Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cities[edit]

Forced disambiguation should not be used, even for non-independent cities. Also, when disambiguation is necessary, it might be preferable to use the parenthetical method rather than the comma method, e.g. [[San Fernando City (La Union)]] because the name of the city does not include the name of the province. --Polaron | Talk 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know, because non-independent cities are part of the mother province, and independent cities do not need the <Cityname City, Province> or Cityname City (Province)> because they're not a part of any province. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just a bit convinced from another discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)) that disambiguation should use parentheses, in almost all of the cases. I believe we should name the article after the name (media popular, not official [if it's too long] nor colloquial) of the article's subject. So the city of San Fernando's article should be named "San Fernando City" because that's what most newspapers do when they refer to the city. But since there are two San Fernando cities in the Philippines (and probably a several others in the world), then they should be disambiguated by a parenthetical term. Now, I don't quite like "(La Union)" or "(Pampanga)" as the disambiguating text because disambiguation should answer "what?" not "where?" or "when?", So the proper disambiguating term is "(La Union city)" or "(Pampangan city)". But it looks ugly next to "San Fernando City" so I'm still ambivalent. But, I guess, "San Fernando City, La Union" is still an acceptable convention for the meantime. --seav 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an ugly prospect. The current Town, Province/City, State convention is much better. --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the name already includes "City", the "what" is already answered and the "where" is the ambiguity. Adding the province in parentheses would be my preference. But, if the entire phrase, "San Fernando, Pampanga" for example, is in common usage, then the comma form of disambiguation is acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Which brings me to what form is the most accepted. At the start of WWE broadcasts, it is stated at the top left corner "LIVE from Chicago, Illinois". At the PBA Draft, they followed the Place, Province convention except for "Manila". --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a distinction between a location and a name. The title of the city article should be simply the name (disambiguated only if needed) with the location stated in the introductory paragraph. Using the comma form as a disambiguation gives the false impression that the province name is part of what the city calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
But we have to follow what is the most popular name, but not what is correct. Finding out which is the more popular convention (<Municipality name, province name> vs. <Municipality name (province name)>. IMHO, we should have a standard for all municipalities and component cities, and all independent cities, except in special circumstances. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. Just because there's a "City" suffix doesn't mean that it's a city. What about Bonifacio Global City, Filinvest Corporate City, Star City, and Eastwood City? And let's suppose there's another Star City franchise in Cebu. Which then is more correct for disambiguation, "Star City (Pasay)" or "Star City (Pasay amusement park)"? --seav 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's we need to formulate policy on this. I'd say those w.c are component cities use the <Cityname> City, {provincename> or <Cityname City> (<Provincename>), while the independent cities use <Cityname> City or for dab purposes use <Cityname> City, <Regionname>.
I'd say we the Star Cities are in one page called Star City (amusement park). --Howard the Duck 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation term will depend on what the other objects the thing in question is being differentiated from. The answer to the Star City question would depend on what other objects called Star City are there? --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets make this a policy already![edit]

Are you in favor of making this project page into a policy? --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I support all proposals made as of [1]. Vote subject to change pending any future changes. --Chris S. 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support all proposals as of [2] --Edward Sandstig 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Diacritics[edit]

Sorry, I don't have a vote. I reverted Andres Bonifacio to the version without diacritics because I assumed this was correct. Since he was born during Spanish times, I guess it should have(?).--Jondel 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the MOS should that, no diacritics unless it is widely used, or is preferred by the person himself, or for the letter "ñ". --Howard the Duck 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But how about the policy that names during Spanish times be written with diacritics. (This is about policy as a whole not only about Andres B.) Also perhaps the name of Jose Rizal should have diacritics whether there is a policy to remove it or not.--Jondel 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know that José in José Rizal is widely used, although not as much Jose Rizal BUT, several Rizalistas I've met endorse the "é" in "José". Also, in Mapùa Institute of Technology, the official website endorses the "ù" in "Mapùa". --Howard the Duck 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found this page while taking my time to study the guidelines. Anyway, here's my take on diacritics in Filipino names:

I've lived in the Philippines for my whole life, and I know for a fact that diacritics are rarely (if ever) used in writing. However, I am still in favor for placing diacritics for practical reasons, even if not many Filipinos do this.

First, not many foreigners --- I mean, non-Filipinos --- are familiar with Filipino pronunciation and accentuation. In the Tagalog language, for instance, it's possible for two words to have the same spelling but with entirely different accents (and, of course, they really mean two different things). Since the English Wikipedia is an international website, the diacritics may help identify the correct meaning intended, especially if the user is someone who is learning Philippine culture and the Filipino languages.

Because Filipinos know the language very well, accents are deemed superfluous in written communication. However, a beginner in, say, Tagalog, may come across with a word that has different accents (and meanings, too). Without the diacritics, this person may have difficulties determining which meaning was intended for the word. A person such as this is still new to the language, and still hasn't reached the mastery of the language which native Filipinos have; placing the diacritics will clarify any ambiguities and also help this person reach fluency to the point when this person will also learn how to live without the diacritics.

Second (corollary to the first point), the diacritics will help establish the correct accent pattern for each word. Since most words in Filipino may have more than three syllables, the diacritics help establish the correct rhythmic flow and speech patterns.

Using the Andres Bonifacio example, people who are not familiar with Filipino (actually, the name is Spanish) pronunciation may pronounce Andres as Ándres (same accent as in Andrew)instead of Andrés. The diacritics make this clear.

For the same reason, Mapúa (ma-póo-wah) University (a well-known university in the Philippines, by the way) is best spelled with the diacritic on the letter u. When I was younger, I often mispronounce it as Mápua (map-wah). The diacritic helped me learn the correct pronunciation.

Another example: the phrase "national anthem", when translated into Filipino, reads Pambansang Awit. To avoid any mispronunciations, it's advisable to spell the words with the diacritic (i.e., Pambansáng Awit...note that I spelled Áwit there without the diacritics, since in Filipino it's normal to accent the first syllable in a two-syllable word). Otherwise, a well-meaning foreigner who uses regular Spanish accentuation may accidentally mispronounce it as Pambánsang Awit or even Pámbánsang Awit.

I also have a personal example. My surname has three syllables, and most three-syllable words or names in the Philippines are accented on the second syllable (for example, bayáni [="hero"]). However, my surname's correct pronunciation places the accent on the last syllable (as in, kakanín [="rice delicacy"]). Most people mispronounce my surname, which is why my mother advised us (me and my siblings) to place the correct diacritic whenever we write our names on official forms.

The case for keeping (or discarding) the diacritic in a Spanish word or name that is normally spelled with the diacritic (for example, José and Corazón) is another matter, but for me it is also a valid point, in keeping with the Spanish legacy in the Philippines.

