Province names in municipality article titles redux
As HTD mentioned above, the last discussion on this topic (which is so large that it occupies its own archive page) did not reach any conclusion among the participants. So I'd like to restart the discussion by trying a different tack in solving the issue. Permit me to provide some background first.
Prescriptive vs. Descriptive. Naming conventions, like any other guidelines on Wikipedia, can be either be prescriptive or descriptive or a combination of both. Sometimes, guidelines get proposed or updated/revised due to discussion (without any article-based trigger) and so the update to the guideline is prescriptive. Other times, guidelines get updated to reflect what actually happens to the actual articles. In this case, the update is descriptive.
A little bit of history. There are instances where naming conventions in Wikipedia have been descriptively updated. Here are a few notable examples:
WP:USPLACE For a long time the guidelines stated that all cities, towns, and counties in the US have to have the state name in their article's title (the comma convention) with only New York City as the exception. Then Chicago was moved from Chicago, Illinois and the guideline was updated. Philadelphiafollowed. This resulted to a lot of discussion that finally ended with a consensus for the AP Stylebook exceptions. Note, the Chicago and Philadelphia are descriptive guideline updates which helped push for the AP Stylebook prescriptive update.
Australian place naming conventions. In early 2010, the Australian place-name convention stated that every place, except capital cities (when no disambiguation is needed), need to have the state name in their article titles. Despite those conventions, move requests like for Ballarat and Coffs Harbour became successful. This resulted into a descriptive (to match the moved articles) and prescriptive (to apply to the rest of the articles) update of the guidelines to not impose the comma convention.
WP:NCROY In 2010, the royalty and nobility naming conventions had a pretty strict guideline where names are always disambiguated with the country such as William II of England. Despite that, there have been several successful move requests such as those for "Elizabeth II" (instead of "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"), "William the Conqueror" (and not "William I of England"), and "Napoleon I" (and not "Napoleon I of France"). ("Napoleon I" has since been moved to just "Napoleon".) Because of these move requests, the naming convention was updated (after discussion) to specify various exceptions to the original rule.
Back to PH municipalities. Since the discussion for the article titling guidelines (aka naming conventions) for Philippine municipalities had arrived to a deadlock of sorts, this means that updating the guidelines via the prescriptive path might not be best. So RioHondo initiated the descriptive approach, by initiating a bunch of move requests to see what other people (especially admins who would close the discussion) think as there are quite a lot of people who follow move requests over at WP:RM.
As a result, we have had the following municipality move requests. All but one of them were successful. (Links go to the move request discussion.):
Apart from these municipalities, we have had several other successful move requests to remove unnecessary disambiguation from article titles of other places:
In light of the successful requested moves listed above and following the precedent set by Chicago, Ballarat, and Elizabeth II, I propose that we descriptively update the naming convention to use the <placename> convention instead of the comma convention for municipalities in the Philippines. This proposed update, will then prescriptively apply to the rest of the municipalities in the Philippines. —seav (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My home computer is busted (haha) so I won't give as much input as I wanted to, but my points still stand as the current nomenclature completely satisfies WP:NC. I have no issues on how barangays, islands and "districts (places)", are named. The moves should not have had proceeded as even B2C remarked on one of the earlier discussions that the policy first has to be changed rather than piecemeal moves. –HTD18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? When did B2C say that? For the record, he has officially stated: Consensus for a rule change typically does not happen until consensus is established for some number of individual changes, establishing a trend that shows broad consensus for the rule to reflect the new changes. —seav (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's at Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar: "I've been over there now, but Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?" Talk:Aparri#Requested_move is especially shameful as it was only the two of you that had a discussion. This piecemeal moves have to stop until we've settled in on what to do. –HTD18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted of B2C's comment. Note that in that discussion, I had actually advocated that people participate in the Tambayan discussion instead of voting (I said, "I would vote for Support, but..."). B2C read my comment and replied with a "but" and then linking to his FAQ using the "Q" as the link text and where the "Q" is essentially my comment and the "A" is B2C's actual position. —seav (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, did you get to change the guideline during/after the discussion? We had a discussion. What happened? You, in B2C's words, subverted the guideline one article at a time. Dreadful. –HTD18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you think a particular closed move request is in error, there's WP:MR. If you think my or RioHondo's move requests are "dreadful", there's WP:ANI or WP:RFCC. Doing "piecemeal moves" or "subverting the guideline" is a legitimate way of updating Wikipedia guidelines. That is exactly how the US place naming conventions, the Australian place naming conventions, and the royalty and nobility naming conventions got updated. —seav (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not asking for an immediate reversion of the move, as frequently moved pages are bad for the readers. All I'm asking for a discussion that leads to something. I dunno about the examples but you gave (Lizzie and Australian places), but it shouldn't only be you and RioHondo, plus give or take B2C and some other RM regular who doesn't know squat what he's discussing about at an RM. That can be viewed as sneaky and bad faith. Even the first three moves were done while we're discussing the whole thing!
Also, I realize that the "kayo-kayo (or tayo-tayo) lang" discussions that involved RioHondo/you nominating and You/him supporting, then the RM being closed with no one else commenting, is like the Interim Batasang Pambansa. It's shameful. –HTD19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Having seen how the moves have been done, I support Howard's position on the matter. Two people supporting your position - of which in some cases one of them is you or RioHondo - hardly constitutes consensus. At least with clear guidelines, we know what's happening on the matter, and we're better able to respond to those changes if necessary, rather than be forced to acquiece to something you want us to support because you've been going at it behind our backs. The IBP analogy in this case I feel is not apt; in fact, the better analogy is the 1972 Constitutional Convention! --Sky Harbor(talk)23:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. It appears that you both have compared what RioHondo and I did to Marcos' influence: as if requesting and supporting article title changes is equivalent to becoming a dictator. I know you both mean well, but I feel offended with such a comparison. There are better ways to say you disagree without resorting to the sort of comments for which Godwin's law was created.
It seems you both think that Rio and I have collaborated "behind your backs" on something that you both disagree with. The truth is, Rio and I merely have the same viewpoint regarding this naming issue and that these move requests are not coordinated between us. I cannot speak for RioHondo (re why he initiated his move requests), but I started my move requests with the aim of finding out what the wider community thinks—including admins who would be closing the move requests—regarding my preferred naming convention that in my view is based on policy, by giving concrete examples in the form of actual move requests. Besides, the previous discussion arguably ended in a deadlock; the move requests was really a different tack to evolve the guidelines using actual articles as examples. I never informed RioHondo whenever I request for page moves as that would be against WP:CANVASS. As for my participation on Rio's move requests, I learned about them because I monitor Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Article alerts. In addition, I would also like to note that B2C, whose view against unnecessary disambiguation I agree with, is a very frequent supporter in these move discussions. But just the same, I never contacted him about these requests; it appears he is just very passionate about the issue of article titles, monitors the list of requests at WP:RM, and jumps into discussions as he sees fit.
Now that I have stated all that, can we go back to discussing the actual topic and not on user behavior? (If you still feel that our actions are inappropriate, as I have mentioned before, there's WP:RFCC. But, I am stating that I don't think I violated any policy on user conduct.) Given all of these successful move requests, I think that there is a case to be made for adopting the <placename> convention over the current comma convention. (If your counterargument is the perceived behavior between Rio and me, I can name one famous logical fallacy for that.) Among all of these move requests, the only valid opposition presented is the legitimate concern about what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g., Balangiga), but when confronted with move requests where the town is the only topic with that name, there was no opposition (except for a comment that we ought to modify the guidelines first, to which I replied that guidelines can be desriptively changed as well).
