Talk:Kalesa

"Calesín:" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Calesín: has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Calesín: until a consensus is reached.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Issues

I will be working on the article to fit it into the standard format for horse-drawn carriage articles. Some of the issues with the current version include:

• excessive multi-language clutter from 5 language variations (Tagalog, Cebuano, Spanish, Philippine Spanish, Filipino) which violates MOS:OTHERLANG and makes the text very hard to read
• details such as horse commands, which violates WP:NOTHOWTO
• overlinking to common terms, such as to "trade unions"; see MOS:OVERLINK

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Finished.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Modern kalesa horse welfare

In case anyone is interesting is adding content about the animal welfare angle (not my cup of tea), I point to numerous images in c:Category:Calesas and its subcategories of horses that are seriously overworked and broken down, and wearing unusually restrictive tack and 'additives' such as installed blindfolds.

Samples:

• Blindfolds: here, here, here, here, here, here.
• Action devices such as rollers: here, here, here, here.
• Scars from falling or injuries: legs, knees, knees.
• Signs of lameness by point front legs (indicating pain, strain or muscle exhaustion): here, here — too numerous to list more samples
• Signs of exhaustion (lowered heads): here
• Underweight: here
• Over at the knee (sign of long term strain): here

I'm not an animal welfare person, but thumbing through the image category (over 320 images) just to find samples to illustrate this article about carriages showed such a high percentage of "abuses", that I'm sure its well documented, and could deserve a mention in the article. The images sampled in this thread are just a few of the numerous images I saw over and over. Any one or two of these things might be normal for a particular horse, however many of the photographs show multiples of these things, as well as a high percentage of the photographs showing exhausted and broken down horses.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Restored some paragraphs

I have restored several sourced removals. The paragraph on commands are not WP:HOWTO. They provide important cultural and historical context since they use Spanish, which is not spoken anymore by the majority of Filipinos (including modern cocheros). It's the reason the sources take the time to explain them in the first place. Along with other historical notes that are unknown by most Filipinos today (they drive on the left, etc.). As a foreigner, these may seem like irrelevant trivia to you, but as a Filipino, these things are important for the article. It's a question of preserving the knowledge of these things on a form of transport that has largely disappeared.

I have also restored the second section's heading to Description, because arbitrarily narrowing it down to "design" doesn't make sense. Same with the History section. "Historical context" seems like an unnecessary rephrasing of a standard article section heading.

Lastly, I have also removed the terminology section and merged its contents back to Description. It is redundant and unnecessarily divorces the word origins from where they were discussed. --~2026-36913-32 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Having sources for content doesn't mean such content should be included in the article. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

The horse-commands list is a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Even the English-language article for horse driving, Driving (horse) doesn't list horse commands. Your argument that the commands preserve disappearing knowledge is not a valid justification under Wikipedia's content rules. The commands are HOWTO content unless they are presented as a brief historical note. However, your version presents them as operational instructions, which violates WP:NOTHOWTO. A cultural-preservation argument does not override MOS or NOTHOWTO. If the commands are historically notable, they can be summarized in the "Modern usage" section like: "Though Spanish is no longer widely spoken, cocheros use Spanish-derived commands for the horses." Then cite the source. If readers want details, they can check the source.

Sprinkling multiple language variants all throughout the prose violates MOS:FOREIGN ("Non-English terms should be used sparingly.") and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC ("Use non-English vocabulary sparingly"). WP:CLARITY says "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting." Multiple spellings and dialect variants in running prose violate these guidelines and reduce readability. Multiple foreign-language terms belong in a Terminology section, not scattered throughout the prose. It is more appropriate to have a Terminology section that explains why multiple variants exist ("With more than 130 languages spoken in the Philippines..."). That is the correct place for multiple dialect spellings. Sprinkling Filipino, Tagalog, Cebuano, Spanish, and Philippine Spanish variants throughout the prose invites future editors to add even more variants. Consolidating them in Terminology keeps the article readable.

Headings such as "Design" and "Historical context" are standard subheadings in carriage articles. See Outline for carriage articles. The article is titled "Kalesa", which means the scope of the article is the vehicle itself, not techniques of driving horses, nor should it be broadened to content which would be appropriate in Horse driving in the Philippines (except under "Historical context" or "Modern usage").

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the MOS-compliant version, added a short historical note about the horse commands based on the sources, and included a mention of the Tuguegarao and Cabagan festivals under Modern usage.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grorp: And I have restored it again. Arbitrarily adding limits to what we can place here is nonsense, WP:NOTPAPER. Neither is this a summary that requires clicking external links to learn more.

The content of general articles is irrelevant here. This is not a general topic. This is a specific Philippine topic, and a cultural icon at that. See the banner above? It's a HIGH-importance Philippine topic. Which you aren't even familiar with, given again, you're not Filipino. The removed content is reliably-sourced. So I can challenge it all I want.

Your removal and changes are seemingly based purely on your stylistic preferences. Not WP:MOS. The article was already MOS-compliant before your changes.