Hence, I am voting in favor of diacritics --- Tito Pao 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Afterthoughts:
Since opinion is varied on whether diacritics should be enforced in Philippine names(or not), it may be helpful to take a look at the issue in another light under two opposing perspectives:
1. In the classroom, diacritics are taught. It's in the elementary (usually, Grade V or Grade VI), high school and college curricula. Hence, it's also a question of whether we can apply what we have learned in school (which may sometimes not be the case). Most academic English-Filipino/Filipino-English dictionaries (not the cheap, pocketbook editions) print the words with diacritics. (As far as I can remember, diacritics are still in use in UP Diliman's newsletter (The Collegian).)
2. In actual usage, Filipinos rarely (if not "never") use diacritics in everyday language. No documentation is necessary for this, because it's all over the country (i.e. in the newspaper, on TV)
However, given the first statement, just because Filipinos rarely use it does not necessarily mean that Filipinos should not use it. You can think of diacritics as an option available to the Filipino language to those who want to make use of it. If someone elects to use diacritics, why should we discourage this person from doing so? Put the other way around, if I were a school teacher, why should I force other people to use something that they are free not to make use of? For me, taking one of these points of view does not respect the freedom of choice that we have in acceptable language usage. As far as I can remember, both the use and non-use of diacritics are still part of acceptable Tagalog usage.
In this light, I'm offering a proposal for a way around this concern:
1. First, redirects for words spelled with or without diacritics may be created. Preferably, the main article should have the diacritic, while the ones without would redirect to the main article. Hence, as an example, José Rizál should be the main article, and Jose Rizal the redirecting article.
2. Second, the name may be spelled in diacritics the first time it is mentioned in the article (in particular, in the title and in the first instance on the article proper).
3. Third (and for me the most important point), for subsequent mentions for the rest of the article, no one should discriminate against other contributors who use the diacritics (or who don't). Since both usages are acceptable, this should be left as a matter of taste.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. Do let me know how we can work this out. --- Tito Pao 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
  1. Yes in the classroom, diacritics are taught. But they are not taught to put those diacritical marks on the words themselves. It is used for pronounciation guide, to differentiata "lobo" (balloon) from "lobo" (wolf, see, I've forgetten already what marks to use, lol)
  2. Wikipedia isn't about what is the most correct, but what is the most popular. Hence in the Philippine-related article, we use the American, not the British style of English, color not colour, apartment not flat, etc.
  3. And to top it off, a vast majority of Filipinos from the Spanish period up to today haven't spoke fluent Spanish. All they know are the uno, dos, tres, the simple words, but they can;t construct complete sentences. That's why on Rizal's Noli Me Tangere, he asked for the creation of an Academy of the Spanish language, right?
So for me, the way to go around in this issue:
  1. Use diacritical marks if the person himself used/uses/endorses it. (ex: The Mapua Tech website uses "Mapúa", so we should use that.)
  2. An expert on a particular person says it is correct to use diacritical marks on that person (ex: Rizalistas said using diacritics is correct).
--Howard the Duck 08:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities, part 2[edit]

After much thought, the name "City" should be part of article name unless the city has the same name as a province (ex.: Cebu City and Cebu). In all other cases, we'd use <City>, <Province>, or if it's not a part of a province, plainly <City>. --Howard the Duck 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to adding this page to the "Wikipedia style guidelines" category?[edit]

There's been very little traffic on this page, but it has had the infobox at the top for a long time, and I don't see anything unreasonable (although I'm not from the Phillipines). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the naming convention for Philippine LGUs[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion about the naming convention for Philippine LGUs over at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general). --seav (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style[edit]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Philippine[edit]

"Philippine" is not just used with objects, but is also commonly used with people.

This being so, our usage guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Philippine-related_articles)#Adjective_form_of_the_Philippines, which says that "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects", is out of step with usage in published sources. I've been WP:BOLD and have updated the guidance accordingly. Is that okay? --JN466 06:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this. "Filipino" is the preferred adjective to refer to people. --seav (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
While it's numerically slightly more prevalent, Philippine is used as an adjective applied to people in thousands of reliable sources, including top-quality Philippine sources. Editors are free to follow usage in reliable sources. For example, Philippine workers, Philippine politicians, Philippine peasants, Philippine scientists, Philippine doctors, Philippine women. If tens of thousands of books employ this usage, including books written and printed in the Philippines, it is not up to us to say it is not acceptable; we do not define language usage, we follow it. Please accept it; alternatively, we can initiate an WP:RFC. --JN466 00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest that rather than changing this back and forth while the discussion is ongoing, we leave it as it was before while this discussion is ongoing. This is helpful to avoid confusion as to what change is being proposed. Then, if there is consensus for the change, we can change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would also oppose changing the Manual of Style on this point. It's relatively clear that both adjectives can be used "correctly" to describe people. However, a manual of style is just that—a manual of style. It doesn't reflect all the possibilities of correct potential usage. A MOS simply adopts a "house style" that editors agree to follow throughout a project for purposes of consistency in editing. Thus, I think it's OK for this WP manual of style to set down the principles that it has regarding "Philippine" and "Filipino"—that "Philippine" is used with inanimate objects and "Filipino" is used with people. Having it say this doesn't mean that this convention is the only correct way of doing things, it just establishes a standard for a particular project (Wikipedia) and makes it easier and more predictable to find one's way around the various WP pages. If "Filipino" is generally the more preferred usage, there's nothing wrong with WP saying that for reasons of style it will use the more common form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage of the adjective "Philippine" – only for inanimate objects, or for people as well?[edit]

The present Manual of Style states that

  • Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.

An editor has proposed changing the usage guidance for Philippine as follows:

  • Philippine may be used with inanimate objects or people. Example, Philippine National Anthem, or Philippine writers.

The proposal is based on the fact that thousands of book sources, including Philippine scholarly sources, use "Philippine" in reference to people.

Examples given were:

Opposition to this change has been based on the assertion that "Filipino" (which has a female version as well, "Filipina") is the preferred adjective to refer to people. Cf. for example

The question is, should the MOS mention that "Philippine" may be applied to both inanimate objects and people, or should the present wording, "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects", remain?

Thanks for your input. --JN466 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors[edit]

