Talk:Albee Benitez

All not cited informations

As what I have said, this article was an interview. All of these are his words. Thank you! ▒hÅ╓Θ╚DΦ|≈ ▓ 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Net worth

I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

E sabong platform

Link and site 49.145.75.21 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Formatting

@Jollibinay, I have read your thoughts on this matter, and while I appreciate your efforts to explain your editorial decisions, I cannot help but notice that you have cherrypicked the guidelines you cited.

First, pertaining to your question on MOS:NUMNOTES, no, a specific congressional district is not a proper noun nor a distinct technical term, it is a phrase in form and use. The template "Locality's nth congressional district" is a phrase composed of a possessive noun (the locality) and a common noun (the district). That is why we do not capitalize the whole phrase, and doing so would appear poorly written. Unlike the examples cited like "10 Downing Street", the channels, and the films, the phrase is flexible in the media and in general use; the phrase naturally appears in both the Saxon genitive and the of-genitive, as well with those variations with the numbers encoded in either numerals and in words. Because of this variation, the most effective way to go forward with respect to the MOS is to go with the variation that is the most natural, concise, and conforms with MOS:NUM, hence "Negros Occidental's third district". This is where US-based articles fall short as a basis for formatting, especially given their several perennial MOS errors, and why their conventions should not be considered here in such conflicts.

As for the article titles, the formatting before your edits was fine. Yes, MOS:SECTIONS says that section pages must be unique, but it should be unique "so that section links lead to the correct place". The length of tenure enclosed in parentheses already serves this purpose and "House of Representatives" is a clearer, more concise section title than representative, especially when in parallel with other positions. Unlike your example, George Galloway, the significance of the districts here is negligible for this purpose due to their geographic proximity and the tendency of the Philippine media landscape to note lawmakers because of their acts in office (or partly in this case, personal issues), rather than the area they represent. The districts are already emphasized near or in the lead sentence of each section; that is clear enough.

With this, I hope we can move forward more productively, though I will be reverting your edits given the above. If you would like to contest this, then please take it to the talk page, not to the edit summary. TofuMuncher (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@TofuMuncher

A named and numbered district that refers to a specific geographic area is not a proper noun? A phrase can have the same grammatical functions as a noun if it is a noun phrase. In this case, the common noun "district" is used as a component of a proper name, is it not?

That is why we do not capitalize the whole phrase, and doing so would appear poorly written.
— User:TofuMuncher

Yes, that's the formatting on Wikipedia. However, please note the Philippines' House of Representatives website (link) lists its members and their districts numbered with ordinals as figures and the word "district" with a capital D. Also, here's a bill filed by the former representative of that district (link); while he writes the ordinal as a word, he capitalizes the entire phrase as the "Third District of Negros Occidental". Is it still not a proper noun/name?

This is where US-based articles fall short as a basis for formatting, especially given their several perennial MOS errors, and why their conventions should not be considered here in such conflicts.
— User:TofuMuncher

Yes, I used US-based articles as a basis for formatting given the higher profile and large number of editors (and admins) for those articles, I was inclined to believe someone would've copyedited the formatting. I used those as a precedent since my country's (Philippines) House of Representatives was heavily patterned after theirs. Every single Wikipedia article of a U.S. representative I've read uses the format "State's nth district". But I've also noticed you also use U.S. conventions as basis for formatting for Filipino representatives (including this one)—using "at-large" (a U.S. term) instead of "lone" (the official Philippine term), but that's for another discussion.

To ensure consistent formatting for the articles for Filipino representatives you'll have to edit a lot (including past officeholders) and coordinate with the appropriate WikiProject. I'd like to ask, though: if MOS:NUM generally prefers words over numerals, why do the article titles for legislative districts in the Philippines, U.S., Japan, and France use ordinals as numerals instead of words? Meanwhile, Federal electoral districts of Mexico lists the districts with the ordinals as words, however, the articles for each district writes the ordinals as numerals. What is the real proper format so that I may follow it?

