, Second Republic, etc.)

Another common behavior is they either just repeat the name of the article in all caps as edit summaries (ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA), have the same quirks (manuel ele quezon), or make edit summaries in Thai.

So far the affected articles I can name of are:

This user seem to be smart making sure none of the accounts get banned when the warns and reversions comes. They would lie low after being warned. Honestly I don't know where to begin with here and how to report this to ANI if ever. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing will do. Otherwise you can file RFP. Borgenland (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Borgenland, send any page straight to RfPP. The IP seems at least somewhat dynamic so blocks are ineffective. CMD (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Collab Edition 2.0

[edit]

Hello. Can you finding and adding anymore information regarding the upcoming Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Collab Edition 2.0 that would be beginning tomorrow...??!! Thanks. 2402:8780:1022:7FD9:E830:D970:13E2:7242 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as WP:RS for this show? Anything from ABS-CBN and GMA will be considered as WP:PROMO, even the most disinterested hard news articles.
For Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Collab Edition, its tasks and challenges sections are virtually unreferenced, and only "The Big Night" section has references from third parties. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Philippine Science High School Central Luzon Campus#Requested move 21 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Science High School Central Luzon Campus#Requested move 21 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines&oldid=1319697205"