  • Support changing the MOS. Usage is clear: "Philippine" is commonly used in reference to people in reliable published sources. --JN466 04:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If you are going to proceed with boldly changing the MoS, you should have informed the rest of the community first (I only found out via the CfD). Anyway, while the adjective "Philippine" can refer to people, it does so more with mass nouns than with individual nouns. For example, a person can be a Filipino, but citizens of the Philippines are Philippine citizens. The lines between the use of Filipino and Philippine are very unclear, since it can go either way. But by and large, as far as I know, "Philippine" has been used with inanimate objects: writers as a mass noun is inanimate, whereas the singular noun "writer" is animate and would use Filipino over Philippine. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My apologies for the abrupt intrusion. However, may I suggest that we consult source usage for this decision? So let's look at singulars:
    • There are 266 references to a "Philippine writer" (singular) in Google Books as well: [3].
    • There are over 700 books in Google Books referring to a "Philippine woman": [4].
    • Similarly, "Philippine author" has 146 Google Books matches, while "Filipino author" has 474 (a ratio of 1:3 approximately).
    • In Google Scholar, there are 41 matches for "Philippine author", versus 99 matches for "Filipino author".
    • Google Scholar has 26 references to a "Philippine politician", and 34 references to a "Filipino politician". 26 vs. 34.
    • Google Books has 374 references to a "Philippine politician" and 869 references to a "Filipino politician". That is a ratio of about 3 to 7.
    • Google Books has 17,600 references to the "Philippine president" vs. 2,090 references to the "Filipino president". This means "Philippine president" is over 8 times more common than "Filipino president". Is the Philippine president an inanimate object?
    • I am sorry, what I see are off-the-cuff assertions that are simply not informed by any survey of real-world English usage in published sources. That is a problem. --JN466 06:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What I think may be worth exploring is whether "Filipino" is the preferred term when referring to ethnicity, while "Philippine" is common when referring to nationality. This might explain why in reference to the Philippine president, where the adjective clearly refers to the nation, rather than ethnicity, "Philippine" is vastly more common than "Filipino", while on the other hand people overwhelmingly speak of the "Filipino community in Los Angeles" rather than the "Philippine community in Los Angeles". This distinction is probably closer to the mark than the "inanimate/animate" distinction. --JN466 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Good Ol'factory's comment in the previous section is spot on. This is a style issue and the proposed change as worded does not really improve things over the status quo. In fact, the proposed change may just confuse people since it would seem that they can simply arbitrarily choose between "Philippine" or "Filipino" as an adjective to refer to people. As your Google searches show, "Filipino" is still overwhelmingly used to refer for people over "Philippine" (with the occasional reversal such as "Philippine President"). If there will be a change to the MOS, I prefer it to be something like this for the first 2 bullets:
    • "Philippine" and "Filipino" are the two most common English adjectival form for the Philippines. While these two are usually interchangeable, "Philippine" is often used for inanimate objects and abstract items (e.g., "Philippine Senate", "Philippine mountains", and "Philippine national anthem"), while "Filipino" is often used for people (e.g., "Filipino actor" and "Filipino authors").
  • Comment I say I go for using "Filipino" when referring to the person ("He is a Filipino poet," "He is a Filipino scientist"), while for all other things such as offices ("He is the Philippine president") and culture ("this is a dish in Philippine cuisine") use "Philippine". Note that while "He is a Filipino president" is not exactly wrong -- it can refer to a Filipino who is/was not a President of the Philippines, if that ever happens. An exception if "Filipino" is used as a proper noun. It's kinda like Serb and Serbian. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Being a native, I do know that Filipino is the strongly preferred term to describe people among Filipinos themselves. Other editors have already told you as much. It is actually the only acceptable adjective used by Filipinos when referring to themselves. The examples, Philippine doctor and Philippine writer, all sound awkward to me. They can still be correct of course, but only if they were referring to the professions rather than the people. You will never hear a Filipino say 'I am Philippine' and almost never 'I am a Philippine [something]'.
But yes, the president of the Philippines is usually referred to as The Philippine president, this is because the adjective describes the position, rather than the person. It's an abstract concept and thus depersonalized. It happens in some other similar words as well, like 'Philippine ambassador' (i.e. The ambassador who represents the Philippine government). If you are, however, referring to the person, you would say the 'Filipino ambassador' (i.e. The ambassador who is a Filipino). And of course, like Sky Harbor said, mass nouns, as Philippine, unlike Filipino and Filipina, is more obviously gender-neutral.
Instances of Philippine used in the context of describing a person/people is only usually encountered when non-Filipinos unfamiliar with the Philippines in general, attempt to find a word to describe a native of the Philippines. They will often make the incorrect assumption that since the country is named 'Philippines' its people would be Philippine. Take a look at your Google results again, and note that the overwhelming majority of the authors were non-Filipinos and can't exactly be called linguistic/cultural experts. The 1:3 proportion is also an illusion caused by unavoidable systemic bias because lot more non-Filipino academic works get mention in Google Books (something that happens in a lot of other non-Western concepts as well). Those are the results you are getting.
I also noticed that you are not Filipino. Since you made a very common mistake: "Philippine women (about 10,800 matches in Google Books; vs. 20,700 for "Filipino women")"
The term Filipino is not gender-neutral. Its usage guideline is similar to the English 'He'. That is: used for masculine and neuter (grammatical gender, should not be confused with natural gender), and plural non-gender specific forms of nouns, but never used when the gender is definitely female. In short, you should never say 'Filipino women' (that would be kinda like saying 'male women'), you either say 'Filipina women' (when making a distinction for female adults) or simply Filipinas. You can encounter 'Filipino woman' a lot, yes, but it is only grudgingly accepted as something someone unfamiliar of the actual terminology would say. Which only proves the point that Google search in this case, doesn't actually reflect actual usage. Try searching instead for Filipinas against Philippine women and you'd get 85,700 vs. 10,800 (make sure to do advanced search in English to filter out the Spanish term for the Philippines - Filipinas). The results are also actually more focused on Filipinas and/or written by Filipinas rather than mere mentions of them (e.g. Transnational Asia Pacific: gender, culture, and the public sphere By Shirley Lim, Pinay power: peminist critical theory : theorizing the Filipina/American ... By Melinda L. De Jesús, Filipinas in dialogue: Muslim-Christian women's response to contemporary challenges by Erlinda H. Bragado, Race, gender, and work: a multi-cultural economic history of women in the ... By Teresa L. Amott, Julie A. Matthaei, etc.)
While claiming otherwise would seemingly be OR given the disparity of the number of Philippine sources vs. foreign ones, why exactly would we espouse incorrect usage as well? Philippine is imposed terminology unused by locals. You can't exactly argue COI against them, heh, (was that the reason you didn't inform the wikiproject of this RfC?) and you should consider due and undue weight here. In the same way that Asians would prefer to be called 'Asians' rather than 'Orientals' despite having apparently the same rate of usage (Asians: 551,000 results vs. Orientals: 441,000 results). This MOS is for very specific areas of Wikipedia where national usage over international incidental usage are justifiable. And you can't argue that Filipino is "not English" either, because it is, albeit a dialect - Philippine English (Pilipino is the Filipino equivalent).
I'm very curious as to why you continue to pursue this though. It doesn't actually add anything of informational value as Seav (who forgot to sign his comment LOL) already said, it merely gives undue weight to a more uncommon/incorrect usage. While non-Filipinos can be excused for interchanging the two, the more correct convention is actually the one currently outlined in the MOS. If anything should be changed to reflect actual usage, it should be that Filipino can be used interchangeably with Philippine when referring to inanimate objects. Chalk it up to the vagaries of English, but please do recognize that the current MOS does reflect more widespread convention. Because one thing no one else has mentioned here is this: just because it is also used does not mean it is also correct--ObsidinSoul 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your research; I think now we are actually getting somewhere. The discussion first arose at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_7#Category:Filipina_poets, where another editor had created a category "Filipina poets" to house a DYK article (Ivy Alvarez) my wife had written the other day. We don't usually have separate categories for female and male authors according to nationality, and the category was proposed for deletion. I proposed "Philippine poets" as a gender-neutral category name, per existing categories like Category:Philippine spies, Category:Lists_of_Philippine_politicians. Because, as you rightly say, Ivy is not a "Filipino poet".
Now let me assure you that I have no desire to impose foreign English usage on articles written about Philippine matters. I am a strong supporter of the idea that WP articles about a country should be written in that country's English. I spent several weeks arguing that Ganges should be moved to Ganga, as all Indian editors commenting on that move request were in favour of it, the names of Indian government authorities and projects all use Ganga, and the ones who were opposed were all non-Indians (unfortunately, they were also in a majority). So I sympathise with you about matters of systemic bias.