That said, if you think that page move requests where only Rio and I have participated is not conclusive of anything and should not be given any consideration, then we still have the following successful page move requests where other people apart from Rio and me participated: Sagada, Banaue, Santa Praxedes, Dingalan and Vintar. For the rest, I actually wish that the closing admin had extended the discussion longer so that more of the wider community could participate, but it is what it is. Unlike AfDs where deletion is often final and so discussions are often extended to gain more viewpoints, move requests are reversible and are not usually relisted. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Btw, @seav, after Chicago and Philadelphia have been moved to placename, did updating WP:USPLACE require another round of discussion or was it just unilaterally updated to reflect the multilateral decision in those rm discussions? So far we have established consensus with the WP admins/other users that unique AT's need not be disambiguated. Let us know what Wikimedia Philippines have decided regarding this matter. :)--RioHondo (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Philippines has no authority to decide on the matter, as it has no authority to exercise editorial control on the projects, even if it wanted to. --Sky Harbor(talk)04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But WMPH is composed of regular editors too, so I'd like for seav to get them to participate in this discussion to update MOSPHIL after 15% of all LGUs have been made to conform to wp standards in the last 7 months :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
While I don't oppose extending the discussion to include more editors, the presumption that somehow the two of you can win over other editors sounds very unconvincing. I seriously wonder what has happened with all previous attempts with trying to get consensus: do you interpret that as people being comfortable with the status quo and we should leave it as it is, or as people not caring with what the guideline is and they'll just blindly follow? I remain unconvinced that even if you manage to move all LGU articles in the process to the naming convention that only the two of you support (plus or minus an editor or two), you can claim to have "obtained" consensus. --Sky Harbor(talk)04:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's see. The first three RMs clearly indicate that you were part of that consensus building. Only the majority decision didn't go in your favor in the first two. Balangiga having other entries (notably the bells which could be the more popular entry) was not moved and I understand that cos that's just how WP is. Simple BAU stuff. --RioHondo (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You know, it's my fault it has come to Rio and Seav rubber stamping the discussion; the reason why Balangiga wasn't movbed was that I was able to devote time to that discussion. I've been busy, my computer died, I hate using laptops (haha) and there's way too many discussions ongoing. That's why I'm suggesting to defer all RMs until we figure out what to do. That's my request for now. I'm not even asking for reversion of the moves. –HTD13:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
RioHondo, Sky Harbor is right, WMPH has nothing to do with editorial discussions on Wikipedia. My position in the chapter does not and should not have any bearing on these discussions. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As the discussion at Talk:Banaue#Requested move shows, I was not impressed by circumventing MOSPhil through move discussions (RM draw in editors who know nothing of MOSPhil, so logically they support a move contrary to the guideline). Anyway, again the discussion is limited to the same Tambayan editors who are divided into 2 camps. Each camp has their own supporting arguments, and after the long previous discussions, I doubt there is anything new to say. It is unlikely that we'll reach consensus between the 2 camps. So, without consensus, the existing guideline (<place, province>) stands. -- P 1 9 9✉14:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. A no consensus result does not always mean that the status quo is preserved. See Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means (note: an essay) for a viewpoint. For example, WP:BIODEL states that a no rough consensus AfD discussion for certain BLPs may result in deletion contrary to the default keep result. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not helpful (all that applies only to deletion discussions). In our case, a consensus has to be reached in order to change WP:MOSPHIL. -- P 1 9 9✉15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also like for the Lizzie and Napoleon analogies to stop. The cases for those two are the exceptions rather than the rule. What you're (Seav) pushing for is policy for every article. The Australian naming conventions don't matter as other countries do it differently, such as the U.S., Philippines and China. The Aussie precedent should be cited as a precedent until everyone follows them. –HTD16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Re Australia: my point is that naming conventions can change due to individual page moves that contradict the convention, and not the point that countries can have their own standards. Re Lizzie: My point is that naming conventions can change due to page moves, period, regardless of whether the change is to overhaul the convention or only to add exceptions. —seav (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Seav's proposal. I know that if everyone simply agreed to follow the general convention which applies to almost all WP titles, disambiguate only when necessary, there would be very little if anything to discuss. --В²C☎16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In this day and age, B2C, I'm surprised you'd still insist on an "almost all" rule. Yes, not as bad as "a rule with no exceptions", but almost as bad. Rules should be flexible, amirite?
To think that the disambiguation in this case is as natural as "we've been using this method ever since we had addresses". It's not even Some dude (his job) which is unnatural. I can't understand what's the deal with the opposition to this, TBH. –HTD17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Also can we please stop citing the WP:UNDAB essay B2C basically wrote last year after being tagged as historical in 2006. I'm betting 90% of its citations after 2013 involve B2C actually doing it. It's as bad as Seav and RioHondo's shameful RMs then saying the new results are the new "consensus". –HTD18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDAB is well-founded in actual policy, guidelines and conventions. If you know of any deviations from that, please fix them or at least raise your specific concerns on its talk page. Thanks. --В²C☎22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Why can't we use the actual policy at WP:DAB, then? If we're basing arguments on policy, we might as well cite the policy instead of an essay derived from that policy that's apparently not good enough to be policy per se. –HTD12:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
One could copy/paste the content of UNDAB into a comment here, or even just the particularly relevant section, but that would take up a lot of space, and is a waste for those already familiar with what it says. --В²C☎20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Other proposals
Compromise use plain place name unless disambiguation is needed for cities, first class urban municipalities and provincial capitals. For the rest use the comma convention. –HTD13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for trying to break the impasse. Yet the income classification system is unknown outside PH, so it may be confusing to readers why some use comma convention and why others don't. -- P 1 9 9✉16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this how this could be an issue. Not everyone knows the external MOS that decided which American cities can be commaed or what. At best if a reader looks at a category of "Municipalities of <province>" and sees some articles don't have the article name, he can deduce that the place is important. –HTD17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the reasoning behind selecting provincial capitols and 1st class urban municipalities? You mentioned "important". So is your position that importance is the criteria? Of course it's hard to define "importance" and is that the reason why you selected those types of municipalities? Anyway, I agree that capitals are indeed important. —seav (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I figured if we'd be having some threshold for "important" municipalities without discriminating a lot of other "important" ones, "first class urban" towns might do it. These are also quite "popular" nationally or even at their respective provinces. –HTD11:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should draw up a list of what municipalities are affected. Then people can look at the list and agree that these are more or less all important or comment that there are some that they consider important but are not in the list. —seav (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Heck, I made this proposal without ever looking at a list. If we started looking at lists we'd be subjective on what to include and not. –HTD17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment I visited some random municipalities to check on their income classifications. Some do not mention this at all while some belonging to the same province have the same classification. This could be the result of copy pasting, I thought. Not many provincial articles list their municipalities' income classifications too and I have yet to see an authoritative source that tells which municipalities really fall under which class and how often upgrades (or downgrades) are carried out. --RioHondo (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So apparently, RioHondo who wants the province name removed from town names' articles wants to resist efforts to remove "Isabela" in the title for Santiago, Isabela, a city that isn't a part of the province anymore. Let me get this straight, you want Guiuan, Eastern Samar to be moved to "Guiuan" despite the fact that it truly is in Eastern Samar. Then, you want to insert "Isabela" in a city that isn't a part of that province. What the? –HTD13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I did express my liking to your proposal midway through the discussion. I was even open to moving it to even "Cityname, Regionname" citing a precedent as I am aware of the current title's inaccuracy or contradiction somehow despite its common use in reliable sources which I enumerated. However, my worry is that your "Cityname (Philippine city)" proposal is unconventional and has no precedent and will therefore need for it to be specifically enforced by some convention like WP:MOSPHIL. The only established conventions as far as Philippine LGUs are concerned are "LGUname, Provincename", "LGUname, Regionname", "LGUname, Philippines" and plain "LGUname" (where I based all my RMs on). And I only really deal with LGUnames that are unique and are not ambiguous. When it comes to disambiguation, this I believe should be stipulated in the MOS specially your proposed dab which does not fall in any of the prescribed styles. --RioHondo (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"<Cityname> (<countryname> city)" convention is rarely used below the first division (province/state)-level, but is used nevertheless. Since it's not in MOSPHIL, we'd use the classic WP:AT disambiguating procedures. As I've said, I've already suggested this before in the last discussion that was derailed; to be honest this specific suggestion was badly handled. It should've been made clearer from the start that these are "independent cities outside the Metro that have an identical name from places elsewhere", instead of "City name outside Metro Manila identical with a name of a place elsewhere". You opposed this and wanted <cityname>, <provincename>, and explicitly stated that "Region names are hardly used", but I wasn't clear that this is for independent cities only. This parenthetical disambiguation is the best course of action than appending a province name where it shouldn't be at, or the <cityname>, <regionname> convention that is almost totally never used outside the Metro. It is the natural way of disambiguating as per WP:AT, and preserves WP:MOSPHIL on not appending provincial names on independent cities. I would've went with "<cityname>, Philippines" as the second choice via the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defense. –HTD13:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. You're right I did oppose the Regionname suffix for ICCs and HUCs in the last discussion. I was probably focused too much on having a uniform disambiguation for all cities regardless of their status for easier compliance and enforcement. But I realize now that it is not possible given Santiago's case. And now that my perspective has shifted, the Regionname suffix proposed byP199 might actually be a good solution. This I realized when I was trying to organize the Category:Independent cities in the Philippines I created and I ended up categorizing all the independent cities under their respective regions as co-equal with their component provinces. See Category:Cagayan Valley and Category:Bicol Region for instance. Your proposal for "Naga (Bicol)" is actually my model for proposing Santiago, Cagayan Valley in the RM (except to use comma as what P199 had suggested). So if you would agree with this format (which IMO is more stable than "Santiago (Philippine city)", (neither style is commonly used anyway, and there is no hoping that the other Santiago's don't become cities anymore), then you can count on two supporters now. Let's begin? :) --RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. This is also easier to put in writing than the complex explanation you'd have to come up for Santiago (Philippine city) in WP:MOSPHIL which as you said is only pertinent to that city. I am also still hoping for consistency in application of course, and not have two different guidelines for Naga and Santiago. --RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Naga is a very special case because there are two cities called Naga. "Naga (Philippine city)" would have been still ambiguous. I would prefer "Naga (Bicol) or "Naga (Bicol Region)". We can't use that as an example. The Santiago case will be used in like a couple more examples such as Angeles and Lucena.
