Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Philippine politics

Okay, i am weirded out seeing this and Legislative district of San Pedro in my article alerts having been both created overnight lol. Can we decide on a uniform approach to these articles moving forward? Should people continue creating "Legislative district of foo" articles? Shall we start converting these old provincial and city legislative articles into summary lists linking to their different districts instead, following the structure in main article Legislative districts of the Philippines, with links to 1. Their inclusion in one of the twelve former senatorial districts, 2. Those current individual congressional districts located in the province or city (so that Biñan, Calamba, San Pedro and Santa Rosa are also listed in Laguna legislative districts article), and 3. Their Sangguniang Panlalawagin/Panglunsod or Provincial Board or City Council? Shall we redirect those lone legislative district articles into these new congressional district articles instead? I believe only the post-1986 congressional districts articles are missing as i have completed the older ones among the current 243 districts since we started last year. Will definitely help out in this transition and creation of the rest of the articles if there is clear direction and consensus on the best approach to these articles moving forward. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CC: Howard the Duck, dextergonzalez, Xander Wu, Emperork, jmsay, ken imperial14, please tag other editors you know who may be involved in these articles. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Point of order: Laguna-1st was reduced to just San Pedro. Was there a law that renamed what remained of Laguna-1st as San Pedro-lone, or this was just a bad case of San Pedro pride? FWIW, Laguna-1st still exists for Sangguniang Panlalawigan purposes. (Also, this should had been redistricted provincewide but now we're stuck with this naming limbo.)

1. Yes
2. Yes. However, we'd still keep the individual lone district articles for Biñan, Calamba and Santa Rosa.
3. Yes, including Municipal Council.

I'm for keeping these lone legislative district articles; these lone districts are also at-large districts of their respective local legislature. I'd also move for pluralizing "Legislative districts of foo", even the lone district ones, as these are also at the very least at-large districts of another legislature, so there are always more than one district for every "lone district" (Congress+local legislature). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how do you do this again? Lol. I hope we're all on the same page here guys.. If i understand your suggestions correctly, the article titles of ALL Legislative districts will have to be plural, even those lone district ones, to cover even their current provincial board/city or municipal council districts and former senate constituency, correct? That means renaming the above article to Legislative districts of San Pedro, Laguna giving an overview and links to 1. Laguna's 1st congressional district, 2. San Pedro City Council or if not available, just a brief summary of the city as one at-large district for its city council (San Pedro's at-large council district), and 3. Its former constituency for the upper house, the Philippines's 4th senatorial district. Btw, ive seen Santa Rosa district's RA but i cant find San Pedro's. If its a still a bill, im sure they'll find out about it sooner or later before it gets signed into law, and San Pedro will just be like Dasmariñas quickly falling back into numbered provincial district in no time teehee! ;)---

First question: Yes. Rest of the edit: There's no law creating "San Pedro's lone district", this is what's left of Laguna's 1st district, somebody just thought that it is now San Pedro-lone coz San Pedro pride. If I'd be the one in charge, I'd redirect San Pedro-lone to Laguna-1st. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I've redirect San Pedro-lone to Laguna-1st. We should overhaul the Legislative districts of Foo articles once we have completed the Congressional district articles. We should ideally nix the list of legislators from Legislative districts series (I hate how we maintain this it's pseudo-chronological it's confusing to read) and just narrate the history of how the current set up came to be, and the actual legislative districts in the LGU named in that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. That's what I had in mind as well, i guess we have a little more than an entire year to come up with the remaining existing districts before the scheduled 2022 changes. And i also think we can only really start to revamp those legislative articles once all these districts have been migrated to their own articles. Good news is weve completed 135 of the 243 so far. Will use the task force page created by HueMan for other future updates, but the rest of the contributors better be aware of the changes happening here and edit accordingly. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the project is nearing completion (we just reached 201 out of the 243) ;) i would like to remind participants (just two people actually teehee) about an earlier request for standard district maps. As you can see most districts still don't have their own maps, and those that do have maps, they are totally unlike each other. See Manila's 1st congressional district, Pangasinan's 1st congressional district, Batangas's 1st congressional district and La Union's 1st congressional district for comparison. Also the provincial or city locator maps are all jumbled up, i think Manila's districts maps and the Province in Philippines.svg type are most ideal as they dont show what dont need to be shown. Anyways, that's the first and probably the most important to-do item for now. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, these task force pages don't get the attention and love they deserve. No wonder they all dead. Lol. Ping HueMan1, cc Howard the Duck.--RioHondo (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We can perhaps ask TheCoffee (is he still around?) as he made the locator maps that we have now? If we cannot do that we'd have to ask someone else, either in identical style to TheCoffee's maps, or a whole new style altogether.

