Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

Hello,

I've noticed a recurring pattern across several articles for Philippine churches where a Spanish translation is included in the lead or infobox (often under the native_name parameter).

Examples include:

• Churches and dioceses: Binondo Church, Espiritu Santo Parish, Zamboanga Cathedral, Diocese of Cubao
• Universities: Ateneo de Manila University, San Beda University, and previously, De La Salle University
• Government: National Library of the Philippines

I wanted to ask whether these are necessary or appropriate, especially for entities established after the Spanish colonial period. Some of these institutions were founded well after the said era; assigning a Spanish name to them seems historically inaccurate. In many cases, these appear to be direct translations of the current English or local vernacular name, rather than a name the institution officially uses or was historically known by. Without a source, would not these be WP:NOR? Spanish is also not a current official language of the Philippines.

I am unaware if this pattern extends to other types of institutions I haven't caught yet. Therefore, I propose we generally remove Spanish names from institution leads and infoboxes unless there is a reliable source confirming the entity was historically known by that name, or if it is an official name(s) used.

I'd be happy to hear the community's thoughts on this. Ubediplomacy (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ateneo de Manila University is literally Spanglish. There's also Colegio de San Juan de Letran which is entirely in Spanish. I'd say institutions that were created before 1899 can have their Spanish names. San Beda and La Salle I suppose should have their Spanish names justified. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I was referring to the name Universidad Ateneo de Manila in the lead. Ateneo became a university and adopted its current Spanglish name in 1959, having previously been known as Colegio de San Jose, Ateneo Municipal de Manila, and later Ateneo de Manila. Ubediplomacy (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Spanish was in use on official documents well into the 1950s. We have Supreme Court decisions and congressional records on that language.

I'd figure it's similar to Latin names on universities. Latin was never spoken here but it's listed in infoboxes. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

In addition, Spanish was in use well into the 1940s. So I guess San Beda and La Salle can argue for its usage. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Ubediplomacy. I'm likely the only fluent Spanish speaker here, so allow me to chime in. (I would invite other fluent Spanish speakers, if any, to chime in here as well.)

I actually have guidance on the use of Spanish names for Philippine entities on the Spanish Wikipedia, and I will reiterate the same advice here but modified to account for the fact that this is the English Wikipedia. I personally think that if an institution has historically had a Spanish name which has been used in WP:RS, it should be included. Government institutions (the NLP, for example, has its Spanish name there because there are Spanish-language NLP publications as recently as the 1960s) and even some businesses have Spanish names and it makes sense for them to be there. Companies like Philippine National Bank, Philippine Airlines and Ayala Corporation have Spanish names, but Metrobank, Cebu Pacific and Alliance Global do not, so obviously let's not use Spanish names where they don't exist. This is different for things like churches, which are usually translated regardless of language.

The language's lack of official status to me here is unimportant, but obviously we can't expect it to be used everywhere on Wikipedia as if it were still official (which is something outside the scope of this discussion). I am of the belief that if a name exists and it can be proven that it has been used either by the entity itself or in public usage (for example, there are plenty of Spanish-language Philippine periodicals archived online), we should use it. Yes, put the English name first, but I would much rather include the Spanish name somewhere than remove it entirely. Remember that there are still Filipinos who speak Spanish, and better we figure out how to serve them than to just ignore them entirely. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I also agree on this with regards to many articles that have "Filipino names" based on unofficial translations not found anywhere. However, I wonder how that advice works for the other Philippine language Wikipedias like the Tagalog Wikipedia.

For example, the MRT-3's full name, Manila Metro Rail Transit Line 3, has never been officially translated into Filipino but someone wrote it into the article as Ikatlong Linya ng Sistema ng Kalakhang Riles Panlulan ng Maynila. It's not even the same name used for the Tagalog Wikipedia's article on MRT-3, which is Ikatlong Linya ng Sistema ng Metro Rail Transit ng Maynila. Notice that "Metro Rail Transit" is not even translated literally.

Assuming that the Tagalog Wikipedia sets some kind of precedent on how article names should be translated in absence of official translations, does this mean that "native names" for English Wikipedia articles should follow that or should it omit the "native name" entirely if there is no official translation? Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I remembered the naming debate we had on these train lines during the pandemic (Line 3 vs MRT-3) and we settled on the compromise "MRT Line 3" when it has even become more obvious by now that "MRT-3" is the clear frontrunner in any language. We still are seeing "Line 3" in some places.

It seems that local language Wikipedias still haven't been renamed from the original "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3". These should have been renamed by now. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I was not fond of that naming debate and I actually continue to be fundamentally opposed to the way the articles were renamed. I don't like being snooty about it, but this is a hill I am still willing to die on. The articles shouldn't have been renamed, full stop.