However, the book I cited is by the University of the Philippines Press. It's the write-up on Ruth Jordana L Pison, PhD, an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman, the Philippines' premier institution of higher learning. It said she teaches courses on "Philippine women writers in English" at that university. She was also the deputy director of the UP press. The other source I cited was the Philippine Journal of Linguistics, which I assumed would feature Philippine authors. It refers 5 times to Philippine writers, and 3 times to Filipino writers. I also searched for other references to "Philippine writers" in University of the Philippines Press publications. I found what looked like 409 matches (if you actually click through them, you note that the listing stops at number 49, and that it includes many references to the Philippine Writers' League, the Philippine Writers' Series, or the Philippine Writers' Guild). So I did my best to make sure that what I was proposing would not be imposing an alien style on Philippine-related articles, but be something that is reflective of top-quality Philippine sources.
Then there is the matter of the Philippine president. He or she is clearly a person; and the way the MOS is written right now, editors would end up calling her or him the "Filipino president". We may simply need to differentiate a little more and explain to users that there are certain contexts, notably those related to the Philippine nation, and its prominent people – above all presidents, ambassadors and other office-holders – where "Philippine" is the preferred adjective for people. Otherwise we get editors referring to the Filipino president, which is very much a minority usage. If we agree that there are differences between local and foreign English usage, let's educate users on these, including on those types of foreign English usage that really grate with Filipinos and should be avoided in all articles that are predominantly on the Philippines, and in biographies of people who are mainly notable in the Philippines.
But we have to do better than we are doing at present; the inanimate/animate distinction simply does not cut it. So please let's look at how we can make it more accurate and useful.
Three afterthoughts:
  1. To my linguistic sensibility, if a situation were to arise where a French woman should become a special envoy for the Philippine government, I would refer to her as the "Philippine special envoy", but not the "Filipina (or Filipino) special envoy", because even though she is the Philippine special envoy, she is still French, and not a Filipina.
  2. Could someone explain to me how the Philippine Writers' League, Philippine Writers' Series, Philippine Writers Academy and Philippine Writers' Guild came to be called thus? I assumed they were formed by Filipinos, and if so, then this sets a good precedent for having gender-neutrally named categories such as "Philippine writers" in WP.
  3. One of the books you linked to above, Pinay power: peminist critical theory: theorizing the Filipina/American experience, states that Filipinas in the diaspora tend to avoid the term "Filipina" because of its colonial associations, preferring to refer to themselves as "Filipino women", "Philippine women", "women of the Philippines" or "Pinay". I have no idea if that's true, but the author seems to have researched the matter, and it seemed interesting to note. --JN466 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for implying you were imposing heh. Coming from another argument I was a bit more leery of systemic bias than I should have been. Anyway, yes. I definitely agree. The distinction is not that of animate/inanimate. As for the rest:
  • Yes, a French envoy representing the Philippine government would be correctly 'Philippine special envoy' and not 'Filipina special envoy'.
  • As for those Philippine Writer's Guild and whatnot, the explanation is a bit easier - the 'Philippine' adjective modifies the 'Guild', not 'Writers'.
  • Keyword is 'diaspora', heh. Probably expats influenced by western ideals of feminism and probably more than a bit resentful of the Spanish colonial rule. UP people are known to be a bit, erm... nationalistic heh. Filipino purists, so to say, striving to erase all traces of Spain in language and to 'nativize' it. To the point of replacing inherited terminology with more obscure purely native words unused for centuries/purely filipino neologisms. One of the more absurd examples of which is the replacement of silya ('chair' from Spanish silla) with salumpuwit (filipino neologism literally meaning 'to catch the buttocks', ugh). English, and to a greater degree - Philippine languages, have one advantage over Spanish and Spanish derived words that might appeal to feminism: their nouns are gender-neutral (in Philippine languages, the advantage is even greater - all our pronouns are gender neutral). But I'm assuming, heh, so take that with a grain of salt.
--ObsidinSoul 05:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I essentially support the status quo, as I explained in the section above. Rather than repeat what I said, I'll just summarily say that I think this is a style issue, and the current guideline to use "Filipino" for people" and "Philippine" for inanimate things and governmental positions, etc. seems appropriate to promote clarity and consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think the MOS should disallow rhis usage, as it currently seems to do, or even discourage it. I see this usage inside and outside of WP, often in situations where a strong indication of the sense "of the Philippines" is intended. Some few examples:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. My feeling too is that the real distinction is not between inanimate/animate, but between "representing the country" vs. "ethnicity". --JN466 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'd definitely agree to that. It's not a simple distinction between inanimate and animate that's for sure. I'd support that change.--ObsidinSoul 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That only actually proves it is archaic and should be discouraged as much as possible (cf. Oriental vs. Asian). While I agree that it is probably correctly used in Kingdom of Tondo, Schurman Commission, Miguel Malvar, and in Spanish language in the Philippines, in those instances 'natives/inhabitants of the Philippines' would have sufficed just as well (or indios to be more pedantic). Back then, Philippines referred more to the place rather than the people (cf. America, American, and American Indian).
The rest of those, I'd really rather change to Filipino as they are simply diverging from MOS and don't actually prove anything. Also note how 'Philippine players' were used because the teams were actually representing the country/people in the official sense (cf. Philippine president, Philippine ambassador). 'Philippine' in this case can actually be broken down into 'of the Filipinos' or 'of the Philippines' rather than being a direct synonym of 'Filipino'. You would, for example, correctly use 'Philippine player' even when referring to say... an Australian national playing for the Philippine team. So yes, while I agree that the usage of 'Philippine' is correct in those cases, I don't think that was what JN466 meant. When he said 'Philippine writers', I think he meant 'writers who are Filipino' rather than 'writers who live in the Philippines'.
'Philippine' implies origin/location/position rather than nationality/ethnicity. And when talking about people (like here on Wikipedia), you are more liable to mean nationality/ethnicity rather than origin, correct? 'Filipino' is the proper noun referring to national identity, while 'Philippine' is simply an adjective. 'Filipino' can stand on its own while and be a noun used as an adjective, 'Philippine' is only be an adjective and can not ever be a nominal adjective. Take these two examples:
"Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino boxer." > "Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino."YesY
"Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine boxer." > "Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine."N
My main problem with adding it to MOS is that people will then have a justification to use it like outlined in the latter example. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that it would be wrong.
The distinction between Philippine and Filipino is also listed as one of the more notable examples in our own article on Demonym. The only other similar usage I can think of is the term used for natives of Los Angeles - Los Angeleno/Angeleño rather than Los Angelic/Los Angelene/Los Angelean. So yeah:
  • Usage of 'Filipino' in Wikipedia overwhelmingly refers to national identity/ancestry and should thus remain 'Filipino' rather than 'Philippine'.
  • While it is true that adjectives used as nouns can never be plural, its adoption as the name of the Philippines (originally correctly 'Philippine islands' from 'Las Islas Filipinas', cf. 'Faroe Islands' > 'Faroes') makes it a bit more confusing. Making it a viable alternative in the MOS can imply that sentences like "The Philippines went dancing last night." is correct when it isn't.
  • 'Filipino' encompasses both meanings (as a noun and as an adjective), while 'Philippine' only applies as an adjective. i.e. Filipino can mean 'Filipino person' or 'of the Philippines', while 'Philippine' can only ever mean 'of the Philippines'. The current implementation is fine as it is.
P.S. National Geographic Society's Manual of Style also makes a distinction for Filipino/Filipina being used for people, relegating Philippine more correctly to the meaning 'of the Philippines'.--ObsidinSoul 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a quickie: Obsidian Soul, when I spoke of Philippine writers, I did actually mean writers living in the Philippines, or born there, irrespective of their ethnicity. I would include foreigners in this who reside in the Philippines. Your example of an Australian playing for a Philippine team is analogous to the hypothetical example I gave of a French woman acting as a special envoy for the Philippine government: this is the distinction I am trying to get at.
And of course I fully agree that "Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine." is an impossibility. We should add that to the MOS: "Filipino"/"Filipina" are nouns that can be used to refer to a person, "Philippine" is not. --JN466 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, typing that up took a while, heh. So I didn't see your additions/clarifications until after I had already hit 'Save page'.--ObsidinSoul 05:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your efforts! --JN466 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I came to this conversation late, and it has been very enlightening. The clarification that the real distinction is not between inanimate/animate, but between "representing the country" vs. "ethnicity" shall I think be very useful in the future. I do believe the 'animate' vs 'inanimate' distinction exists, and has been asserted as a distinction because it's a distinction Filipinos (Philippine people) tend to make more consciously, although not universally, on top of the 'representing the country vs ethnicity' distinction. The 'representing the country vs ethnicity' is a very instinctive distinction I believe most Filipino language speakers have never really thought out loud. I could be wrong, though. - Alternativity (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors[edit]