Also, if you have parties in your reference materials, can you add these to the individual Congress articles? That way, even if we don't have your references, we can still create these, and it will still be the same (at least party-wise) as if you created it. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo and Howard the Duck: While I'm eager to make locator maps for all of these, the basemap is still on the works in the background. I had to make a new one because Felipe Aira's File:PhlMapCit.svg, where I derived all my maps from, appeared to have some inaccuracies. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do have the right political map for Isabela now?

Also, that map sorta screws up when converted to PNG. Not everyone can edit vectors and PNG versions that work are handy. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Once the map is done we can finally deprecate all PNG maps. Converting them shouldn't be a problem by that time. About Isabela, maybe its districts are not contiguous at all? I'll be using the NAMRIA's data and its previous fixes here on Wiki for the most part but if you find a better source, just ping me. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: This has been discussed by Talk:Isabela (province), and there's a map that shows that all districts are contiguous, but all maps that we are basing on do not show this. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I know that map but it's kinda dubious ngl, are you sure about this? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I myself am doubtful on that map, because that's the only map in the internet that shows that. However, Congress wouldn't make a law that's wrong on this basic fact, and that there are no definitive maps of Isabela. Also, AFAIK, most borders on remote regions haven't been surveyed (still), and that certainly is remote region if there is one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, umm I believe TheCoffee has been stale for over a decade or completely dried up by now hehe ;). I look forward to seeing @HueMan's mapping skills! Btw, if distinct maps will be created, we can change those shaded colors, preferably to one that isn't used by any party. Is there? We dont want people to think that all districts and provinces belong to the Kalibapi or KBL parties with those red indicators lol thanks in advance!--RioHondo (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I was supposed to do these (historical maps) way back after recreating TheCoffee's Congress maps then but this was the time when I discovered the inaccuracies on the basemap: to the point that I could no longer deny them so, I stopped making maps indefinitely. I went back on map making later on and gathered resources for the new basemap. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 19:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, how bad was the inaccuracy? Good thing you brought up that discussion on Isabela talk regarding maps. I was gonna say no map is perfect wherever in the world hehe, and they don't have to be, so long as they are more or less close to actual locations. Like we've stuck with maps that cant even spell the municipalities right or have outdated names, or bloated in size for certain municipalities in proportion to supposedly bigger neighboring towns. And these maps even get shared on news sites. That's why i posted in that talk page to only rely on one source, so that even if there may be a few inaccuracies, they remain proportionate and conventionalized. Don't worry about districts appearing as noncontiguous on maps, there really are those districts designed by law to deviate, from main article: compact and contiguous territories where practicable. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Several errors/inaccuracies actually, mostly with the projection and alignment of some provinces (some are even disproportionate to their real size). This could be the result of stacking TheCoffee and Seav's locator maps on the top of each other and making a map out of these. But to be honest, I don't really know how Felipe Aira made that map, maybe we'll never know... Anyways, here's a preview of the basemap that I'm making: Blank map of the Philippines (draft).svg. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok i don't really know how this works but the political parties map you did for the main page looks good to me. Are you actually going to replace all locator maps in every province or lgu article? What's needed for this project is just identical district in province or city maps. If you can pattern those districts maps to the province and city locator maps found in the Provinces in Wikidata page, then were good to go. Btw, just an observation on your basemap, i don't see Sabah at its feet hehe ;)--RioHondo (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Oh crap. I totally forgot about Sabah. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo, Howard the Duck, and HueMan1: I made the city/municipality locator maps when I was fresh out of college and had a ton of time on my hands. Seav did them first for a handful of provinces (Cebu and Laguna, I think?), and I did the rest in the style he established. The land borders were traced from Google Maps-- which, back then, only had land borders in the Philippines, no actual useful map data. The city/municipality borders are traced from a mishmash of sources all over the place. I've lost the original files I used to make all these. And they were done in Photoshop, not some vector file format. I'm still an active Wikipedia user, but with family and life getting in the way I'm pretty much totally dormant as a contributor, consider me completely dried up. :) TheCoffee (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The coffee is a classic that i hope will make a comeback even as a low carb unsweetened version of the kopiko candy. ;) @HueMan, how's your coffee?--RioHondo (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Gotten quite cold. I'll get back into it once my enthusiasm decides to come back to its place. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo and Howard the Duck: I recently uploaded a more stable version of File:Blank map of the Philippines (draft).svg. I got its data from the NAMRIA. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you make land gray and waterforms white? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Sure. I still need to redraw some boundaries though. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Hello, I'm just wondering why we're using the "[Province]" "[ordinal]" district for the "[legislature]" (e.g. Cotabato's 1st district for the House of Representatives of the Philippines) format? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article titles are at Provinces nth/at-large congressional district. If you are referring to the headings in representation history tables, that's cos of the various legislatures where district was used. See List of legislatures of the Philippines. I thought that was properly explained in the articles though, hehe. I used the same format for all.;). ADD: And we'll never know when congress would evolve again and to which form.--RioHondo (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Can we simplify it to just the house/chamber's name with years? For example: House of Representatives (1947–1971), House of Representatives (1987–present). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That would work for provinces or cities that never underwent a name change hehe. As i was aiming for a standard format to be applied to all districts, i added the changes in names too because there was no Quezon's 1st congressional district for the National Assembly, only Tayabas's 1st, no Davao de Oro's 2nd congressional district for the House of Representatives before 2019, only Compostela Valley's 2nd. ;) But im open to discussing it considering the vast majority have kept their names intact through the different legislatures.--RioHondo (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Fair point, never thought of that. I guess we'll keep then—for the sake of consistency. By the way, what are the next steps to the good ol' legislative districts of the Philippines? Are we going to move singular form names to plural? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Howard the Duck:. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From what i understand from earlier discussions, those Legislative district articles will be reorganized in such a way that their congressional districts will be converted to just a section of their articles, keeping everything except the lists themselves which would be replaced by links to these new articles. Two new sections will be created for every single one of them: the provincial/city legislative districts for local SP or SB and the former senatorial districts. Both new sections would have the same content as their congressional districts section, a few paragraphs for their description and historical use, with links to the individual board or council districts if any and their former senate constituency. The local legislatures is one area i have not studied though so i'm afraid i have nothing to contribute to that section for now ;) I trust HTD has all the information regarding Sanggunians for each province and city? Once we have those information, we can start the overhaul of all legislative districts articles, with their titles all moved to plural, yes.--RioHondo (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we'd move all of these to plural. AFAIK, provincial board districts are identical to congressional districts for the most part, except for highly urbanized and independent component cities being included in congressional districts of the province they are associated with (examples are Cotabato City and Butuan); lately, there have been component cities that have been given its own congressional districts, but are still included in provincial board districts (San Jose del Monte and the cities of Laguna-1st are examples). Sangguniang Panlungsod districts are mostly the same to congressional districts with some exceptions. Sangguniang Bayan districts are always at-large save for Pateros. COMELEC has had resolutions that show seat allocations for every election, but I dunno if they save them.