That said, for Philippine-language Wikipedias I will defer to their practices, but I would be an advocate for translating names where appropriate. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be written in academic language, and at least in the case of the Tagalog Wikipedia that would mean avoiding overuse of English where possible and where we can still produce a product that is understandable to the majority of readers. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The thing with "MRT-3" is that it can be English or Filipino (but not Tagalog; presumably it would be pronounced as "Ma ra ta ikatlo", and no Filipino does that). This is something that cannot be argued with "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3" which is undoubtedly English and undoubtedly not Filipino or Tagalog. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input so far. Based on the points raised, I think there’s a workable middle ground that stays within WP:RS and WP:NOR on the English Wikipedia:

• Spanish (and other language) names can be kept or added when:
  • There is a historically or officially used name in that language (e.g. in publications or the institution’s own materials), or
  • There is an attested translation in public usage,
  • and it can be backed by a reliable source.
• Spanish (and other language) names should be avoided or removed when:
  • They are just direct translations of the English or local name, with no evidence that the institution has actually used them, or
  • They are taken from another Wikipedia where the form also appears to be a direct translation rather than a sourced name that has been used historically/officially or in public usage.⁠

In cases like the MRT‑3 example raised by Ganmatthew, where translated forms appear across other Wikipedias but no officially used Filipino name is found in reliable sources, the English article can simply omit a ‎native name in Filipino. If a well‑attested Filipino name is later supported by sources, it can be added then.

Please let me know if this aligns with how you see it, or if there are points I’ve missed or misunderstood. – Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) 02:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC) – Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) 02:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is in alignment with what I think the consensus should look like. If possible, we can either codify it here, or we formally include this into MOS:PHIL. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

How would the process work for gathering consensus on this? – Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) 05:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It would happen here. If people who are part of this discussion are in agreement with what was previously discussed, then there is consensus. I don't know Howard's take on this, but I would let him chime in. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd take no position on this as this is basically "what goes in the article" type of "policy", which is essentially boils down to "it depends". This is unlike notability and article title concerns that can actually be applied to multiple articles on a binding discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The articles starting from the 2023 competitive year (since Season 11) put the two annual seasons together (e.g. 2025 MPL Philippines season combines Seasons 15 and 16 together.), but every season before that has its own article (e.g. MPL Philippines Season 9 and MPL Philippines Season 10).

To me, it feels inconsistent when navigating between articles, so with Season 17 being next week, should we consider a merge of individual seasons, a split of annual seasons, or leave it as is? Personally, I would do the first option, even though the definition of a "season" in MLBB esports is a bit loose. It could refer to one split of the year or the entire year. MarcusAbacus (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The recent 2026 PBA All-Star Weekend saw four all-stars who currently don't have articles. Zavier Lucero has a draft that was submitted for AfC; Caelan Tiongson also has an active draft. I am currently on the process of refunding Draft:JB Bahio and Draft:Alec Stockton for future work.

Any work on these drafts is much appreciated. MarcusAbacus (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's notable. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You've here for a long time. You'd know what to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I need your cooperation for all reliability here in the Philippines sources. You can join on this discussion Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources § Update in the reliability sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Every Premier Volleyball League conference article mentions a "final round". I get that it is the conference playoffs, but looking through sources and there seems to be no mention of it being called that? It isn't like the Philippine Super Liga where we can clearly identify the playoffs, it seems to be vague in the PVL's case since there is no definite answer for when it starts, maybe it's the format changing every conference and recently becoming more complicated? MarcusAbacus (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Just call it what WP:RS calls it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

To make sure, I searched for "PVL playoffs" and that gave more results. It isn't used all the time, some just call it whatever the first round is, but it is used enough to make it the more favorable term as opposed to "final round".

Also, I don't know why the "third place match" and "championship" are both part of the Finals. The championship is the Finals. MarcusAbacus (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This is something that has to be determined on article talk pages. FWIW, I would do what is being done with UAAP basketball and PBA tournament articles with no "Playoffs" level 1 section, just level 1 sections per stage "Semifinals"/"Finals", etc.

Filipino volleyball articles are incredibly difficult to standardize. No domestic league lists regular season game results sequentially except for Australian ones (arguably continental competitions anyway) and Filipino volleyball. Even the most popular domestic league, the Premier League, doesn't do what Filipino volleyball editors insist on doing. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The section per stage is also what I am thinking about. I will go ahead and forward this discussion on the PVL talk page. MarcusAbacus (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Kulintang has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday, @GerryYabes added tambayanphilippines.com to the bottom of the main Tambayan page as a "URL related to Tambayan Philippines". There appears to be no indication of who owns this domain, not in the edit summary or on the site itself (which is just a plain redirect). On top of that, I'm really wary about external links that lead to Wikipedia pages that don't go through Wikimedia infrastructure, which would be bound by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. In the interest of editor safety, I've reverted the addition, though I'm open to hearing the opinion of others on whether we should allow links like these which don't seem to serve much purpose rather than be a redirect (Wikimedia has its own URL shortener already: https://w.wiki/C9zA) and are of unknown origin (which is a privacy risk). Chlod (say hi!) 11:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have an ongoing split discussion in regards to potentially splitting the PVL men's tournaments, specifically the 2017 Reinforced Conference, 2017 Open Conference, 2017 Collegiate Conference, 2018 Reinforced Conference, 2018 Collegiate Conference. Feel free to leave your thoughts there.

For added context, my original rationale was that the wording from reliable sources implies that it is a "rebranding" and "reintegration" into the PVl rather than a "merger". I will also add that it will help with continuity, considering that the PVL men's division was both preceded and succeeded by Spikers' Turf, and some sources combine titles from both "leagues".

I still think PVL men's division records should remain in PVL-related articles, like Premier Volleyball League Most Valuable Player award, but we could also integrate those with Spikers' Turf if possible. MarcusAbacus (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)