WP:MOS has never been this specific about what it wants, nor is it meant to be. There is nothing there that says alternative terms should not be mentioned. Or that a specific number of foreign terms in an article need to be kept. Or that sections need to be specifically titled this or that. I fail to see what parts exactly were non-MOS-compliant.

Commands

I expanded the sentence on commands originally (it isn't my original addition); then rephrased it in my last edit. It does not teach you how to drive a kalesa. It merely enumerates the commands and what they mean. Which is the key thing here. Again, the meaning of the commands is culturally important. You are not the one who determines that. At least two authors have found it WP:NOTABLE enough to discuss the commands extensively. And they were not writing how-tos either.

Same thing with other details which you seem to find "trivial" because it's not your culture. Like where they drove on. Are you even aware that modern vehicles in the Philippines drive on the right? The fact that kalesas drove on the left before the American colonial period of the Philippines is significant historical information, that you probably can not appreciate.

Terminology and foreign terms

And you not being Filipino is also evident in your insistence on a separate "Terminology" section. The fact that there are "130 languages in the Philippines" (which isn't even true, there are 170+) has nothing to do with the difference in modern terminology. It's because of the shift of the lingua franca from Spanish to English/Tagalog that their meanings have gradually generalized over time (same reason why the commands have fossilized and why most people don't understand them).

The terminology section also REPEATS the terms of the previous section. It is redundant. And seems to have been made purely so you can remove the more direct parenthesized alternative terms in the section they were being discussed in. There is no valid reason for you to do so, other than again, your stylistic preference.

Even your MOS:FOREIGN argument is baffling. This is an article on a FOREIGN (to you) subject. Of course it will have foreign terms! This article does not violate MOS:FOREIGN in any way. The alternative terms in parentheses are necessary, succinct, and use the correct {{lang}} templates.

And they are used sparingly. If it had listed how kalesas are called in all "130 languages of the Philippines", then yes, that'd be a MOS:FOREIGN overkill. But no. It's just Spanish and the Tagalog equivalent. Both are ALWAYS needed in articles like this on a Spanish-inherited Philippine topic, because they are used interchangeably in sources.

"Design and variations" and "Historical context"

The Description and History headings are STANDARD in most Wikipedia articles. Narrowing "Description" down to "Design" when it doesn't even discuss design fully is nonsensical. There's nothing in it that discusses their construction, ornamentation, regional design variations, etc. It's supposed to be a general section that discusses WHAT kalesas are. You just want to change the section heading to something specific to justify your removal of content.

History is History. It is the simplest heading for the section which discusses the history of the subject. Airplane#History, Castle#History, Jeepney#History, Motorcycle#History, Rickshaw#History, and so on. It is the standard heading of most Wikipedia articles. And you expect me to believe "Historical context" is more "MOS-compliant." It just sounds weird, as if it's an event that happened in a certain time period. I have never even encountered a section with that heading in my years here.

Ironically enough though, "historical context" is exactly the reason why I'm restoring the content you removed.

I have reverted your changes again (though I should note that the rest of your previous constructive changes are unchanged, it's not a blanket revert). --~2026-36913-32 (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hostile comments about an editor's nationality or cultural background are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, discussions should address sources and policies, not personal characteristics. Also read WP:OWN.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grorp: How is it hostile? It is true and is the reason why you can not fully understand the context of the article. And why you also do not understand the necessity of multiple alternative "foreign" names, in an article from a multilingual culture.

You are the one removing sourced content on a topic you're not really that familiar with. Sourced content that are neither controversial or promotional nor connected to me. There is no egregious policy violation here. It's really just your own opinion on what the article should look like, which I happen to disagree with.

My response was triggered by the fact that you brought up MOS:FOREIGN, as if calling a thing by its actual name in the specific languages where they are actually used was somehow a violation of Wikipedia policy because they're not in English. Isn't that more insulting than just me pointing out you're not Filipino, yet you're making the personal stylistic decisions on what's important to keep or not in an article on a Philippine subject?

Read Wikipedia:Systemic bias to understand my perspective. I have already laid out my "non-personal" reasons for why I restored those paragraphs. I'll fade into the ether again before this devolves any further. There's a reason why I'm an IP editor. And no I'm not banned and I'm not a clueless random.

It's because I'm dead tired of WP:Wikilawyering every little thing. Even something as inconsequential as Philippine Spanish horse commands. That discourages contributions more than some silly little thing like pointing out your background (which is not in any way a personal attack).--~2026-36913-32 (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I will address the conduct concerns one last time. Comments about an editor's nationality, cultural background, or presumed ability to understand a topic are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, discussions should focus on policies, sources, and article content—not on personal characteristics or identity. Personal comments, adversarial framing, and assumptions about other editors are unproductive as they make constructive discussion more difficult, tend to escalate conflict rather than resolve it, and are inconsistent with collaborative editing. Please keep these conduct expectations in mind when participating in future discussions. I will not be engaging further on this matter.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-36913-32, your personal remarks about User:I am Grorp certainly constituted a "personal attack" under Wikipedia's WP:NPA rules. Objecting to such an attack is in no way "Wikilawyering": such attacks are simply forbidden here, and must not be made anywhere on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)