It'll be interesting to see the development in places such as Biñan when it had 8 Sangguniang Bayan members for the longest time, then became a city in 2010 where it had 12 Sangguniang Bayan members elected at-large, then had its own congressional representation in 2015. Who knows they might have its own Sangguniang Panlalawigan representation once they sort out Laguna's districts in the future. Also, does anyone know how local legislatures were organized pre-Local Government Code?

Basically, the legislative districts articles should be organized this way:

1. Senatorial representation
   1. Senatorial districts
   2. Explanation of current at-large system
2. Congressional districts
   1. Malolos Congress representation
   2. 2nd Republic National Assembly representation
   3. Interim Batasang Pambansa representation
3. Provincial board districts
4. City/municipal council districts

This is where we'd be putting how they were redistricted and such, and we'd be removing the list of congressmen. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish i could be of more help but really that's as far as my knowledge on PH politics goes lol. Still have a lot more reading to do on LGU code and local matters. Lets see you do it and we'll try to look for patterns and help with the rest of the articles? ;) But yea, those are exactly what every legislative districts article should look. That's a whole bunch of districts within each LGU past and present, hence the article titles in plural. Btw, try to reach out to anyone you know who knows these things, those are very important pointers what HTD wrote there, maybe we should not be even doing user talk pages and reach out to the WP tambayan instead. Pls save this on our Task force page too. Very crucial. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Our article on Sangguniang Panlalawigan has details on how provincial boards looked like pre-LGC 1991. Our articles on Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan do not have such details, and honestly I dunno where to look. Manila City Council has details on its historical composition but I dunno if that applied to other towns and cities.

We should also be doing articles on provincial governors. We still don't have them all. Unlike the provincial boards which you don't have to list all historical members (list of current members should suffice), a provincial governor article must have a list of all governors (or at least starting from the American era). Howard the Duck (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I reorganised the article Legislative districts of Abra by following your suggestions above. Should I proceed reorganising the rest or is there something that I missed? (notifying RioHondo as well) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC).