As for the section titles, additional disambiguation like "return to the House of Representatives" won't hurt. For example, Donald Trump sections are titled "First presidency (2017–2021)" and "Second presidency (2025–present)" instead of simply "Presidency (2017–2021)" and "Presidency (2025–present)". I’ve also seen "Return to…" used on articles of athletes who play for a second time on a certain team. Jollibinay (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

For the districts, this is a matter of apples to oranges. The selections you cited use certain formats because of their function and nature. The house site uses them as abbreviated labels given the layout whereas legislative bills use certain language conventions. By history, these conventions emphasize formality and ceremony, often contradicting MOS guidelines (most pertinently MOS:PHIL) making them unreliable as bases for formatting in this site. Neither sufficiently establishes a district name as a fixed, proper noun meriting consistent formatting per MOS:NUMNOTES. However, both do further prove that naming for districts remain flexible and inconsistent across documents and media, especially beside relevant prose from media. Hence, as I said, the best way forward is to apply MOS:NUM in the most natural way. Focusing on the scope of this discussion from its roots, this applies mostly to article text, from the lead to the final period. The "real proper format" per se depends on what is the most appropriate for each aspect of the article as formatting inevitably diverges for prose and article elements like tables and infoboxes. For the lead and article text, words are a must for readability and consistency. For other elements, that is another discussion beyond the scope of this one.

For the section title, this is another case of apples to oranges. Trump's return is a first for a U.S. president in more than a century. Benitez's return is commonplace for Filipino lawmakers. No quality about the two stints (other than the districts which are already negligible) makes this return different from the hundreds of other lawmakers whose return to the House is an afterthought given the full picture. Articles on athletes are irrelevant here as their content and structure grow and develop differently from that of lawmakers. I agree that additional disambiguation would not hurt; it is not just applicable in this article.

As for the lone vs. at-large, I followed the article title, not U.S. nomenclature. Since "Lone" emerged as the dominant format on a cursory search of reliable sources and legal documents, I am now open to helping correct affected text. TofuMuncher (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@TofuMuncher

Can you specify which MOS:PHIL guidelines you are citing?

Still, it would be better if it was discussed on the appropriate WikiProject and included as an actual guideline on MOS:PHIL. For example, the U.S. congressional districts were discussed in Talk:List of United States Congressional districts#Better Rename A District. and they came up with a consistent format (which according to you, is wrong). For the French arrondissements, they also discussed it in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/France- and French-related articles/Archive 1#Style for arrondissements and added it to MOS:FRANCE that the format is "Arabic numbers and English ordinality suffixes".

"I followed the article title, not U.S. nomenclature", so did I when using the "city/province's _th district" format, which apparently was based on U.S. nomenclature. After all, article titles must have followed WP:TITLE. How about for Marikina's at-large congressional district which you created? Where did you base that format? Is it also because congressional district names are "flexible and inconsistent"? It would indeed be better if the format is established on MOS:PHIL, right? Jollibinay (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, a good reading of my comment would make it clear that I meant to say that the formatting of legislative documents generally contradict the guidelines set by the MOS, which includes MOS:PHIL, particularly on the section on names and places. Going through such documents with these guidelines in mind would make it clear what style choices makes the document an unreliable source for a basis in this situation.

While your concerns have moved away from the original concern (the lead and the body), I do agree we should establish a formal guideline on MOS:PHIL on the titles of congressional districts. However, following the decisions you cited would be shortsighted as neither of these decisions take into account MOS:NUM. This would forgivable be in their situation given the most districts a represented body in their country has is generally more than 11. However, this is not interchangeable with the Philippine context where the most districts an LGU has is seven (barring speculative increases in the future).

As for the article I created three years ago, I followed a redlink, whose formatting is based on erroneous formatting. Yes, a move now would be warranted given that hindsight is 20/20, but including that record here makes it appear extraneous rather than productive. TofuMuncher (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)