Proposal[edit]

I think there is agreement above that the present version doesn't quite hit the mark. Here's a proposal:

  • Philippine is generally used with inanimate nouns. Examples: the Philippine National Anthem, the Philippine Senate.

    Philippine is also used as an adjective for people when it describes people representing the Philippine nation. Examples: the Philippine president, the Philippine ambassador, a Philippine politician, the Philippine goalkeeper.

    Note that Philippine cannot be used as an adjectival noun: The Philippine was talking to the Frenchman is not idiomatic English.

  • Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to male Philippine citizens or people with Philippine ancestry: a Filipino actor, He is [a] Filipino. It is also used for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unkown. Example: Many Filipinos believe ...

    Filipino may also be used with inanimate nouns, though it is more commonly applied to people. Examples: Filipino cuisine, Filipino art.

    Filipino is also the name of the national language. Examples: She speaks Filipino, Filipino-speakers.

  • Filipina is used when referring to women, both as an adjective and as an adjectival noun. Examples: a Filipina poet, The company is run by a Filipina.

    Filipino women is an expression that is mainly used outside the Philippines and should be avoided in Philippine-related articles; in Philippine English, standard usage is Filipinas, Filipina women or, more rarely, Philippine women.

I'm probably not the best person to formulate this proposal, but I thought I'd write this down so you have a starting point for discussion. Now, is the above essentially correct? What needs to be fixed, added, or improved? --JN466 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • CommentLooks good to me, but perhaps more correct and incorrect examples for each usage? The second usage of Filipino should also be linked to Filipino language and perhaps moved at the end of the list.--ObsidinSoul 11:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added the link to Filipino language for the bold word Filipino in the second bullet point. (We could also place the link on "national language"; not sure what is better.) Further examples of correct and incorrect usage might be useful, in particular if they illustrate mistakes that people unfamiliar with Philippine English often make. Suggestions? --JN466 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added examples for use of Filipino to refer to the language, moved this entry to the end of the list, and have added examples for Filipino as an adjective (Filipino economy and Filipino workers). --JN466 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Should we say, Filipina, the feminine form of Filipino, is used when referring to women, rather than may be used, or does usage vary? In other words, can you say in Philippine English, "She is Filipino"? --JN466 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a better proposal than the original one. One nitpick is that I would write "Philippine economy" instead of "Filipino economy". If you want an example of "Filipino" used with an abstract or inanimate object, then I would suggest "Filipino cuisine" or "Filipino art". --seav (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed it to Filipino cuisine, which does sound better. --JN466 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this proposal is pretty good, and I say this as someone who wasn't thrilled about the first one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks! --JN466 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just one thing I am not clear about: Can you say "she is Filipino", or would you say "she is Filipina" in Philippine English?
  • If Filipino is never applied to women, then we should say "Filipina is (rather than may be) used when referring to women."
  • Should we mention "Filipina women" as another correct option? Is it more common than "Philippine women"? --JN466 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
My take on them:
  • Yes. "She is Filipina." is the correct way to say it.
  • Main problem is that westerners are less familiar with "Filipina", and often use "Filipino" for both male and female and has thus acquired a sort of acceptability elsewhere. But given that this is an MOS, I think it's justifiable that we explicitly tell them to use "Filipina" when referring to the female Filipinos (even in native languages, Pilipina and Pilipino are carefully differentiated). "Filipino" though, is used when referring to mixed gender plurals or when the gender is unknown.
  • Heh. "Philippine women" raises my hackles for some reason. Mostly because I usually encounter that phrasing in anthropological works. Well meaning probably, but for me, it depersonalizes the subject. i.e. The tone of "Philippine women" reminds me somewhat of when scientists talk about "Philippine birds" or "Philippine mammals", etc. It distances the speaker from the subject, this was one of the reasons why I didn't quite like the idea of legitimizing 'Philippine' as an adjective to describe persons as well. I dunno. I can't quite pinpoint what I object to about it, :/ But yeah "Filipina women" or "Filipinas", at least for me, is vastly more preferable to "Philippine women". This applies even if it was referring to say, a beauty pageant contestant who represents the Philippines. "Philippine women" just sounds wrong. I dunno how the rest feel about it though, and it's probably just me.--ObsidinSoul 07:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal in line with your comments. Please check. --JN466 09:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: While "Filipino" is not that used to denote women, it is not entirely wrong. I'd favor removing that part in the MOS as "Filipino" has became gender-neutral. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In light of your comment, I've dropped a slightly tweaked form of the the proposal in now (I've written, "Filipinio is mainly used for males or mixed gender groups..."), because I think there is a consensus above that this proposal comes closer to what we want than what we had. We can still discuss and optimise it further though. I don't have a strong view on whether "Filipino women" for example should be listed as an undesired usage in Philippine-related articles; not being a native speaker, I have to leave that to you who have grown up with the language. I'll keep looking in though. Cheers, --JN466 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, "Filipino" would be used in English the same way it would be used in Spanish: the masculine form is used for a group composed of men or for mixed-gender groups, while "Filipina" is used for a group composed of women. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style[edit]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Philippines barangays?[edit]

There is already quite a collection of articles under the Category:Barangays of the Philippines that do not seem to follow any title format. The City suffix in the title of city barangay articles re-emerge e.g, Mamatid, Cabuyao City and there are those that include the city/municipality where they belong and some that do not. I propose we agree on a single format for our smallest LGU's before it gets even more out of hand. RioHondo (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the discussion at WP:TAMBAY. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Amendment on naming city articles[edit]

There has been a dispute on the naming guidelines for Philippine cities. This is a discussion to iron out some kinks.

The "mother" numbered list is the current rule, and the daughter bullet is the suggested rule.

  1. As a general rule, cities should neither be affixed with the word "City" nor the name of the province in which it is located. Examples:
    • Kabankalan instead of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental
    • Tacloban instead of Tacloban City
    • Tagbilaran instead of Tagbilaran City, Bohol
    1. As a general rule, cities should not be affixed with the word "City", but with the name of the province in which it is located. Examples:
      • Kabankalan, Negros Occidental instead of Kabankalan City
      • Tacloban instead of Tacloban City
      • Tagbilaran instead of Tagbilaran City
  2. New guideline:
    1. If a town is converted to a city with a new name, the word "City" may be affixed after the city's name. If the city is a component city, the province's name should be affixed after the word "City". Examples:
    • Opon, upon being converted to a city was renamed as "Lapu-Lapu". The article should be named as "Lapu-Lapu City"
    • Capiz, upon being converted to a city was renamed as "Roxas". The article should be named as "Roxas City, Capiz"

Addendum to the guideline: The naming guidelines also affects the series of articles per each city. These includes legislative districts, "Politics of Foo" articles, "Government of Foo" articles, "Education in Foo" articles, and any daughter list and categories such as "People from Foo" article and category.