Great work, Hue! That is exactly how every legislative article should be organized. Please proceed with the rest of the articles and we'll see what other improvements can still be made along the way. We are also waiting for the district maps lol, but no need to rush as i myself am taking my time with completing the district articles, i didnt realize there were far too many defunct districts but making them anyway to also make easier navigation. The election results per district would also need attention as i completely abandoned these sections when those boxes started acting up. But there is no deadline ;) Carry on--RioHondo (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I would've preferred having the details of every redistricting/reappopriation on each legislature at the "Legislative districts" article instead of what we are currently doing where they are one column in every congressional district article, but this should be better than we were doing on each "Legislative article of Foo" article. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Redux: Maybe it's time for us to move every "Legislative district of Foo" to "Foo's legislative districts", then transform these articles to not just include congressional representation, but provincial and city as well. For example, in the Abra example, we'd have another table with the two provincial board districts and its winning candidates.

For LGUs that have the same number of congressional and SP districts, we can put these on just one table. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

RioHondo hasn't edited since 2021. I wanted to make changes and improvement, but in deference to him as he created most of these congressional district articles, I'd wait until he returns. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@RioHondo, Howard the Duck, Dextergonzalez, Xander Wu, Emperork, Jmsay, and Ken imperial14: (and other interested spectators) I moved some of our recent discussions related to the congressional districts in the Philippines here. Now, since we're talking about senatorial districts and provincial/city/municipal boards, I think we should change this task force's name to something better. But before that, what is the scope of this task force? I'm thinking of adding elections and referendums in the Philippines here as well, since these topics and the former are generally on the same page. Another thing is the resources, I find some representatives' (especially non-notable ones) political affiliations/parties hard to verify because there's no references and sources. If anyone can find anything useful, it would be very helpful for all of us here. Thanks everyone, have a great day. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How about the all encompassing Filipino politics task force under the WP:POLITICS project like WP:AmPol? Please add Hariboneagle927 to this project, he is our main man when it comes to Bangsamoro politics. As for political parties, did you know that even sources themselves differ on many politicians parties, for example the House records books says one politico is one thing, while other year books i have say another. Id say no need to be stringent when it comes to these things as turncoats are aplenty in PH lol thats actually the norm since 1946. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The elections are upon us. There are plenty of stuff to standardize. Here are my thoughts:

1. I'm putting the changing of the political party colors to the backburner. The current colors are so well-entrenched now and changing these (more on on the maps and illustrations) will be hard.
2. In city and municipal articles, there's always a section that lists it elected officials, almost always described as "Members of the Foo Council" or similar. These include the House Rep., mayor, vice mayor and the "regular" councilors. See San Fernando, Pampanga#Elected officials. These are almost always wrong as the House rep and mayor are not members of the council, and the ABC and SK members are sometimes not included. Once the 2025 elections are over, if you guys are updating those, just change it to "Elected officials" and not "Members of the council" or similar.

Howard the Duck (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple possible types of article forms within Philippine politics. I'm going to give my suggestion to see if you'll accept it or not.

• Local politics - Sure, we might need political articles for every town, but I don't think they are notable enough, though HUC's need [[Politics of (Random HUC here)]].
• Political campaigns for specific regions - I think this is a weird idea, but we might need campaigns for specific regions, like Political campaigns in Eastern Visayas. We can also include big political campaigns for that specific region, like TrOPa in Bicol.
• Politics in the Philippines for a specific year - I think this is needed, though I feel like it's already integrated at least somewhere. An example would be Philippine politics in 1990, Politics in the Philippines in 1990, or any other possible addition.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd love a politics of <provincename> for all 82 provinces, and maybe a similar series on bigger cities.

Political campaigns can be too niche; we don't even have proper campaign sections on most election articles.

Yearly polticial articles are also too niche, but I'd be okay with articles on specific events, scandals and controversies. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the second point, but for the third point, how about for each decade? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather have our Congress and Presidency articles be expanded with prose than have this prose on articles divided arbitrarily by decades. Presidential systems have been described to have clean breaks from the previous administrations. For example, we'd split the Cory administration in two articles instead of just one. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (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)

Hello members! I finally completed the assessment table with help from Relayed and other volunteers. The only thing which is needed is to assess the articles. I assessed 75 or 100 of them and really need help to complete the load of 2,000 estimated politics articles. To any members who want to volunteer, advanced thanks! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging active members @Hueman1:, @Ganmatthew:, @Borgenland:, @Chipmunkdavis: and major helper @Howard the Duck:. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it  ?. Borgenland (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of politics-related articles that need work, and I initiated some discussions that went nowhere; I'd rather do those than to "assess" articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I dunno if Wikimedia Philippines is still active, but perhaps it can be asked for them email statistics@comelec.gov.ph for election results? Or better yet, ask COMELEC to publish actual election results to their website? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you do live counts here anyway? I’m looking forward to my first Philippine election as an editor and will be focusing on races up north. Borgenland (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Snartmatic had a dedicated website for results. The results from COCs were the official ones. Dunno how Miru Systems will do it. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles to be updated:

1. For city and municipal articles, such as say Santa, Ilocos Sur#Elected officials, the elected officials are inside a table with the caption "Members of the Municipal Council". The mayor is NOT a member of the municipal council. This should be edited as "Elected officials" or something else.
2. Election results sections of political party particles are hideous. See Lakas–CMD#Election results (now) vs. then (edited by Renamed user 3237487304); my only caveat is that it should follow MOS:COLHEAD. The current version is being maintained by YssaLang making it look like US political parties, and there was a previous version pushed by Katya2017, which was reverted by RandomCanadian who said "is not an improvement in any way, and really makes it more of an eye sore than anything". I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Lakas–CMD (1991)#Election result tables earlier this year, but went nowhere. We should really have a discussion with a lot of people participating, so that if someone imposes their preferences just like YssaLang and Katya2017, we'd have consensus on our side.

Howard the Duck (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to let the members of this task force know that I am currently working on tagging any articles within Category:Party-lists represented in the House of Representatives of the Philippines that are still not included in this task force. As of this writing, I have checked 9 of the 66 articles in that category. AstrooKai (Talk) 21:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: So far, I have added 15 party-lists to the task force.

I just wanted to ask if this is okay and if I can continue. I stopped at 15 in case this isn't right, since 12 are easy to revert and less likely to be disruptive. ^{(I'm asking this because I'm confused and curious as to why most if not all of the Philippine party-list articles are not tagged under this task force.)} AstrooKai (Talk) 21:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why these should not be included. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, just making sure. Will continue. AstrooKai (Talk) 21:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. I have added 65 articles under the category to this task force. The other one was already included. All party-list articles in that category should now be tagged under this task force. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was adding all articles that are notable in this task force, however, Rater are not automatically added in the parameters neither Politics template or Tambayan Philippines parameters and it was need to manually added on rater and it's too tiring to add. Mentioning TheNuggeteer for this help. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to add the task force to rater. I added the parameters of the task force to the documentation page for the parent WikiProject but it didn't change the rater parameters. Will update for any changes. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: It seems to have already loaded on rater. You can already use it to add articles to the task force. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There had been overhauls in electoral history results tables in party-lists. They now appear as the one found in Ako Bicol, with columns for "Election", "Votes", "%", "Secured Seats", "Congress", "1st Representative". and if applicable, "2nd Representative", and "3rd Representative". As displayed, at the very least this violates MOS:CAPS.

Previously, this was much simpler, as what is found in Ako Bisaya, with a separate section and table for representatives. Now, there should only be one way to display this. This should also look like the non-party-list results tables (which currently are horrendous).

cc: Thewideawake1 who replaced the party-list tables. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

the whole replacing the party-list tables is not my idea, but rather originated by User:Mean Boy when it started to replace the party-list table of Mamamayang Liberal party-list first. Thewideawake1 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

While replacing tables may have merits, I suppose there should be a discussion on how these should look like, vis-a-vis with non-party-list parties. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

For example, for the new iteration, it has to be discussed if the member representatives are to be displayed along with the election results, or separately as before. FWIW, none of the political party articles do it that way. With that being said, no country limits the maximum seats that can be won to three, although there's a possibility that this be amended or be struck down as unconstitutional.

Other comments:

• "Election" vs. "Year": PH non-party-lists use "Year" but should be changed to "Election" to conform to other parties elsewhere.
• "%" does not have the "%" symbol on per election entries.
• "Secured Seats" and "Party-List Seats" should be combined into one column and just omit the total number of whatever seats as partylists cannot lead the House on its own. (i.e., the one done on Ako Bisaya)

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion for party-list results tables:

Result can either be majority, minority, lost or split. This is rather important to see how and which party-lists have joined the majority and minority blocs.

Number of party-list seats or even using {{composition bar}} are irrelevant. Party can win only 3 seats, and even if there's no 3-seat cap, the most they can win 20% of seats in the House and they'd still can't comprise the majority bloc by themselves.

Howard the Duck (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927 has also been creating party-list articles and we should be settle on what table format to use. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

To add, I prefer the separate tables format (one for the election results and one for the partylist representatives). I'm good, with your suggestion for the election result. Maybe we could display the seats though as "2/3 and 0/3" or maybe even outright spelling it out "2 out of 3 possible seats" or any indication that part lists have a three seat limit for readers who are not aware of the Philippine partylist system.

For the representative table, maybe we could scrap the 1st, 2nd, 3rd representative columns altogether and just have them all in one column. I think its jarring to have some parties have 2nd and 3rd representatives even it never historically won more than one seat.

Maybe we can have these tables formatted under a template for more cohesion.