Also, the parenthetical form is quite different to the comma form. The comma form means the entire form is used when referring to the subject. In the parenthetical form, everything inside the parenthesis isn't used. –HTD12:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I see the rationale behind "(Philippine city)" now, independent cities following the style for provinces being in the same level. (I thought all the while you just made it up to be cute LOL). Good, so do we have consensus now?--RioHondo (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Draft
So I created a draft on the kind of changes and update to the WP:MOSPHIL before I forget what has been agreed or conceded to so far. I am willing to yield for the sake of bringing our house back in order, so if anyone has anything to say, please say it now so that we can proceed with the long overdue update to the manual.
Note: Provinces and islands follow pretty much the existing guidelines. There are no significant changes to the majority of the cities either, only this proposal will provide a clearer distinction between independent and component cities and introduce the missing disambiguation needed for ambiguous independent cities. I have incorporated HTD's compromise proposal for municipalities here too, and introduce the missing MOS also for the growing number of barangay articles.
* <city name>, Philippines if sharing the same name as that of a non-Philippine city or municipality but with no other city or municipality in the Philippines with the same name.
* <city name>, <region name> for Metro Manila cities and other independent cities that have the same name as another city/municipality in the Philippines or elsewhere.
* <city name> (region name) for Metro Manila cities and other independent cities that have the same name as another city in the Philippines or elsewhere.
<city name> (region name) if sharing the same name as that of another city in the Philippines or elsewhere. For Metro Manila cities, use the comma convention.
I hope I didn't miss anything. Comments? I'm good with all the above proposals, I mean it's better than the loopholes and breakups we have now, and HTD needs only to agree with Naga and Santiago being suffixed by , <region name>. Let's get moving now. :)--RioHondo (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to treat independent cities as if they're provinces. After all they're primary LGUs, and they deserve the the respect that they'd get by using the parenthetical form. Use "<cityname> (Philippine city)" for example 2.4. "<cityname>, Philippines" is almost never used unless you're writing to Time magazine and for foreign media. –HTD12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Lol! Okay i gotcha! Finally. Now that makes a lot of sense and yes, i do see your point with example 2.4. Check out my revisions. Let me know if I got it right. --RioHondo (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd stick with the current Metro Manila convention used in San Juan and Pateros, and should be used in Valenzuela, considering "<cityname>, Metro Manila" is still widely used, as opposed to <cityname> <region name except Metro Manila>" which has never been in widespread use anywhere. –HTD15:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'll work on the wording of this new MOSPHIL next. Meanwhile, comments and suggestions from other stakeholders are most welcome and much appreciated. --RioHondo (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
See this draft proposal I created in paragraph form which basically describes all the above agreed guidelines between HTD and me. Or do you prefer it in bullet point form albeit more space consuming for WP:MOSPHIL? Feel free to edit the wording on this draft also. If there are items you don't agree with or would like to propose a different guideline, please notify us first here. Thanks! CC: those who participated in the last discussion Seav, Sky Harbor, P199, Bluemask, TheCoffee, Ianlopez1115, JinJian. Aight let us know what you guys think.--RioHondo (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There's this pet provision I want inserted. If a town was upgraded to a city, and its name was changed too, it has dibs on using the word "City". The examples for this one are Roxas City, Lapu-Lapu City, General Santos City and perhaps a few more cities. I'm willing to give an exception to GenSan, but the first two are badly titled. –HTD17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm trying to think of a better wording for Lapu-Lapu City as I don't want to disturb the other "LGUs-renamed-upon-cityhood" that are already stable as much as possible (like Ozamiz and Cagayan de Oro). Roxas, Capiz actually falls under the preferred primary topic rule for capital component cities even under the existing guidelines (see my example up there), so we only have to enforce it and initiate the RM to its plain title Roxas (which even under the general WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule is possible thanks to its popularity as a destination, RXS for instance). As for General Santos, this became a city in 1968 when R.A. 5412 was passed. However, the city has had that name since 1954 when the then municipality was renamed from Buayan through R.A. 1107. I'm thinking if we could just assume that "Lapu-Lapu City" is its real placename so we won't have to insert this bit in the already long provisions for Independent cities. Or as a normal disambiguation perhaps from the more popular figure for whom this city was named and therefore out of the scope of MOSPHIL? I'm good with "Lapu-Lapu (Philippine city)" also but would have to insert an exception either way. Hmm. I know of another city that was renamed upon cityhood which might also be affected by this provision: Rizal City, though the city was renamed back to Pasay in 1950. We don't want this to be interpreted as a basis for moving it to Pasay City. What do you think?--RioHondo (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right! And thanks for pointing that out. Of course, that title does sound awkward when you think about it now. It's just that we have to box all these cities under one of the conventions we have introduced, and as you can see, there's quite a lot already. Let me think of a way to introduce this exception to the [[{city-name} City}]] provision instead without affecting the other unambiguous and stable "LGUs-renamed-upon-cityhood". You can help! :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh i remember now. There was a proposal for "[[{city-name} City]] if renamed after a person upon cityhood" from the last discussion which I think might work for Lapu-Lapu's case. That way, we exclude Cagayan de Oro from the unnecessary City suffix. And I'm thinking of applying it to independent cities only, so that Ozamiz and Roxas can be also be spared. As for my Rizal City concern up there, forget it as that city obviously didn't retain the person's name. Hehe. My worry for applying this to component cities is that people might start to wonder why some cities have this (special accommodation issues) and might be tempted to follow suit with their own RMs. But if everyone is good with Ozamiz City and Roxas City then it's alright with me too. Will just need to do a lot of explaining eventually.--RioHondo (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a problem with "Lapu-Lapu, Philippines" (interestingly, not "Lapu-Lapu, Cebu") or "Lapu-Lapu (Philippine city)" or "Lapu-Lapu (city)": it's not called as "Lapu-Lapu". It's always "Lapu-Lapu City", even in normal conversation where the word "City" is usually omitted ("Where are you going?" "Lapu-Lapu City"). Same with Roxas the city in Capiz: it's never called "Roxas" or even "Roxas, Capiz", but as "Roxas City". This is unlike most cities where the word "city" is either for disambiguation or is just superfluous.
Pasay's renaming has been reverted. If it was still "Rizal City" now we'd call it as "Rizal City" because of Rizal province. But it isn't so it's called Pasay. It doesn't apply when it's reverted. –HTD11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's my test for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: If you post that word on the wall without any context, what's the first thing that comes up? If there are multiple answers, it isn't primary topic, as in the case of "Roxas." If you post "Roxas" at a wall, people may assume that it's a surname, not a place. This is the same with places such as Balangiga, which could either be one of two massacres, the city or the bells. –HTD11:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Or Sagada, which could be the "mountains", the municipality or the "hanging coffins." Lol! Anyway, since this is the WP:MOSPHIL, what applies to one applies to all in the same category. Hence, Lapu-Lapu City, Roxas City and Ozamiz City. Is there anything else that you would like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:AT to be "selectively" applied to with regards to other Mosphil items? ;)
P.S. As a traveler, the first thing that comes to mind when I see Roxas on a wall is that it's not my boarding gate but I know it's not too far from Kalibo or Caticlan where I should be boarding.--RioHondo (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We could totally use your "as a traveler" example if everyone flies. But I'm sorry Cebu Pacific, not everyone flies lol. Your example isn't even right. I said that there's no context whatsover. A "Roxas" sign on the boarding area of course means the destination airport. If you're in comfort room, saw a door vandalized with "Roxas", you'd probably think of some person surnamed as such. Heck, even if you're at an airport CR.
This is unlike "Sagada" that really means "mountains" when you see it somewhere anywhere. –HTD13:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Or Aparri, which could also be the mountains, the municipality, the river maybe? or the french pronunciation for in Paris. Angeles and Lucena are surnames too though. --RioHondo (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I highly doubt people would associate "Aparri" with the Cordillera mountains, or even with the Cagayan River. I don't think people realize that the river flows right through it, or that the mountains are "reasonably" close. All they know is that it's a place in the northern part of the country, thanks to the Eat Bulaga theme song. There's no confusion in that regard. –HTD13:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments?