Before the new guideline can be applied to all articles, aside from gaining consensus here, a subsequent successful move discussion should be done in order to affirm the new guidelines. As to avoid citing this guideline to oppose a move discussion, the pertinent section has been tagged as {{Under discussion}}, making it attempts to cite the guideline while it is under discussion as invalid. –HTD 17:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  • Guideline 1.1 (adding province's name):
    1. HTD 17:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    2. RioHondo (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Guideline 2.1 (new rule when a town is upgraded to a city with a new name):

Oppose[edit]

  • Guideline 1.1
  • Guideline 2.1
    1. RioHondo (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I'd like to simplify the geographic naming guidelines to align as much as possible with the general naming guidelines. That is, we only adopt Philippine-specific guidelines to cater to Philippine-specific naming issues. That means that we do not add disambiguation markers like "City" or the provincial name for cities and municipalities if they don't need it (also taking note of the primary topic guideline). My classic example for this is Puerto Galera vs. Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro.

Now if we do need to add a disambiguator (e.g., for San Juan, the city in Metro Manila), we should also align with the general disambiguation guidelines if they exist. If they don't exist or do not address our local needs then that's the only time we create guidelines.

The idea is that we make it easy for the editor to follow Wikipedia's MOS. Just because we can create local guidelines does not mean that we should do so especially if we can use the generic guidelines. --seav (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Snooping around, we seem to follow U.S. naming guidelines for cities, which have a <town name>, <state name> format (except for the largest cities), which we've adopted into the <town name>, <province name> format. On European (and probably African) place names, it'a aimply <town name>. We've been used to the <town name>, <province name> format anyway, so I don't see current use of dropping the province name wholesale even for towns, which will cause a lot of problems on how to deal with exceptions, on which there is already a long list (such as if the city has the same name with another place). –HTD 13:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Just because we're used to something is not a reason to stick with the status quo. And we would deal with the exceptions like the rest of Wikipedia deals with exceptions. For example, Boston, Lincolnshire is an exception to the UK naming convention of not adding the county to the article title because of that famous city in the United States. The Philippines is not unique in having many places having the same names in multiple locations in the country. If the Europeans can deal with that problem in the expected way we resolve naming conflicts in Wikipedia in general, then why can't we? --seav (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
We already have a lot of exceptions to the rule, and most of them are reasonable. Such as Angeles, Philippines and Boston Lincolnshire. No one is questioning that.
Just to illustrate how hard the naming convention is now for cities, when I'm creating the Regional Trial Court page, I'd have to check if the link I created was right. That's why I'm advocating for bringing back the province name for all component cities to avoid the confusion and for at least majority of the cities would have the same naming convention with the rest of the towns.
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barangays in Cabuyao City, the focus of "whores of appending the word "city" to the article name" has shifted from adding the word "City" to removing the province name. Nothing much happens politically when a town is upgraded to a city as it still remains a part of the province anyway, so I don't see the logic in removing the province name once it becomes a city, same with adding the word "City" once it becomes one. –HTD 03:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually an advocate for removing the word "City" from cities' articles' titles as much as possible, only adding them for disambiguation purposes as Wikipedia's main naming guidelines state. Thus Baguio instead of Baguio City. The main point is that the article title should reflect the name of the article's topic as much as possible only adding disambiguation only when necessary. This is how most of the rest of Wikipedia works, with U.S. places being the notable exception. Here in the Philippines, the province name is not part of the name of the city or town. For example, when Dinagat Islands became a separate province, the towns that now comprise the new province have not changed names. They just changed provinces. Thus, Basilisa, Dinagat Islands should be properly titled Basilisa since that is the name of the town. Take note that the naming conventions were not made to make editor's jobs easier. --seav (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The thing with the general WP:MOS guidelines is that it is so irregular, that actually locating these city and municipality articles later on would be tough not just for editors but for readers and researchers as well. Take for example, these municipalities in Puebla (Mexico): you have San Pablito, Puebla on one hand, and San Pablo Anicano (municipality) on the other. At least with our WP:MOSPHIL, these irregularities are avoided. And also, Filipinos have grown accustomed to the City/Municipality, Province format in writing (e.g, addresses) and even in speech (i.e, many are not familiar with Bulalacao, that a person from that municipality would normally say he's from Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. Talk about filipino regionalism and isolation?) Anyway, lets just say Filipinos take comfort too seeing the Province alongside the City or Municipality whenever they google search places in the Philippines--they want specific, like their jeepney and bus placards that tell them "Tulay Ilalim, Crossing Ibabaw, SLEX Tatawid. :) So yeah, I prefer the current naming convention for cities and municipalities, and i think component cities should also follow suit. --RioHondo (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Filipinos are not the only readers of Wikipedia articles on Philippine places so I don't think the argument that adding the province name is comforting for Filipinos as convincing. Besides, there are plaenty of component cities and towns in the Philippines where Filipinos don't automatically add the province name. Puerto Galera, El Nido, Pagudpud, Aparri, Los Baños, Calatagan, Tagaytay, Lingayen, Jolo, Dapitan, and Kalibo are just some that come to mind. --seav (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your point regarding some popular tourist towns and other well-established historical municipalities, but the concern there is where to draw the line between which places could and could not be considered 'popular' or which towns or cities would and would not require adding the province name. Sure, El Nido and Puerto Galera sound fine by themselves, but then again you have Bulalacao, Mataas na Kahoy, Sapang Dalaga and other LGU's of the same level which may not be as recognizable without their province name but would be 'tempted' to follow suit citing these municipality examples. Ultimately, i think this may just cause more harm than good and as stated, it'll be an editor's nightmare trying to locate these articles. Imagine my surprise seeing Biliran (municipality) just a few months ago, Thanks to our naming convention, I was able to correct it and move it to Biliran, Biliran last June. --RioHondo (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason why there are U.S. cities which don't have states attached to them is because the Associated Press has a list of those cities which it feels are notable enough to warrant such treatment, and it is that convention which is currently being followed for U.S. articles. We do not have such a list for the Philippines. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My point is that there is no line to be drawn. The titles of all articles on PH cities and municipalities will be stripped of their province names as much as possible. We only retain the province name for disambiguation purposes (or use "City" as the natural disambiguator). This is in line with the general article title guidelines of Wikipedia.

Let's go through the 5 goals of the said guidelines:

  • "Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic."
    • Someone familiar with Palawan will automatically know that Brooke's Point is a town in that province in the same way that an Albayeño or even a Bicolano will recognize Rapu-Rapu. No need for the province name.
  • "Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."
    • I'll admit that adding the province name seems natural for us Filipinos. But adding the province name is not at all automatic. Some examples are touristy towns like Pagudpud and Puerto Galera that I've mentioned above. And if you look at Raid at Cabanatuan (a featured article), you will see that mentioned town names (e.g., Guimba, Talavera) do not have their province names attached.
  • "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise."
    • Adding the province name when it's not needed even for obscure towns like Basilisa (in Dinagat Islands) is being overly precise.
  • "Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long."
    • Adding the province name is definitely not being concise.
  • "Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles."
    • The status quo is consistent, but so is my proposal (don't add the province name unless needed for disambiguation).