I'm not sure on how we should deal with substitutions. If there is a better way to handle it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs)

I'm ok just leaving out just the total number of seats, vs. adding the max number of seats a party can win (currently 3) or the total number of party-list seats or even the total number of seats. The reason for this is these party-lists cannot win a majority by themselves, so it doesn't make sense to add "x/3" on these.

As for list of party-list reps: There's a reason why we do these via your way because succession is hard to present. The current three columns work best. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There's also an alternative way on Gabriela Women's Party#Representatives to Congress. I'd also be amenable to that. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If no one's objecting to this, I'd be implementing this in time for the SONA this Monday. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

These are my suggestions:

• Presidential elections

Results can either be won, lost or disputed (1986) only.

No percentage symbol

• Vice presidential elections

• Senate elections

Results can either be:

1941-71:

• Won (all senators joined majority bloc solely comprised of them)
• Lost (no seats won, or all senators joined minority bloc)
• Coalition (all senators joined majority bloc, other parties are with them

1987 onwards:

• Won (all senators joined majority bloc solely comprised of them)
• Lost (no seats won, or all senators joined minority bloc)
• Majority (all other members joined majority with different parties)
• Minority (all other members joined minority with different parties)
• Split (members split into majority and minority or any other designation)

Coalitions/alliances/senatorial tickets are not mentioned unless the party ran all of its candidates under that banner, which would then be colspanned.

• House of Representatives (districts) elections

Results same with Senate above.

General comments:

• Separate ballot questions have separate tables. Ergo, president and vice president tables are on separate sections, and Senate and House tables are also on separate questions.
• No "outcome" column on who won.
• Minimal use of colors, only on {{composition bar}} and results column. Absolutely no colors on cells that have links (candidate column).

Howard the Duck (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If no one's objecting to this as per WP:SILENCE, I'd be implementing this in time for the SONA this Monday. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

We WP:NPOL; for those who are not cabinet or Congress members, they should satisfy WP:GNG. We have already seen AFDs on local officials where the article is deleted, and we have AFC submissions for the president's family members, and even Mamamayang Liberal members (who are not even politicians) listed. Do we really need these? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I just wanted to let you know that I’ve added the following House committee articles to this task force (as well as to WikiProject Politics for some). Some of them weren't even tagged under the Philippine WikiProject or completely unassessed.

I also fixed all broken section links in few of them (because they all have broken links), most were pointing to district sections that no longer exist and have since become stand-alone articles. I’m inviting everyone in the task force to help fix these whenever you can. While there are bots intended to handle these issues, they only place {{Broken anchors}} in the talk page and still requires manual fix. These broken links aren't critically harmful, but fixing them can improve the experience for readers who rely on those links for navigation.

Also pinging @Emperork, the creator of all of these articles, to be informed.

P.S. I didn't expect for all 80 House committees listed in Category:Committees of the House of Representatives of the Philippines to be not tagged under this task force, with some even to the Philippine WikiProject, hence the very long list. I just kept adding them to the list one-by-one as I finish tagging them. AstrooKai (Talk) 00:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I made edits here but thank you for doing this. Emperork 🐋🐰 20:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to make for politics articles: Electoral history articles for long-serving Filipino politicians. For example: Juan Ponce Enrile. He has five terms as a senator, three terms as a congressman, and has multiple failed candidacies. It would be neat to put that in a separate article, far from the appointments of Enrile. I gained this because I saw electoral history articles for long-serving American politicians and I want to replicate this for the Philippines. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Election results are hard to come by for prior to 2010. It's conceivable to find election results online for 1953 (or so) to 1971. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should focus primarily on national candidates. There are barely any local results for elections before 2010 (there are some newspapers covering this topic), but for national results, there are verifiable records and online sources about the results of these elections. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you know where to find election results when Enrile ran for Congress in 1992? We have Results of the 1984 Philippine parliamentary election and Results of the 1978 Philippine parliamentary election. We have stats for every Senate candidacy that he had.

You'd always run into a nationally-elected politician finding himself running in a local race more so post-1987 due to term limits. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ronald dela Rosa#Requested move 7 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:September 2025 Philippine protests#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Interested members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Propose infobox political movement regarding a potential political movement infobox. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There has been a recent spate of edits recently in articles such as Demonstrations in support of Rodrigo Duterte and 2025 Philippine anti-corruption protests by a small number of users to reflect the claim that DDS protesters intend to dethrone BBM to put Sara in office.

While I agree, and I think everyone in the Philippines is aware of it now, Wikipedia is not r/Philippines or Facebook, and I'm not aware of any reliable source that says the "quiet part out loud". The said articles might be suffering from WP:NPOV problems. Neko Cherise Sapphire Star (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I've just finished doing mass quality assessments on some of previously unassessed political articles (see list below). I've also added them under this task force (some were not tagged into this task force), but I'll leave the importance assessments for you all to review and assign.