BTW, if anyone has any more proposal they want to add where the current WP:MOSPHIL is unclear or lacking, please don't hesitate to suggest them here.
Also, please take time to review our updated draft proposal. Comments/suggestions are always welcome. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think using the income classification to decide the article title is a good idea. Having gone through nearly all LGU's to update formatting and references, I have noticed that the income class changes almost every time it is reviewed. For instance, President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte, was classified as 5th class municipality, and was re-classified to 2nd class for CY 2003, reclassified again as 3rd class municipality CY 2005, again reclassified as 2nd class municipality in 2009 ([1]), and currently is a 5th class (based on NSCB which I consider an authoritative source). I realize this is not a 1st class town but it is just 1 example that shows how the income class swings back-and-forth, even from 1st class to 2nd or 3rd. Are we going to rename the article title then every 2 years or so? Highly impractical and counterproductive! -- P 1 9 9✉14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is the closest to the US AP List that HTD & Sky have been pressing for since the start of the discussions. You know if it was only up to us, we would have followed Canada's and Australia's. :) But as updating our MOS guidelines has become urgent at this point, with those successful RMs to municipalities and the unprecedented Santiago (Philippine city), there's really not enough time for debates that just go in circles you know. Our AP List is the NSCB. Forget whatever you read in other local government websites. And the NSCB conducts census and updates LGU income class every five years, not 2 or 3. So after the census next year, the next time we have check on its website is still 2020. Updating articles every five years is just about right and is doable for me. Btw, municipalities may probably change their income status every year or 2 years depending on the sum of their income for that year, but as far as the national government and the Local Government Code is concerned, they only really get to receive higher salaries for their officials, higher revenue allotment and tax ceilings from the national government when their average income for four (4) consecutive years increases beyond the threshold for that income class. Ergo, there is only the NSCB that the national government relies on when it disburses funds to municipalities. So I would say the NSCB is the sole authority on this matter, let's give it a shot. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So, does anyone have any more concerns regarding our proposal? Suggestions on certain guidelines for other place article titles? I think we're good with the use of "ñ's" and diacritics for places, so we'll retain that. I am thinking of inserting a provision though regarding the use of full names for places, like those named after saints (for example, using Santo not Sto. and Santa not Sta. which I encounter a lot specially with barangay articles). But this one is minor and will simply add that in the General Usage section in the intro, along with a provision that says LGU names should be written by themselves without attaching their LGU type except if its part of the name or provided by the guidelines. This should take care of the persistent use of [[Barangay {barangay-name}]] as well as discourage the special titles for cities/municipalities.--RioHondo (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
OT: does anyone know how to make marker images for our Metro Manila streets like this one in the Roxas Boulevard article? (Though, I believe they have started replacing those green signs with blue across Manila). As Manila's main thoroughfare, it is important that EDSA has this i think. And also for the other Metro Manila street articles.. :) --RioHondo (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
(Moving this to a distinct conversation topic) I do not think putting those markers is a positive development. It only duplicates the infobox name, in image form, and adds nothing to the article. Metro Manila's streets do not have a distinct street sign style to justify it. TheCoffee (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am seeing if anyone in the Philippines has access to this source: A Preliminary research on the religious and political right in the Philippines It would be useful in creating a section on Conservatism in the Philippines. There is a note regarding Religious conservatism in the Philippines, but not much on the political side. Any assistance regarding this would be helpful.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I will add what little I have to the religious conservatism page, and hope to find more later. Please see my please see post as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thought you guys might be interested in cleaning this page up. It seems legit and is a lot better than the "Sindikatu" junk Malusia22 churns out through his sockpuppets, but I'm still asking for your input on how to best deal with this and Mal's apparent gangster fantasies. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well this means that we need to step up on our vandalism watch then. Who knows? Perhaps we can even get new editors this way. --Lenticel(talk)02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look into those Philippine built-heritage lists and explain how they are different from other lists? I have recommended moving the above article to List of historic buildings in the Philippines (or List of marked historic buildings) as the articles listed are buildings and not their markers per se. But I wanna know why, for instance, this shouldn't be just merged with the List of Cultural Properties of the Philippines? Are they not one and the same? (Just maybe some cultural properties don't have markers installed yet?) And what is this National Cultural Treasures of the Philippines? A template and category have been created for this type of buildings but people still don't know what it is, as it does not have an article just like the other heritage building types. They're all just lists. And it doesn't end there. There's also the following categories:
I hope someone from the Task Force can explain their differences and importance before I start nominating some of those lists and categories for deletion/merging. :)--RioHondo (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's because markers are not exclusively installed on buildings, as some are simply on pedestals, as they commemorate people and events. Also, not all Cultural Properties have historical markers, like San Bartolome Church in Malabon and Rizal Monument in Pasig. The presence of a marker does not also mean the presence of a Cultural Property, like the William J. Burke marker in Escolta. There are also cultural properties which contain more than one marker which depict different people/events/places. For example, in Santa Cruz Church, we have "Church of Santa Cruz," "Justiniano Asuncion (1816-1896)," and "Leoncio Asuncion (1813-1888)." The list is mainly based on other countries' lists like the Blue Plaques in London and county plaques in the US like this one. We also have markers installed outside the country. --Ryomaandres (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)--Ryomaandres 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The categories were set by the NHCP, like the ones here: http://nhcphistoricsites.blogspot.com/, although I could not find some document that clearly defines them. Maybe someone who works with the NHCP could clarify. About marked structures in PH, I believe that they're simply structures that have markers on them, although there are markers in which the spot they are located in are not part of the marked structures list, and the difference between the marked structures and list of historical markers list is that there are structures which have a marker that refers to a thing/event/person directly associated with the structure and not the structure per se. For example, the marker where they "stored" Rizal's body before the transfer of his remains to Luneta does not commemorate the apartment per se, but the [demolished] house in that site and the event of Rizal's body being stored there.--Ryomaandres 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't even know what National Cultural Treasures are. Come up with an article first with the definitions of all those categories of historic sites I mentioned then you can start subcategorizing them. As of the moment, all those lists and categories are candidates for deletion until valid references other than a blogsite are cited. This should have been done from the start.--RioHondo (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The blog is valid given that it's an official site of the NHCP. However, given that these are relatively new categories of cultural heritage in the Philippines, and there will naturally be a lack of sources given that the National Cultural Heritage Act was passed without much fanfare, we can only go with what we have. If that's the government using a blog, then so be it. --Sky Harbor(talk)19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We could be very happy if we could discuss anyone in the Philippines who is a good contributor to the Electronic Dance Music here in the Philippines, for those who know someone,, please don'y hesitate to post one here :))
If you're talking about Wikipedia editors, I know of no one who's interested in local EDM, but I certainly hope you can find someone who'd be interested in contributing. :) --Sky Harbor(talk)01:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Philippines experts. This draft was copied out of AfC into mainspace a few months ago and needs some attention from someone who is familiar with institutions in the Philippines. I removed a large number of external links from the body of the article and rephrased some promotional language. It seems to me that more needs to be done to tone this down and retain only appropriate sources, but I don't have the knowledge of this area to know what's appropriate. Can someone help? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks 'swell, at least this one's miles ahead from the promotional, fancrufty mumbo jumbo we usually encounter with Filipino film articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is, it's the handywork of none other than Malusia, not to mention the last known revision prior to it being CSD'd was it was a verbatim copy of this page.
I am not convinced that www.worldweatheronline.com is authoritative. Its historical data is rather general, and likely not measured in the actual place (except for maybe a few key cities). -- P 1 9 9✉12:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, why was he banned? A veteran wikipedian is a sockpuppet? Isnt he a member of Wikimedia PH too? Thats just so wrong? And im referring to the one P199 replied to above?--RioHondo (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Said lad has been quite a pain in the rear, and boy did I spend a late night or two just because of him spewing F-bombs and Tagalog profanities at me for giving him a hard time. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Question re: Construction date of the Manggahan Floodway?
