Talk:Miss Universe Philippines 2024

Debuts and returns in the infobox

@Allyriana000, while that may be the case for those localities, it isn't nationwide, which is why debuts and returns were omitted from the past four articles. Moreover, introduction does not equate to implementation, which means, in the lens of past articles, the AP-selected delegates carry the same weight as non-AP delegates, and it has been established that both would not be included as debuts in the infobox because of the non-organizational nature of the latter. Now that the AP program is in place, the selection process is now consistent nationwide, which would justify the inclusion of debuts in the infobox, however, this would only make sense with 2024 as the starting point as not doing so would create a double standard inconsistent with established policy. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You are still disregarding the fact that the Accredited Partners Program of Miss Universe Philippines started way back in January 2020, and not 2024. It was already implemented in 2020 which why there is no need to put in the "debuts" those provinces/cities that have sent a delegate in previous editions just because the Accredited Partners Program was just implemented again in this edition. You will really consider all 40+ APs at Miss Universe Philippines debuting in this edition when in fact some provinces such as Iloilo City have been sending candidates through their local pageant since 2020? You're making it more complex. Allyriana000 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No source explicitly states that this is the case, and even if it is, these delegates are no different than those who chose to represent a certain locality, as they also underwent the screening process as per the sources that actually exist in MUPH-related articles. The current decision actually makes it more complex as it goes against what was stated and decided in past articles. The simplest way to go about this matter, is to again, have 2024 as the starting point, as it is the point in which the Accredited Partners Program was first implemented consistently. EdrianJustine (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have delved into the format of the second to the fourth editions of Miss Universe Philippines and the Associated Partners Programme introduced in 2020 was still in effect. However, I do not know now how to handle the situation especially other accredited partners has been sending a candidate to MUPH since 2020 despite the selection change. Allyriana000 (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing if we involve other users into this matter. Deciding without the consideration of others' opinions may result to potential editing wars so it is important that others would add their opinions regarding this matter. Allyriana000 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

tagging @Mr. Kenshin, @Hariboneagle927, @Jesteron27, @TheClashEditor2018, @Milesq, as frequent editors EdrianJustine (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to tag @Bri for the selection of participants section. I find some paragraphs irrelevant to the article and the tone of some paragraphs are unencyclopedic. Allyriana000 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It was not in effect as a general rule. For a miniscule number of localities yes, but not in a scale in which we can say such program was implemented. Moreover, reliable sources say that the program was introduced before 2023 and implemented starting in 2024, contrary to your claim of being implemented since 2020. If this is false, do provide a reliable source for such claim and then we can do appropriate changes on the program's own article. EdrianJustine (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for I am also confused now. I think we have to explore first the selection of participants from 2020, and then compare them to the format of the subsequent editions of Miss Universe Philippines. The Miss Universe Philippines 2020 does not clearly state the format of the aforementioned edition. Allyriana000 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The article and its sources clearly point toward the usage of the application process, as previously established. No source suggests that the winners of local pageants were automatically designated as delegates to the pageant (by the organization), and hypothesizing that they were would be WP:OR. EdrianJustine (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Compulsory reference on the candidates.

Why is it that on the pages of previous editions and other pageant pages, reference is not required. But in this page, when a candidate is crowned but there's no reference source like news, then it aill be automatically deleted. Hunneybunch (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad practices elsewhere should not be translated here. WP:V requires content to be supported by a reliable source, and that's a policy we will be observing here, no matter how other articles are bad at doing so. EdrianJustine (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

pls fix immediately 😭 Abeyaaa (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits

@Allyriana000 Discuss the changes here before going forward with an edit war. EdrianJustine (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the information presented IS a point of commentary. Media outlets such as the the Manila Standard, The Philippine Star, and many more not cited have went on to take note of such a pattern, and as such, merits inclusion in the article. While information is provided below, the lead serves to summarize that, as most readers will gravitate towards the lead, hence all significant information MUST be briefly included within it per MOS:INTRO. While formats are, and should be enforced, the lead is not fixed and is written differently to reflect the content of the article, which inevitably varies per edition. The section for theme is poised to not stand alone permanently. Inevitably, it will be merged with a section for the location and dates. But at where we stand, that's where it will be. EdrianJustine (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

First, you are disregarding the fact that the Accredited Partners Program of Miss Universe Philippines started way back in January 2020. Although different in form, the only difference of this program to that of 2024 is that it allows contestants to be screened, for them to be adopted by an accredited partner. The MUPH Organization themselves said this. References are clearly given to you but you are so stubborn about it. It is clear that those who won in their respective national pageants or were appointed by an accredited partner will be an official candidate, and whe walk-in contestants who passed the final screening were then adopted by an accredited partner and joined all other contestants that were determined by an accredited partner. [1][2][3] Allyriana000 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The Accredited Partners did indeed exist, but not in the form that distinguishes the 2024 pageant from previous editions. The references were not given in past discussions, and even then, the status quo still stands and the references that are included in the article support it further. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The Miss Universe Philippines 2024 being a "clash of veterans" may be cited by news outlets but you have failed to realize that this narrative has been going on ever since 2020 where many of the contestants came from Binibining Pilipinas, Miss World Philippines, Mutya, etc., making this edition not special, cause every edition is a clash of veterans themselves. If you want to give merit to the crossovers of these "pageant veterans", either you give it more focus on their respective articles or create a Notes section on the Contestants Table about their crossovers like the format of Miss USA. In that way, it comes off as having no bias. Allyriana000 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If that narrative has been going on since 2020 then so be it. Media outlets continue to take note of it and that will be reflected in the article to provide more context to the article. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not the only one that should decide on what should be retained or whatnot as this is a talk page. I would like to tag @Bri, @Mr. Kenshin, @Hariboneagle927, @Milesq, @LikeRealTimes, and @Elysant to give their opinions regarding this. There has not been an agreement regarding this matter and the format of the Selection of participants section is still in question. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it gives context. This reason is vague and does not suffice the argument. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It simply adds more context. It is as simple as that. It is a due reflection of media coverage surrounding the pageant supported by reliable sources that gives greater breadth to the article. That reason alone defends its inclusion in the article. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Then make it even for all pageant veterans. Not only VVV or Kris Tiffany, or Christy. A Notes section for the Contestants section, for that matter, would be a more unbiased way to put it. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The current format is already "even" in its form. Only examples provided by reliable sources are to be added per WP:V and that is reflected in the article. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is still better to add all, not only examples. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not even. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is. Again, we're going by sources, not personal preferences. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Then do it yourself. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Then if I do it, that section will therefore be redundant. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

By that section, I mean the paragraph about the "pageant veterans". Allyriana000 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, it all depends on the number. If the examples cited by reliable sources are a few then they can be listed by name, which they are. If not, then it will be generalized, as with the line on the overseas delegates. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We will not reach a middle ground in this manner. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We will have to wait for the comments of other editors. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to add a separate section for the theme, as it is already stated at the Infobox. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Several pieces of information are included in the infobox, yet are still included elsewhere. Further, we add the theme in the body to give further room for discussion to be added by other editors and to provide references to prove its usage. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Then only add the section when there are sufficient references that give further room for discussion about the theme. Allyriana000 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

While there can be more, there are enough references to merit a section. However, as previously stated, this section is not reserved for the theme only. It covers all preparations pertaining to the pageant, including announcement of the location and date, both of which are not yet confirmed. EdrianJustine (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)