I also set the short description of the election articles to none (even on articles with existing short descriptions) since that seems to be the established convention for election articles. If that was a wrong decision in some or all articles, feel free to revert or revise it.

If you notice any inaccuracies in the quality assessments, please don't hesitate to correct them as well.

1. 2007 Batangas local elections
2. 2010 Bicol Region local elections
3. 2010 Bulacan local elections
4. 2010 Cagayan Valley local elections
5. 2010 Calabarzon local elections
6. 2010 Central Luzon local elections
7. 2010 Central Visayas local elections
8. 2010 Cordillera Administrative Region local elections
9. 2010 Eastern Visayas local elections
10. 2010 Laguna local elections
11. 2010 Marilao local elections (unreferenced)
12. 2010 Metro Manila local elections
13. 2010 Meycauayan local elections
14. 2010 Mimaropa local elections
15. 2010 Pateros local elections
16. 2010 Taguig local elections
17. 2010 Valenzuela local elections
18. 2010 Western Visayas local elections
19. 2013 Angeles City local elections
20. 2013 Biñan local elections
21. 2013 Bocaue local elections
22. 2013 Bukidnon local elections (unreferenced)
23. 2013 Calamba local election (added tags for maintenance)
24. 2013 Dasmariñas local elections (unreferenced)
25. 2013 Imus local elections (unreferenced; added tags for maintenance)
26. 2013 Lipa local elections (unreferenced; added tags for maintenance)
27. 2013 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections
28. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Cagayan Valley (added tags for maintenance)
29. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Caraga (added tags for maintenance)
30. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Luzon
31. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Eastern Visayas (added tags for maintenance)
32. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Mimaropa (added tags for maintenance)
33. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Soccsksargen
34. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
35. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Cordillera Administrative Region
36. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Zamboanga Peninsula (added tags for maintenance)
37. 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Western Visayas
38. 2013 Quezon local elections (added tags for maintenance)
39. 2013 Tacloban local elections
40. 2013 Taguig local elections
41. 2013 Valencia, Bukidnon, local elections
42. 2013 Zambales local elections (unreferenced; added tags for maintenance)
43. 2016 Batangas local elections
44. 2016 Cabuyao local elections
45. 2016 Pangasinan local elections
46. 2016 Sarangani local elections
47. 2019 Batangas local elections
48. 2019 Lipa local elections
49. 2019 Meycauayan local elections (changed tags for maintenance; stub sorted)
50. 2019 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections
51. 2019 Nueva Ecija local elections
52. 2019 Tacloban local elections
53. 2019 Tanauan local elections
54. 2019 Tarlac local elections
55. 2022 Philippine presidential election in Abra (added tags for maintenance)
56. 2022 San Miguel, Bulacan local elections
57. 2022 Tacloban local elections
58. 2022 Zamboanga City local elections
59. 2025 Antipolo local elections
60. 2025 Aurora local elections
61. 2025 Bataan local elections
62. 2025 Cavite local elections
63. 2025 Dagupan local elections
64. 2025 La Union local elections
65. 2025 Nueva Ecija local elections
66. 2025 Olongapo local elections (added tags for maintenance)
67. 2025 Pampanga local elections
68. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Calabarzon (added tags for maintenance)
69. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Caraga
70. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Luzon
71. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Northern Mindanao
72. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in Soccsksargen
73. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Davao Region
74. 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Ilocos Region
75. 2025 Tarlac local elections
76. 2025 Urdaneta, Pangasinan local elections
77. 2025 Zambales local elections
78. 2026 Antipolo's 2nd congressional district special election (added tags for maintenance)

Best regards, AstrooKai (Talk) 13:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

These are not really "general political" articles, but election articles. There should be discussion on which classes of articles are appropriate. General elections articles are usually notable and would never be deleted. Specific articles to national positions have never be challenged in AFD and would almost certainly be kept due to depth of coverage.

1. President and vice president
   • There can be a discussion if we'd have separate articles on vice presidential elections
2. Senators
3. House representatives

Local elections are another matter. We've had local elections per LGU, and provincial and independent city level have not been tested at AFD except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections which was closed as "no consensus". Personally, provincial-level and independent city-level local election articles should be notable, but just as illustrated with some recent AFDs, topics before internet became a thing are very hard to source, as it's easy to argue "the article has no WP:GNG coverage" when it could have been "there's obviously WP:GNG coverage but we cannot find it". As for component city and municipal-level elections, there are several ones (such as the Calamba series) and I would be interested on how those hold up at AFD.

Then there are the local elections by region series created by Migs005 such as 2022 Philippine local elections in Western Visayas. I've tagged this for splitting for it to be classified into per LGU level, but no one wants to talk about it. Almost all of these are sourced purely on databases (just COMELEC election results).