Hi. I have a bit of an embarrassing question. I went to the Manggahan Floodway today and read that the floodway "was built in 1986,[2] with the cost of 1.1 billion pesos" (The reference seems to be a dead link.) This made me do a double take as I always thought it was built "in the seventies" - a date I've encountered several times in various sources (here [3] for example). It's a broad period, I know, but one which in my mind clearly excludes the possibility of construction "in 1986." I was going to accept the 1986 date in my head, but on researching a bit further, I find that the Napindan channel gates were built in 1983 and that the Parañaque Spillway fell out of favor with the urban planning agency of the time at around 1983 as well. I've always gotten the impression that the completion of the floodway antedated both those events. Multiple references seem to also say it was built in '86, but I can't shake the feeling these references may have used the article as a reference. (The ones I saw were written after 2009.) I was old enough to be watching the news in 1986 but not old enough to remember much. So my own memory is no help. Can someone with a better memory or at least access to more official sources please fact-check that date? If it WAS built in 1986, sorry for the trouble. I'm just... really confused. - Alternativity (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alternativity, I was the original writer of this article. Unfortunately the reference is a dead link, but I can assure you that I do proper research, so that is what the publication stated at the time. I found that this publication is still referenced in other works (see references here), so it appears reliable. Another interesting article is this one. It provides much more history (I'll see if I have time to add it) and corroborates the 1986 date. Regards, -- P 1 9 9✉19:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the dead link; see [4]. I haven't read either the article or the sources carefully, but at a quick glance there do seem to be some inconsistencies. Perhaps those would disappear if I read more carefully. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Just posted a comment on the page. I doubt he'd be involved in such sockpuppetry given how he earned a lot of rep over the years, especially with the meetups and stuff he organised. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like its solved now. Hmm... perhaps they shared IP's before when they logged in an internet cafe computer. --Lenticel(talk)11:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we have the deleting admin do that for us? I'm a bit too involved with this project to restore it for Exec8. --Lenticel(talk)01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's reassuring, didn't like how they wrongfully accused Exec without taking a good look at his rep, but at least they sorted things out and apologised. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the change. Honestly, I haven't done any edits for a month now and just read these comments only today. --Exec8 (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As the creator of the article in question, the speech itself generated significant press coverage and was talked about for days on end in the local (and even international) press. If that's not an indication of notability, then I don't know what is. (In addition, allow me to question the judgement of the user in question: he's only been a Wikipedian for a little over two months, and I don't think he would be in a position just yet to make these types of judement calls.) --Sky Harbor(talk)08:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, while I agree that the nomination may have been made in good faith, I would like to think that the nomination was raised perhaps without a full understanding of WP:GNG, something that I think we both know takes a while for us to wrap our heads around. To be fair, I likewise question my ability to make sound judgements on Wikipedia at times. But I do think that this is something that is rectifiable: let's see how it draws out, and maybe we can come to some sort of solution on how things can be addressed. :) --Sky Harbor(talk)09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a tad off-topic, or in the wrong place (I could ask RD:M for this, but since this concerns a regional subject, I felt this would be better addressed here), but can anyone here vouch for a good, trusted and certified schools to apply for a college homeschool programme in Cavite? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Inconsistency on the definition of the term Morion in the article Moriones Festival
Hi, I just wanted to call your attention regarding a certain definition which I have found to be a little off. During an online search session, I incidentally stumbled on the article about the Moriones Festival. I pored over the details in the article and eventually caught sight of the definition for the term Morion which says mask or visor. But looking at the article Morion_(helmet), the morion is defined as a type of open helmet, which, by our purposes, we can consider maskless/visorless. Definitions by other articles elsewhere around the Web seem to concur with this idea, such as those in Wiktionary and in Merriam-Webster. I can see that the article is of low priority at this time, but I hope the part of the article specified here can be reviewed for consistency with definitions from reputable sources, all for the overall improvement of the articles itself. I could have effected the necessary edits myself, but I still believe in the spirit of collaboration that has made Wikipedia one of the most sought after references. The article says that the term Moriones was concocted by the media in the 60's, the reason for the use of which was not specified nor can it be readily found online with just a single search, so it might still be possible that the article's definition may have been accurate if viewed in line with the dynamics of language and culture evolution. Nevertheless, it still pays to be sure about it. Thank you—Geo (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The mask depicts the entire soldier's head that wears the morion helmet. Basically it's a mask that shows a maskless face.--Lenticel(talk)00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says, "Morion means "mask" or "visor," a part of the medieval Roman armor which covers the face." Perhaps that is the meaning in the context of this particular article, but it is a definition which conflicts with the Morion (helmet) article and with the more commonly understood meaning outside of this article (see e.g., [5]). It seems to me that this needs rewording to clarify. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a cite in the article which states that the masks are called morion and are also named after the morion helmet. --Lenticel(talk)06:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just uploaded some pics I took in the Palace Museum, Valetta Malta a few years ago. Don't know if they'll help or hinder!
An anonymous editor (using IP 112.198.82.71, 112.198.77.28) is making some systematic changes to infoboxes that should be reviewed:
First, (s)he is changing population_density_km2 in {{Infobox settlement}} from "auto" to an expression (e.g. {{#expr: 18630 / 33.65 round 0}}). Since the template already calculates this automatically, is there any value in changing this? What is the point?
Executive Order 135 §6<ref name=eo135>{{url | http://www.census.gov.ph/content/executive-order-no-135 }}</ref> states that for "census years" (years divisible by 10) the reference date would be May 1st, but for all other years, the reference date is to be the "middle of the year".<br />This means that growth rates, although correct, are not necessarily simple year-on-year comparisons.
I think it is excessive/overkill to add this to every instance of {{Philippine Census}}. Also the Executive Order info is somewhat incidental to the census figures, and the growth rate statement is superfluous because per annum growth is already understood to be an average for that period. If really necessary, it may be better to add such notes just once to the article Demographics of the Philippines.
That is the same editor who insists his disruptive edits on Loboc Church regarding capitalizations where my edits were copyedited by seav. (which I later applied for semi-page protection and was granted) He's also using 112.198.79.9. If you will revert his edits with an explanation, he'll revert it again and again. Then, he'll issue 3RR and post notice on admin incidents. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's why we need to discuss this and have a consensus. Please add your comments on the 2 issues described above. -- P 1 9 9✉18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re issue 1, it is more convenient to stick with the automatic calculations since retyping (manual input again) of the values maybe prone to errors (although errors may be insignificant); new editors might also not understand the math expression here: 554. And a question, why is the value using the expr different with auto calc? (Auto calc uses total area in denominator while the IP uses land area) With issue 2, I agree that it is overkill to add it to the Philippine census. I might be good to add this info on an article on Philippine population census linked on the box's title. Just my thoughts. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: Census reference dates: May 1 and "middle of the year" (June 30/July 1) are two months apart. In a span of 5+ years this is insignificant math. –HTD13:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Population density - auto calculates this to 2S. This is fine for large areas / populations, but when it gets to small places, such as Cogon, Tagbilaran with an area of 2044 ha it can make quite a difference – computed gives 8373, auto gives 8400. There has been quite a lot of discussion about pop densities on Template_talk:Infobox_settlement where you will see that land area is to be used, if available, not total area, principally because not many people actually live in the sea. This is what the US census says: Population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States, state, county, place) by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles. Density is expressed as both "people (or housing units) per square kilometer" and "people (or housing units) per square mile" of land area. Added to that is that there is a lot of contradiction in the official government numbers as to what the area of any place is. Perhaps we should request a change to Template:Infobox settlement to allow better precision of small numbers?
Average population growth – I don't see any problem with explaining how the growth figures are derived, via a footnote. I spent a long time reading the conversations in Template_talk:Philippine_Census to help me understand where the figures came from which were quite at variance with my own computations (as much as 10% out). In fact the time of the data explains the difference, because "middle of year" in this context is usually 1st September (but other dates are used). I don't know why you don't want to explain this to others who may be as bewildered as I was – to the point of disregarding all the information because it seemed "wrong". If you don't like the overt footnote like that, maybe we can agree on an {{efn}}? (And maybe get it built in to {{Philippine Census}}?) There was a considerable change to {{Philippine Census}} to get it emit the mathematically correct numbers.
My edits to Loboc Church weren't the slightest bit disruptive, although Carlojoseph14's blind reversions were. This user has been editing only 5 months, yet already thinks he owns Wikipedia, and that all the style guides are for others. Guides to the production of a better finished article as well as guides to working with others. S/he already ignores WP:CAPITALSWP:OVERLINKWP:ROCWP:EDITORIALIZINGWP:PEACOCKAbbreviations widely used in Wikipedia and WP:OWNERSHIP as well as WP:PRIVACY, and often includes snippets of external pages without appreciating what they say.