In addition, a quick survey of WP:PLACE shows that most countries do not adopt the comma convention. For example, Malaysia and Indonesia both state: "Where possible, articles on places in Malaysia/Indonesia use [[Placename]]. [...] if disambiguation between two places in Malaysia/Indonesia is required, [[Placename, State/Province]] is used. --seav (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about Malaysia or Indonesia but places like Japan also have their own set of guidelines. Go and take a look at MOS:JAPAN and see how their cities and municipalities are titled exactly just like ours. They append the prefecture name to all their cities and towns like we do with province names. Except "designated cities" (their version of independent/highly urbanized cities? :P ) PLUS, the Japanese are also against suffixes. Check out what they did to Toyota City, Hitachi City, Kanazawa City and Chiba City. But anyways, all i'm saying is that theres not one rule that fits all countries and that we should follow what's natural to us, what works for us given our unique setting and subdivisions. --RioHondo (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What is important for me is what's in common usage. If most people in the Philippines write the LGU with the province name (or xxx City for cities), then we have to abide by that convention. Heck, the postal system uses this convention, so it's only natural that we follow it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, there's no question that the LGU, Province format is what's commonplace in the Philippines. And we are going to abide by it as we do today with the current Mosphil policy. The only amendment we are considering at this point is extending this convention to component cities as well so that all cities and municipalities will have their province attached to them, except the 38 independent cities which will continue to be titled independent of their province. (At least that's how i understood what was said above by HTD based on the earlier discussions in WT:TAMBAY#Changes (or additions) to WP:MOSPHIL) And, by the way whatever happened to my earlier petition for barangay names convention? I was suggesting a standard format similar to MOS:JAPAN's standard for its wards, that is [[{Barangay name}]], [[{City/Municipality name}]] which the current WP:MOSPHIL does not have. --RioHondo (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's true that there is no one system that applies to all countries but what is so objectionable about aligning our naming conventions as much as possible with Wikimedia's conventions? This would make our naming conventions simpler since we just add a bit to the generic convention instead of specifying a completely new system. Why can't we name the article title about the town in Mindoro as simply Pinamalayan? It's concise, precise, and unambiguous. Take note that almost all town articles start with the phrase similar to "Pinamalayan is a 1st class municipality...". If the comma convention is so common, then we would be starting the articles as "Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro is a 1st class municipality...".
As for the perception that "most people in the Philippines write the LGU with the province name", I think that they are simply doing that not just to name the LGU but as a concise way of providing context. If context can be provided elsewhere then the comma convention disappears. An example is the lead sentence in this news article: "Ilagan, the capital town of Isabela, is best known for being the home of the world’s largest wooden armchair—the butaka." Another example: "Families and friends of missing activists have erected a concrete sculpture in Oton town in Iloilo..." And here's another example where the article speaks specifically about Laguna: "The Laguna agriculturist’s report said the areas still submerged under water were low-lying villages of the towns of Sta. Maria, Mabitac, Siniloan, Pangil, Pakil, Paete, Kalayaan, Lumban, Pagsanjan, Sta. Cruz, Pila, Victoria, Los Baños, Bay and San Pedro; and the cities of Cabuyao, Calamba, Sta. Rosa and Biñan.". The comma convention provides context (or disambiguation) and is not an automatic appendage to a city or town's name.
Also, I will argue that the postal system is not a good basis for using the comma convention for article titles simply because (barring a systematic application and usage of a postcode/zip code system like in the UK), an address will be listed with hierarchical places in order to facilitate the sorting of mail. --seav (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You wanna know the real reason why your MOS convention won't work for our LGU's? I mean apart from what's already explained in this page? It's called Motivations for cityhood, a phenomenon that's unique to the Philippines. The way it works is that municipalities get to ditch their province once they have achieved the coveted city status. I mean, you're filipino, you should know this. So you have cities trying to escape the chains of their province as the LGU code promised them but couldn't due to disambiguation constraints (e.g, Naga, Camarines Sur and Samal, Davao del Norte), and yet in effect, you are allowing some measly municipalities like Pinamalayan and Oton to enjoy what they couldn't? ;) I know this may sound petty, but trust me this is a huge deal for filipinos and their political landlords. Lol. Unless of course, youre ready for the return of the superfluous Cityname City, or the Island Garden City of Samal haha! (Unfortunately for Naga City, they're stuck with Camarines Sur and Cebu for good.) And as for your starting the articles assumption, it don't matter. Most city articles start with the phrase "The City of xxx is a nth class city..." even though their titles are obviously not [[{City of xxx}]]. --RioHondo (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're seriously arguing whether the political aspirations of LGUs should be a factor in naming Wikipedia article titles, and they should not be a factor. As for your final point, there are also town articles that start "the Municipality of XXX is...". This is not a problem as it is acceptable to use the official name as the bolded text like "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician..." on the article on Bill Clinton (note the article title). My point is that you would never add the province name to the bolded text so why add it to the article title when it's not needed? --seav (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That don't matter. The lesser known cities and towns in the US also have their states attached to them, even when they 'don't appear in bold' and no disambiguation are required for them. Like Yonkers, New York, Pahrump, Nevada, Spokane, Washington, even bigger ones like Tulsa, Oklahoma and Fort Lauderdale, Florida which i guess fell short on the notability scale set by the Associated Press as Sky Harbor pointed out earlier. And as far as the Philippines is concerned, there can be no more than 38 notable cities, and that's already being generous. So again, the U.S. has its A.P. list and Japan has its designated cities. Take your pick :) But as already mentioned, we don't have a list similar to the US, so we'll make do with what we have-independent cities that do not carry their province by law and in common usage. Component cities down to municipalities shall continue to bear their provinces' names as they do in their seals, and in real practice. --RioHondo (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
If you give the U.S. and Japan as examples, I can give various European countries, Malaysia, and Indonesia as counterexamples to your three points:
  1. That there is a need to have a list of "special" places that don't need the state/province/whatever attached. The European countries, Malaysia, and Indonesia don't use such a list and they remove the state/province/whatever from the article titles of their cities/towns/villages. Examples of towns/cities where no comma convention is used: Old Weston (UK), La Granada de Río-Tinto (Spain), Abbeville-Saint-Lucien (France), Tauberrettersheim (Germany), Julau (Malaysia), Kwandang (Indonesia).
  2. That we can attach the province/state name even if they are not part of the bold text in the article's first sentence. See examples above.
  3. That we can attach the province/state name even if not needed for disambiguation. See examples above.
As for your last point that we continue to include the province name in the article titles of component cities and municipalities simply because they do in their seals and in "real practice", I have already argued before that this is simply because the province name provides context and is not an inherent part of the name of the municipality, and that we would ditch the comma-province convention if there is an alternate way to provide context (as given by my earlier examples of news articles about Ilagan, Oton, and the Laguna towns and cities). Adding the province name even when not needed goes against Wikipedia's naming convention that we use precise and concise titles, and not to do premptive disambiguation. --seav (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Municipalities that were given new names upon cityhood. While Lapu-Lapu City and Roxas City, Capiz sound right, i'm not sure we can say the same for Cagayan de Oro City (renamed from Cagayan [Cagayan de Misamis] by virtue of R.A. 521 (Charter of the City of Cagayan de Oro); and Marawi City, Lanao del Sur (renamed from Dansalan by virtue of R.A. 1552 City Charter of Marawi.) Note: Both Cagayan and Marawi are not eponymous names compared to Lapu-Lapu City, Roxas City and Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental (renamed from Misamis by virtue of R.A. 321 City Charter of Ozamiz). So i'd like to get a clearer understanding on this particular guideline. RioHondo (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