Then there are congressional elections by region series such as 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Ilocos Region. I've originated this series in 2010, other people have continued this series, and I'd argue that congressional elections are more appropriately organized per region rather than per LGU. There's one such article on this series which was deleted due to it not having sources.

Then the are party-list election series such as 2010 Philippine House of Representatives party-list election. I've created some of these articles and Imagine that these can be easier to source because the party-list system has very much been litigated to death by now.

Then there are presidential elections by province series such as 1998 Philippine presidential election in Cavite created by Walter H. White. These are supposedly sourced to Dieter's book, but I can tell you that the book does not have per province totals; ergo, the article series are entirely unsourced. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the only one unsourced in the article series is 1998, which after you pointed it out, I just realized it is outsourced. Walter H. White (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Then there are several subarticles of these, such as candidates, nominees, and winners lists. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bongbong Marcos#Requested move 12 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know that there is a discussion at 2028 Philippine presidential election where someone proposed to make a 2028 Philippine vice presidential election (see discussion here). Do y'all agree with this? and if yes, should we even make "____ Philippine vice presidential election" since 1935? The Philippines is one of the countries where the Vice President is elected seperately by a popular vote and the Vice Presidential race is also watched and discussed by many sources. By the way, India has two articles where the presidential and vice presidential election are two different articles. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be an issue. The vice presidential election has been covered extensively since and including 2004, and you can argue 1986-1998 have been covered similarly. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

so. Do you agree we should split and make "____ Philippine vice presidential election" since 1986? Also if we do make a article for rice presidential elections, do we still have to include "running mate" in presidential and vice presidential? Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Yes on both infoboxes ideally.

Splitting can be tricky on the background section. For example, Estrada (1992), Arroyo (1998) and Duterte (2022) all sought the presidency at one point but fell down the ticket. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just made the article (first one), see 2028 Philippine vice presidential election. Currently the background is empty. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick question, I went to the edit histories of the presidential elections in 2022, 2016, and 2010 and when the unofficial vote count (for example those "Halalan" websites from ABS-CBN or GMA) were released for those elections on election day, why wasn't the unofficial vote count and that "percentage of votes in green bar" be put inside the infoboxes during election day or until the official results are published? Other countries do this, why can't we? Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose people here prefer the "partial and official" totals from the national board of canvassers. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the ones hosted by the journalistic websites are accurate too right? Look at Halalan 2022 - ABS-CBN, it literally says "Partial, unofficial results aggregated from comelec data" Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Every voter statistic in the Philippines from 1987 is COMELEC data. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, infoboxes are meant to be summaries; AFAIK we have not added partial and unofficial tallies in the main article prose ever since automation in 2010. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

we could maybe change that in 2028, most countries that has partial results puts is in the Infobox and it constantly updates. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

If these "unofficial and partial" results won't be added on the article prose, these should not be in the infobox. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could add something like

Example:

"As of May 9, 2028, 12:59PM, VP John Doe is currently leading the presidential election with 12,877,652 votes against Secretary James Doe with 8,986,242 votes, Senator Eddie Doe with 7,108,254 votes, and 5 others. [insert citation]."

And we would just constantly update it, these partial and unofficial votes hosted by these news companies don't update that fast. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a very wasteful use of Wikipedia resouces, if we're doing this every time there's a new data dump on election night, WP:NOTNEWS and all. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, no article has done what you are proposing, at least on the prose, even once official results are known. Wikipedia is absolutely not the place for this. Maybe do this at X/Twitter? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

i mean, is it really mandatory to need a of the "partial votes" in the article prose? Look at this Example, this doesn't state the partial count in its prose. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That article has an empty "results" section. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, FWIW, article have states "this candidate leads based on preliminary results", but never actual results in prose or in the infobox. That should be enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Philippine Senate lockdown#Requested move 13 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ronald dela Rosa#Requested move 14 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Win Gatchalian#Requested move 14 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I created the draft for the incumbent senator's positions after a Wikipedian expanded her stance on foreign policy, but the content is too much for a section so that a draft is needed to reduce the size of the "Political positions" section. Thewideawake1 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

notifying Howard the Duck, Wilson Palacpac III, Hariboneagle927, Bagoto, Patrick Cristiano, and Rizalninoynapoleon for the draft expansion request. Thewideawake1 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Man I wanna say it like Digong "Putang ina akala mo kung sinong magutos" but I won't. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

sonion. [insert those giftok emoji] Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If both the hard left and hard right are to be believed, she is a fascist, a communist, and a puppet controlled jointly by the US, Russia, the EU, China, Israel, North Korea and Iran all at the same time. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)