I choose to edit anonymously because I am not interested in personality cults, edit counts, barnstars, GA, and other similar trivia. IP address is allocated by the telecom, nothing to do with me. I don't know why Carlojoseph14 thinks that using an account is better than an IP address. It still gives no clue to identity. How does P 1 9 9 (for instance) convey more than 112.198.82.136? 112.198.82.136 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. In reply:
For most LGU's (I am not concerned about barangays for now), we only have 1 area figure available (from NSCB) which is taken as total. Although land areas should be used for density, we don't have reliable info on this available. Therefore in those cases, there is little benefit changing "auto" to a math expression. And yes, the precision in {{Infobox settlement}} is an ongoing issue and I don't understand why it takes so long to resolve. It would be much better to press for corrections to the infobox than changing each article.
True, my real concern is the overt footnote that bloats the infobox. I certainly support {{efn}} (and support building it into {{Philippine Census}}).
Just to respond to 112.198.82.136, there are numerous advantages to having an account, the most important one being that your edit history is not spread out across different IPs, and we can easily track the work that you've been doing rather than having to pin down each and every IP address you've ever been assigned. Having a username also extends to you protections that you don't get as an IP (e.g. you have more credibility when asking for page protection, when you've suffered a personal attack, etc.), and generally makes you more respectable as a Wikipedian in general. While I respect your right to anonomity, a username guarantees that as well if that's what you're looking for. (In my case, I could be anonymous, but I willingly chose to disclose my identity, which is elaborated upon in my user page. That's your call if you ever decide to do that.) --Sky Harbor(talk)00:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Today I seem to be 112.198.82.85
OK I'll stop changing auto to a formula for now, but I'm expecting better consensus than 2 out of 4 (or 5 if you count the last contribution immediately above). But one of my main peeves is editors who revert hard work, seemingly solely on the basis of NIH. This goes completely against the ideas of WP:WIP. Maybe we should invite Frietjes to this conversation.
Regarding the putative footnote, I think what I'll do is experiment with a variety of methods, before proceeding to {{Philippine Census}} with a formal request. At the moment I favour adding the note to the column heading, but we'll see.
I do have a user account, but I choose to use it only when I have to (such as upload pics to wikimedia). It is hard though to imagine less protection than what I get now anonymously, which is about none, particularly my request to WP:AIV which just vanished. I may investigate an alternative approach. 112.198.82.85 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
To respond to point #3 by the IP-editor, I think it is a mis-characterization to say that your edits are not disruptive and Carlojoseph14's were. I also disagree with your assessment that Carlo's edits do not follow WP:CAPITALS. Insisting on "Loboc church" is like insisting on "Westminster cathedral" instead of "Westminster Cathedral" especially when reliable sources capitalize the "Church" in "Loboc Church". Furthermore, saying that Carlo has only been editing for 5 months is not a bad thing. I have been editing for almost 12 years now and Carlo has already brought 2 articles to WP:GA status, something which I have never done (yet). By bringing 2 articles to GA status, it shows that Carlo already knows quite a lot about how Wikipedia and its guidelines and policies work. Being a relatively new editor is not in itself something that should be frowned upon as you seem to imply. —seav (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for this argument, but my feeling is that only five months editing would leave most editors short of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and general culture. As regards GA status, is that short for GArbage? I have already questioned the decisions in passing both those articles as GA. They both abysmally failed WP:OVERLINK amongst other things; Maribojoc Church has some strange attribution, and Punta Cruz Watchtower has an oblique phrase whose meaning I can't determine. That's the trouble with lifting material from books without appreciating what they mean. They both rely extensively on just about one reliable source, with the other main source itself quoting the first one. I think WP:QPQ is a dangerous policy, known as "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and not conducive to objective evaluations. 112.198.82.89 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, while I understand the general direction of where this is going to, I seriously urge you to assume good faith in Carlo's edits, if you won't do so for seav. Alluding to his GAs as "garbage" because you decided to be persnickety with his referencing and/or writing style - to which they seem minor in comparison to the effort he poured into them in actually adding information to Wikipedia which is valuable - is completely uncalled for. While I may agree that people who are relatively new to Wikipedia may not have a complete grasp of policy just yet (something that I admitted to in the above discussion on "Salamat, Kaibigan"), I would never go so far as to demean his/her work just because he/she is "new". I believe we were all new at one point in our editing lives, weren't we not? (In addition, WP:QPQ applies only to DYKs, and not to GA nominations. I wonder what that says about your grasp of policy if you claim to question one's credibility.)
Just because we ask you to assume good faith, that doesn't mean that concerns about one's editing behavior ought to go away. But that also does not give you the right to jump into downright accusing people of being wrong about things. That's precisely why we're suffering from editing decline. That's precisely why we can't retain editors, let alone make new ones. While I understand that you may be well-intentioned, at the rate this is going, you're burning bridges more than you're building them, and it only goes to speak for all of us as Wikipedians when we, in defense of policy, ultimately drive away good editors, and in particular good-intentioned ones, just because they don't happen to edit to your or my benefaction. --Sky Harbor(talk)15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My last post here, because I am staggering under the weight of all you pinoys marching shoulder to shoulder with your eyes and ears shut. Summarising the last post, it seems that it's fine to ignore all of Wikipedia's policy guidelines, including those I listed above. Nor does the end-result matter either. All that matters is the amount of work put in. Pah! How much work is involved in lifted scads of material from two pamphlets? And it seems that I am expected to assume good faith while others do not afford me that courtesy – I spent at least six hours working on Loboc Church (the start of this noise), trying to change it from a schoolboy's exercise book to a polished encyclopaedic article, following established style guides. It was my work that was immediately (33 minutes) reverted by Carlojoseph14 without explanation. Where is the "assume good faith" in that? And just to remind you, he was the one who made 3RR there within a day. He also brought his snide grumbles to this section. He also sought and got page-protection on the article. In addition he has breached WP:PRIVACY at least three times, publishing what he assumes is my name. I don't see much "good faith" in any of that. Coincidentally (maybe) other work of mine was reverted three times in four hours by an IP address located in Taguig. Probably some over-excited schoolboys from Calamba.
As for decline in retention, I fail to see how promoting poor editors lacking knowledge of syntax, lexis and Wikipedia culture at the expense of driving away experienced ones is actually of benefit to Wikipedia or its users. In fact a complete disbenefit. Good intentions only count so far: the true bottom line is the finished article. BTW I am not seeking benefaction, far from it. So my "persnickety" editing will continue. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message. 112.198.82.99 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization of Barangay in a place name
In the Cogon, Tagbilaran article, Barangay is capitalized when it's a in place name (i.e., proper noun), such as the following:
Cogon overlooks Tagbilaran Bay to the west, to the south it is bounded by Poblacion 2, to the east by Barangay Dampas and Dao and to the north by Barangay Booy.
Is that correct, or should it be in lower case:
... barangay Dampas and Dao and to the north by barangay Booy.
It is correct if it is considered as a common name, see MOS:GEOUNITS. But I wouldn't worry about this either way, it doesn't affect or improve WP at all. -- P 1 9 9✉12:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd go with capitalizing "Barangay" just like "City" in "Quezon City" (curiously "Quezon Province/province" is mixed). Some names of barangays are in numbers such as "Barangay 656" and it makes some sense to capitalize it. –HTD13:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Another one of johnmperry or above IP editor's little games i see. You can treat barangays the same way you'd treat villages, being its English equivalent. It's either San Lorenzo Village or the village of San Lorenzo. Only in Filipino, the names are switched around just as in Spanish, Barrio San Lorenzo or el barrio de San Lorenzo. Hence, that should be Barangay Dampas or the barangay of Dampas.--RioHondo (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, for some reason, if the barangay name is 2 words or more, usually the word "Barangay" is omitted. Compare "Barangay Socorro" and "Greater Lagro". –HTD13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess so. I know you'd seldom hear Bagong Barrio in Caloocan being referred to as Barangay Bagong Barrio cos that would be really redundant. Like saying Barangay Bagong Barangay. :)--RioHondo (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! If I understand correctly, in general: it should be Barangay Dampas or the barangay of Dampas. In this case, because there are two barangays, barangay should be omitted entirely and the sentence should be:
Cogon overlooks Tagbilaran Bay to the west, to the south it is bounded by Poblacion 2, to the east by Dampas and Dao and to the north by Booy.
