Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines
Main | Discussion | Assessment | Requests | Members | Articles (Featured · New · Popular) | Sources | Portal |
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. |
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. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Pinoy Wikipedia on social media
|
User:Naniwoofg
[edit]Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been making problematic "update of images" in several articles. The Taft Avenue image problem is just the tip of the iceberg; the user's talk page shows numerous messages regarding their problematic edits, many of the messages were from me. One example is their insistence on this image (claiming it as updated image of Quezon Memorial Shrine), even if the image does not properly show the sculpture as the fireworks obfuscate it and distract the intended subject of the image. They were also involved in changing Kalaw Avenue image twice (to the images that are inferior to the currently-used infobox image).
With numerous issues on images involved by this user, is it ripe to sanction this user? I'll leave the reporting of this user to WP:ANI to other users, but I hope this discussion serves as the start of multiple discussions concerning the problematic behavior of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that they have published problematic edits for several months now. I checked their contributions and saw that they had dozens of reverted edits. Most were edits that replaced images with new "good" or "high" quality images. Now, I can't check them all since they amount to more than 50 revisions, but judging by how many notices there were on their talk page, I'm a bit surprised that this user is not sanctioned yet despite this. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This user seems to put recency at a premium. As with the Quezon Memorial Shrine example above, I've reverted his edit on Senate of the Philippines, as the photo, while still far away, may still violate FOP, and for chamber articles, the indoor photo is preferred. The indoor photo is older than most kids, but it hasn't changed from the current one, unlike the House, so it still is "recent". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Also to add, the user was involved in some attempts to use Commons images of Philippine monuments in which the monuments themselves are incidental or trivial, while at the same time removing the fair use images of the monuments (therefore risking the activation of a 1-week countdown to deletion by bots). The user does not seem to understand the reason why local and lesser quality images of such public monuments are needed, considering the Philippine law (RA 8293) not granting Freedom of Panorama of any sort for any public objects still under copyright. Example: this one concerning the Statue of the Sentinel of Freedom. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've yet reverted one more unconstructive edit by Naniwoofg. Naniwoofg apparently doesn't understand the absence of Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The user has not engaged outside of edit summaries and has inconsistent implicit rationale for their image updates. What I observe is they often, but not always, insist on using higher resolution images even if the image is subjectively inferior, content/context wiseHariboneagle927 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Are there any actions made to sanction this user, at least temporarily? They continue to do the same edits, in different articles, and some of the user's edits were reverted, like this, this, and this. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about this as our political party results tables are not consistent, are a mess, and do not conform to WP:MOS. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
What do we do with the List of bus routes in Metro Manila article?
[edit]Edit: Sorry for those who were pinged on this post. I thought the article had a lot of outdated routes based on my experience of seeing buses using their old route names instead of their new ones, which prompted me to inconclusively ask whether the list of routes was outdated. Please disregard. Thank you. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs)
Requested move at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)