Main

Discussion

Assessment

Requests

Members

Articles (Featured · New · Popular)

Sources

Portal

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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]

For election-specific content, Category:Elections in the Philippines and its subcategories may also need to be watched. -Ian Lopez @ 13:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Municipality of Balatan#Requested move 18 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article San Mateo National High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

OR, no sources, NOTABILITY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Delectopierre (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on List of loanwords in Tagalog (Filipino) language about the title. I notice that there is a WP:MOVEWAR, proper discussion is opened. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Talk:Sabina Shoal#West Philippine Sea (and earlier Talk:Kalayaan, Palawan#POV and unattributed additions).

Should the name "West Philippine Sea" be applied to the Philippine-related articles that contain noticeable references to the disputed waters, such as Ilocos Norte, Occidental Mindoro, Agno, Pangasinan, Second Thomas Shoal, and List of ports in the Philippines?

Ping here other participants of the cited discussion thread for attention @ChaseKiwi, Object404, and Chipmunkdavis:. Also ping @Aeonx: from the thread at Kalayaan, Palawan entry's talkpage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention for any who do not read the context Talk:Sabina Shoal#West Philippine Sea before expressing an opinion there is a moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico vs. Gulf of America debate (which includes talk) until April 18, 2025. This moratorium is implicitly being honoured, since it was imposed, by those aware of the current consensus South China Sea vs. West Philippine Sea. This appears to mean that editors should not be bold in acting against current consensus on body of water naming, and it might be necessary to ask for administrative oversight if postings became off topic and being perceived to potentially bypass that moratorium. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That specific moratorium is mostly about managing disputes on that page, but in general the Gulf of Mexico is similar to the many other water bodies or parts of water bodies with multiple names, and MOS:GEO is clear on usage in that case. If the argument is the technical refinement of the definition of "West Philippine Sea", adoption of this should be shown in a wide range of sources before being reflected in en.wiki. CMD (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Phillipine Sea is the only legitimate terminology in English (noting this is English language Wikipedia), noting the conventions for naming, to represent the body of water as Governed by International Law as part of the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

It does not extend beyond the Phillipines EEZ (as sometimes mistakenly used), and it does not extend to areas under formal and internationally unresolved dispute, i.e. Any areas Outside of the 2016 Hague ruling in 2016. Anything ruled as part of Phillipines EEZ per the Hague ruling in 2016 is PART of the West Phillipine Sea.

It's not for Wikipedia to be political and adopt non-established international naming. Wikipedia would be directly serving the interest of those who seek to undermine the global rules based order established by the UN and social fabric norms.

Its really not hard to get right.

Aeonx (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Philippine Sea is only ever relevant in the context of the South China Sea dispute. In my opinion its undue to use West Philippine Sea when its not related to it such as the seaport lists, and standard municipality articles. Do we have examples of the WPS being used by non-Philippine-based sources outside the context of the territorial dispute? (tourist guides, academic journals, news articles, etc).

Then we have PAGASA using the term for its typhoon advisories as well.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]