FWIW, "barangay of X" is very seldomly used, at least when compared to "Barangay X" and simply "X". –HTD18:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess all of wikipedia is just a "little game" to users like RioHondo (above). Other people care more for producing a properly-sourced, syntactically and lexically correct piece of work, however trivial, than for scoring brownie points or making continual snide remarks about other editors. 112.198.82.239 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that someone approach User:Vpjojobinay. I've blocked him for his username since it's the name of the Vice President of the Philippines, but I'm willing to unblock him if he will change his username as I think that his intentions are ultimately good. I do note that English does not seem to be his primary language and as such, would likely benefit from interaction with an editor who is fluent in Filipino. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that this template as currently implemented will create more problems and confusion than it eliminates. See {{Cite PH act}}. I have suggested at Template talk:Cite PH act#Suggestion that the template be deprecated and replaced with a template with similar aims but a different name and different characteristics. Please comment. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Most certainly! We need to work on the Philippines side of those WW II articles and try to improve the ones on the Philippine forces. As an aside, as a "ship" person I'd like to get some help with some Philippine registered ships that played a star role in the desperate attempts to resupply the forces there and the first hospital ship in the Southwest Pacific SS Mactan (1898) where I have the military part but almost nothing on the ship's commercial history. Palmeira (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing Filipino topics is difficult, and many Tagalog language books and news articles from 1996 are not archived through Google. The article Do Re Mi is in need of assistance in sourcing. As a film from one of the Philippines most notable and prolific directors I would certainly expect that coverage does indeed exist and would be absolutely amazed if one of this man's films did not receive coverage. Help? Schmidt, Michael Q.22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much sucks that the only place you'd get references are at newspapers via microfilm. By 1996, Philippine websites should only be counted on one hand, and most online archives only go through 2006 at the earliest. –HTD23:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it wasn't meant to be a discussion. I asked a {{help me}} question and you arrived. Didn't answer the question though, which I solved myself through experimentation. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 19:43, wikitime= 11:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
For instance Pacijan Island but it's a general point, which is why I moved it here, to canvass opinions.
I think it important to separate as far as possible physical geography, i.e. islands, from administrative divisions, i.e. municipalities. My idea was to merge all the Camotes islands under the Camotes Islands umbrella, and reserve the municipalities' pages for topics which are at that level. So I put Lake Danao into Pacijan island, together with brief notes of beaches, but I would place items such as transport (ports), industry, churches, schools etc., into the municipality pages. I would then cascade upwards (merge) the four islands into the Camotes page. Apart from Pacijan, which I worked on yesterday, the other three island pages are complete stubs with zero info outside of their infobox-style data. (I created the infoboxes myself earlier this week). For instance the mangrove swamp between Pacijan and Poro was designated a protected mangrove reserve some years ago. That is nothing to do with any municipality.
I don't think because a geographical entity happens to lie within a municipality that that is a reason for its inclusion on the municipality page. I'm thinking here of Tulang, a small dot of an islet administered within brgy Esperanza of San Francisco and whose entire population was evacuated off before Yolanda. All the houses were destroyed; I can't ascertain whether they've been re-established but I doubt it. Tulang obviously is not part of Pacijan, so can't be included in it. It is already distinguished within the lede of Camotes Islands, and I think should be merged into it.
Then there is Poro Island. That entirely contains two municipalities. It would not be logical to include it in one municipality and not the other, nor to include it in both. I think it necessary and right to maintain the geographical entity – island – separate from its content, municipalities. In which case it follows that Poro and Tudela stand clear of their physical geography.
So if Poro and Tudela don't include island geography, then it follows that neither should Pilar / Ponson Island nor San Francisco / Pacijan.
My intention is (was) to merge all the island pages into a single Camotes Islands page, with municipalities free-standing below it – even though there is minimal info about the municipalities, I think the Wikipedia requirement is that each has its own.
As an aside, I think the main problem with Cebu is that it is very hard to extract physical geography information, such as land area and population of Cebu island only, from the predominantly administrative-oriented other. I had a similar difficulty a couple of years ago with Bantayan Island and Bantayan municipality. It took quite a while to sort out the jumble, not helped by the official municipality web site which had (still has) everything jumbled together.
Why is it important to separate the physical geography from administrative divisions? Every administrative division (whether city, state, county, province, etc.) has a section on geography because the topics are intrinsically linked.
Actually, because a geographical entity happens to lie within a municipality is exactly the reason to include it. Again, the geography of a admin division is intrinsically linked to that division. But if there is a topic (like the mangroves between the islands) that fall outside the scope of one municipality, sure it is best to add it to the umbrella article (like Camotes Islands). Furthermore, if there is too much info, a separate spin-off article is always allowed (like Tulang).
I agree. That's why Poro Island article should remain, along with Poro, Cebu and Tudela, Cebu. But your conclusion that "if Poro and Tudela don't include island geography, then it follows that neither should Pilar / Ponson Island nor San Francisco / Pacijan" is not valid. Poro Island is not contiguous with its municipalities, whereas Ponson and Pacijan are.
As you say, Camotes Islands is an umbrella article. Therefore, it should contain info that applies to everything within the archipelago or describes the archipelago as a whole. Compare it also to Batanes. This is also an archipelago like Camotes, but also a province. The Batanes article describes both the physical geography as well as non-geographic topics. There are 3 main islands, of which only 1 has an article because the other 2 are (nearly) contiguous with the LGU. And I will try to update Cebu to reflect the difference between province and island better. -- P 1 9 9✉17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree that it important to separate as far as possible physical geography, i.e. islands, from administrative divisions, i.e. municipalities. I also do not agree that because a geographical entity happens to lie within a municipality is exactly the reason to include the geographically focused information in the article about administrative division. I think decisions about the location of geographically focused information into the (sometimes not very notable) administratively focused article or, alternatively, into a separate (and likely preexisting) geographically focused article should be guided by WP:SS.
The clear hierarchical structure of administrative divisions of the Philippines suggests that WP articles probably ought to exist for individual administrative entities, organized along the lines of that heirarchy (that flouts WP:N and WP:ORG, I think, but it does make sense to me). I haven't been involved in the effort, but a lot of work has been done to make this happen. Relevant here are the many administratively focused articles listed in and linked from the List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines article.
Sometimes (often, probably) the notability of geographically focused information will far exceed the notability of administratively focused information. One clear example involves the articles on Boracay Island (which appeared on October 21, 2003 ) and the article on Malay, Aklan (which appeared on June 15, 2005). I think that it would be madness to merge the Boracay article into the Malay, Aklan article. An article on a very notable geographic component within a not-so notable municipality might have contained administrative information about the parent municipality prior to the appearance off a topical article on the municipality, and might still contain it if that situation has net been cleaned up subsequent to the appearance of the administratively focused article.
Interesting. It's like Leyte then with its capital at Tacloban but with the national government offices located in Palo. The mystery of Philippine local government. But since the island is nearly contiguous with the municipality, there is reason to merge them then, with the island redirecting to Romblon, Romblon. Anyway, this has been discussed extensively in the last MOS debates with a consensus to merge only islands and administrative units that are more less coextensive with each other. See MOS proposal on islands. The danger with separating the geographical entity from the administrative for these places is, for editors, not knowing which article to link from all other articles and ,for readers, confusion from the duplication of articles. When an article mentions the Philippines for example, should it link to the article on the country Philippines or to the group of islands known as the Philippine archipelago? Siquijor is a province consisting of only one island, for people who don't know this and start creating a separate article on Siquijor (island), you'll have articles pointing to that, and some to the province, but is basically the same thing. See also WP:CONTENTFORK.--RioHondo (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The example of Boracay versus Malay, Aklan is completely unsuitable, off-base. Nobody is suggesting to merge these 2 articles, and if you read carefully, that is not what I am talking about. Boracay and Malay are far from coterminous. But where the island and admin division are the same, it is standard to have 1 article. See other non-PH examples: Bowen Island, Cozumel, and Saba. -- P 1 9 9✉22:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Either way it's tricky. It is compounded here (in the Camotes Islands) by there being two different names - if it was San Francisco municipality on San Francisco island, it would be a lot more straightforward (but not entirely). But it isn't. The island has a completely different name - Pacijan - so I don't think it's viable to roll one into the other. Ditto Pilar municipality, which fully occupies Ponson island. Poro island contains Poro municipality, but it also contains Tudela municipality. My feeling is that if there is to be any merging, then the islands should be merged with Camotes Islands blanket, and the municipalities all remain separate. As it happens, I have done some groundwork and made improvements to what was there before (i.e. FA), so maybe the need to merge has diminished. In addition, I think you can get carried away with trying to abolish a fork where there isn't one - Cebu island physical geography is not the same as Cebu province. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 19:53, wikitime= 11:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Cebu Island currently redirects to Cebu. For many people outside the Philippines, they know Cebu to be an island and are unfamiliar with the province. So they would link to the island article like they did to Fort San Pedro. Check the Cebu link in that article's lead. Thankfully it redirects to the more comprehensive article on the island province and not to some stub article only pertaining to the physical geography of that island. That's what we are trying to avoid. Buildings and structures as well as visitor attractions are sorted by admin unit and not by landform anyway. It is convenient to refer to Cebu, Bohol and Siquijor as islands, and they are very much interchangeable. A structure being located in Siquijor Island, a person born in Bohol Island, etc. Our policy on island-admin unit articles takes care of that problem.--RioHondo (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The HUC phenomenon. That would be under the sorrowful mystery of the Philippine rosary. The city is the province's capital but is outside of it. They should have just named the provincial capitol, the Embassy of Cebu in Cebu City lol.--RioHondo (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, its use turned to be right: it was "built by Spanish and indigenous Cebuano labourers under the command of Spanish conquistador, Miguel López de Legazpi and the Spanish Government in Cebu", with Cebu Island redirecting to the province article as the city wasn't independent at that time when the Spanish were in charge.
It seems this idea that islands and administrative units should have separate articles even if they are largely coterminous keep cropping up now and then. So I created an essay just for that: User:Seav/Islands and administrative units. Note that this does not say anything about mixed overlaps such as Camotes Islands consisting of 3 municipalities. But the essay does cover Pilar/Ponson Island. —seav (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks seav. Nice essay. While not policy, it does explain precisely the reasons why it is best to have 1 article. I can see some use for it as a justification for some merges. -- P 1 9 9✉18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Seav! Thanks for this well written explanation. Imma use that from now on for repeated complaints to save my energy and wikispace. For people who think this was my own weird invention or personal opinion, you heard it. There is real basis and consensus for merged island-admin units. --RioHondo (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dig Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theenjay36 (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:9Media Corporation#Requested move
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniversiTV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theenjay36 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Our article alerts section is alrerady a very good job at notices so this probably isn't needed. –HTD12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
NCAA PH Badminton Champions
Hi! Napansin ko na inaccurate yung info nyo about NCAA Badminton. I just want to inform you guys na 2012-2013 EAC is the men's champion at 2013-2014 ay CSB men's team nila ang champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.178.65.205 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Philippines experts! Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable competition. and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia Zero central notice promo
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation has a project called Wikipedia Zero and this is currently available in the Philippines through Smart and Sun networks. WMF is planning to roll out a Central Notice banner targeting Philippine IP addresses with the following message:
Use Wikipedia on your phone without data charges! Click here for a list of participating mobile operators.
This will link to a landing page containing the following text:
We believe knowledge should be equally available to everyone. So we created Wikipedia Zero in partnership with mobile operators.
These carriers support Wikipedia Zero in the Philippines:
Smart
Sun
The idea is to make more people in the Philippines aware of Wikipedia Zero and of course to encourage more use of Wikipedia.
I don't know the significance of using call signs in naming articles on radio stations. Why don't use the name most people can recognize? For example, DWTM should be moved to "Magic 89.9" & DWJM to "Jam 88.3" because the name is more recognizable than the call sign. Per WP:NC, one of the characteristics a good Wikipedia article title has is recognizability, regardless if it's a call sign or a name. Also on WP:RADIONAMING, it says:
“
For articles on stations located in countries which do use government-issued call signs, the official call sign should be used. However, in places with a mix of call signs and station names, such as most of Central and South America and Australian FM Radio, the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known.
”
Just like the places mentioned above, the Philippines has radio stations using either names or call signs to identify themselves. However, we should suggest that the country should be included in the places mentioned. Theenjay36 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The arguments are WP:RADIONAMING are to be used if all stations have them, whether they're known by it or not, and that some radio stations reformat rather frequently so we'd be moving some articles quite frequently. The thing is the Philippine government mandates radio stations to have callsigns, so the argument is we'd use them.
@Howard the Duck: I think you should check this first. For me, we have the same thing in Australia that uses either names or call signs to identify stations. I know that all of the radio stations in the country uses call signs, but there are cases that the call sign is unknown to the listeners, like UNTV Radio La Verdad. I don't know if that station has changed the call sign since 2012 (see discussion here). And I think names & call signs should be used with respect to the stations. Theenjay36 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My position on this is the government "owns" the frequencies, then just "sells" (rents?) the franchises. That means our basis would be the frequencies, not call signs. So for a theoretical example, the article on the frequency currently "occupied" by "XYZ FM 87.5" that has had 2 callsigns and 5 reformats would include info from those 2 callsigns and reformats under the current name of "XYZ FM 87.5". –HTD
Much of your broadcasting framework is modeled after that of the U.S. (the occupation still wears off on them, it seems). All U.S. and Canadian stations use their call-signs for the article, unless they are a prominent network of multiple stations where much of the history is tied to the network rather than its individual stations. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but most FM and TV stations do not use their call signs at all, unlike, for example, KIIS and KROQ in Los Angeles. I'm okay with FM and TV stations moved to the most frequent name (which may be their call signs), while the AM stations get to stay in their call signs. –HTD03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
At least for local FM and TV stations, I prefer that we follow WP:COMMONNAME, as that also follows the recognizability criterion of WP:AT. For AM stations, I agree that the call signs are widely recognized. —seav (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. The test WP:RM is ongoing as theenjay36 stated. If you think that articles on FM radio station in the Philippines should use the common name instead of the call sign, or stay as it is, please do have your voice heard. —seav (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Legislative districts of the Philippines
This is a major project of mine for this year. Currently, we have articles for every legislative district per province or city. This year, I'm planning to create articles for all districts, then we'd have the current legislative district per province articles into the current situation. Also, I'm asking for help on whoever has the parties of the congressmen since 1907. This would make the new articles more informative the current ones.
Finally, I'm planning on renaming it to "Congressional districts" from "Legislative districts". There are quite a few more legislative districts below the congressional level such as the provincial and city levels, so making it named as "Congressional districts" would drive home to the point that these are legislators at the Batasan.
Barangay notability has been a frequent discussion here at the Tambayan since 2005. There is yet another Afd (actually, merge) for several (not all) barangays in Calamba. If you have any strong feelings regarding the notability of barangays, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Thanks! —seav (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
TBH, this is a lost cause, if one thinks most barangays aren't notable. Wikipedia accepts that any settlement, big or small, even if it's not "legally constituted", is notable. Heck, at this point, sitios and puroks could even be notable. –HTD23:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The barangay where I currently live in might be notable, well since Andres Bonifacio settled there in 1896 according to history, but other than that I'm not sure as to whether it deserves a separate page given how it's mostly a street with practically nothing else besides the historical figure staying there for a year or something. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Several municipality pages, e.g. Anda, Bohol, have lists of names of former mayors. I think this kind of thing is exactly covered by WP:NOTIINFO and should be removed. They are without exception non-notable, probably not even household names in their own households.
The inclusion seems to broach other guidelines, e.g. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If anybody really wants to know, they can readily find the information on the municipality website (which is where I fancy it was first cribbed from).
I think such lists should be removed.
In addition some municipalities occasionally make uncited reference to non-notable people, for example Bogo.
I do not believe these things have any place in Wikipedia, and should be removed.
While Anda itself is not very notable, its local government including former mayors is highly relevant and intrinsic to the subject itself. It is no different than mayors of Manila: the article Mayor of Manila lists them all (even vice-mayors!), even though many names are not well known. And don't say that "Manila shouldn't be compared to Anda". This is not about the size of town but about the relevance to the town itself. So WP:NOTIINFO doesn't quite apply. In contrast (and by way of comparison), simple lists of businesses are often removed from articles, because such businesses are not intrinsically linked to the place. -- P 1 9 9✉20:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, some articles about places, even from those outside the Philippines, has a list of famous natives connected with that place. It's been quite established that certain local officials such as national-level legislators and executives make the cut; for local ones, it's not clear cut.
As for a list of mayors, again, but not as universal as a "list of natives", they're still quite a number of them. The WP:NOTIINFO argument doesn't really hold much water, since when you're discussing the history of a town (or indeed of a certain place), it's inevitable that'll there be a discussion about the mayors (or governors, presidents, etc.). If this is the case, a corresponding list, isn't indiscriminate information, as they've been (supposedly) discussed elsewhere. –HTD02:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc.
Good day sir ipapreview ko lang po sana ang article namin
Looking at the language options of wikidata items, there does not appear to be any Filipino, Tagalog, Hilongos or Waray-waray. The only Phil language I can see is Cebuano. BTW they do have Scots, which as far as I know isn't a language at all. Apart from including proper languages, they need to differentiate between language and dialect.--Roger Camotes (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to met notability as defined by WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Only found one reliable source that gives information about a street named after the subject, but did not find any other reliable sources that give any coverage of the subject of this biography that meet WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I made a stub article for Bangsamoro Basic Law, because I keep looking to Wikipedia for information about it and was surprised no article existed yet. I know almost nothing about it but I hope others can fill in the details. TheCoffee (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#2011 License revocation. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
.) Thanks for addressing this issue. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