May I request for a review and modification of this guideline? So far we have identified five municipalities-turned-cities-with-a-new-name from the List of renamed cities and municipalities of the Philippines. These are:
1. Lapu-Lapu City
2. Roxas City, Capiz
3. Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental
4. Cagayan de Oro
5. Marawi, Lanao del Sur
While I am open to the suggestion of adding "City" to the first three named after people, I take exception on Cagayan de Oro and Marawi. For me, they just don't fit. --RioHondo (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually had a proposal like this before. I'd support adding the word "City", and removing the province name disambiguator, for articles about cities which had their names changed upon cityhood. Another example is General Santos City (renamed from "Opon"), but "General Santos" is quite prevalent. –HTD 13:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Provinces[edit]

The articles about the provinces of the Philippines deviate from the general style in Wikipedia. Almost everywhere the term "province" is included in the title of articles about provinces. So for readers the articles about the Philippines are often confusing.

Compare with the ASEAN neighbors Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and non-province countries: Burma (regions, states), Brunei (districts), Singapore (CDC and regions). Other countries in Asia where article titles include the term "province": Afghanistan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Provinces of Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Japan.

Only exceptions in Asia seem to be three sets of provinces: PRC (except Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China) - mostly not ambiguous, Indonesia - mostly not ambiguous, Pakistan - only four entities, which are all much larger than the Philippine provinces. For smaller entities on lower levels even these three countries use Foo District, Foo County, Foo Township, Foo Regency etc. for all articles, i.e. they include the type of the entity.

Apart from the inconsistency the following issues exist:

  • The plain name for single word provinces is always shared with other topics, i.e. is ambiguous. There are often islands that have the same name.
    • That means all these articles have a hat-note. Check
  • Determination of primary topic not obvious. Why Leyte or Cebu are the province articles is not easy understandable to outside readers.
    • Especially if many articles contain statements like "lies south of Leyte" - and Leyte is linked to the island article not the province. This is very inconsistent and confusing.
  • The official names as seen in the seals use "province" or "Lalawigan" or something similar.
  • Even on maps the term "province" is included, e.g. on http://www.cagayan.gov.ph/ - the neighboring Kalinga Province has the type of entity attached, and is written "Province of Kalinga" and not just "Kalinga". Including the term "province" makes the map much more easy to read.

What do you think about aligning the Philippine province articles with similar articles from other countries by applying the almost-all-Asia-style to them? AsianGeographer (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this observation and the proposal to amend the mos convention for Philippine provinces. I too wonder why the Leyte article talks about the island's northern half that is Leyte Province when obviously the first thing that comes to mind for most people when they hear Leyte is that of the whole island. The same goes for Samar and how the article ended up talking about only the western third of the island. There's also Sulu which should go to the Sulu Archipelago as the primary topic covering the group of islands consisting of Basilan Province, Sulu Province and Tawi-Tawi Province. Archipelagoes or islands (geographical features basically) should take precedence over provinces, IMO. I propose that all Philippine regions be appended too with "(region)" especially now that some of those administative regions have taken the name of their geographic feature which cause confusion.
I dont know if you'd agree with me on this but this is the sort of changes i want to see to address the concerns on primary topic.
Cebu -- island
Cebu (province) -- province
Cebu (city) -- city
Leyte -- island
Leyte (province) -- province
Leyte, Leyte -- municipality (same)
Zamboanga Peninsula -- peninsula (geographic)
Zamboanga Peninsula (region) -- region
Zamboanga del Norte -- province (same)
Zamboanga -- city (note:No changes to mos convention for Phl cities, just no need for the 'City' suffix as there is no province of the same name just like Surigao
Cagayan -- disambiguation page
Cagayan Valley -- valley (geographic)
Cagayan Valley (region) -- region
Cagayan -- province (same)
Cagayan de Oro -- city (same)
Compostela Valley - valley (geographic)
Compostela Valley (province) - province
Compostela, Compostela Valley - municipality (same)
Dinagat - island
Dinagat Islands - province (same) [unless an article about the islands is made, that would put the province at Dinagat Islands (province)]
Dinagat, Dinagat Islands - municipality (same)
Davao -- city (same as Surigao)
Davao (region) -- region
Davao del Norte -- province (same)
--RioHondo (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I could've heard "Cebu Province" elsewhere, mostly in discussions where Cebu City is involved, but I've never heard the likes of "Davao del Norte Province" or "Dinagat Islands Province". "Cagayan Province" is heard too, but mostly on non-Philippine sources. Also, the region names are as per NCSB, with some region names including the word "Region" (Bicol Region), while some don't (Central Luzon); if a geographical feature has an identical name with a region, the region gets to be the primary topic (see for example, "Jamaica"). –HTD 13:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Or Cebu (province). Anyway, i understand our WP:Mosphil is flawed and need revisions to be more consistent with the general WP:MOS guidelines. I am starting to think we need to do away with preemptive disambiguation (as what this earlier user pointed out). So Davao del Norte stays at Davao del Norte, the only question is which gets the wp:primary topic for identical places. And as i have explained above with minor changes, my preference is: 1) if the island has the name name as a province, the island is primary topic. 2) if the city has the same name as a province, the city gets primary topic. (something to do with the province having been named after towns that became their capitals, not the other way around). Hence, Samar should be at Samar (province) and Leyte at Leyte (province). And the city of Davao at Davao and the city of Zamboanga at Zamboanga. --RioHondo (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
How do you even pronounce "Cebu (province)"? Does one say "Cebu [softly] province", or "Cebu open parenthesis province close parenthesis"? The "(province)" part acts like a disambiguator. –HTD 16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As for provinces having the same names as islands, I'm not so sure. For the most part, people encounter lists of places on PAGASA typhoon storm warnings. If an island has several provinces is under a storm warning signal, it is per province; if a province has several islands, it is per island. For example, "Signal #1: Leyte, Southern Leyte, Samar, Calamian Group of Islands, rest of Palawan." In transport, if a bus says it's going to "Leyte", there's a high chance it won't get to Sogod, Southern Leyte, unless it's specified.
As for cities having the same names as provinces, the largest jurisdiction can not-so-easily claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Our basis is current practice. If one says "I'm from Batangas", does it automatically mean that he's from Batangas City"? In fact the only case where the might be confusion in this case is if someone says "I'm from Cebu/Zamboanga/Davao/Samar/Mindoro", as both the province and city can claim the "Cebu" name, and the Zamboangas, Samars and Mindoros almost always need a disambiguator. If one says "I'm going to Iloilo/Bulacan/Leyte", there's a pretty high chance that he's referring to a province; same case for "I bought this from Quezon" (no one says "I'm from Quezon" when he's from Quezon City). How about Negros? By my experience, "I'm from Negros" is almost always proceeded by "Occidental" or "Oriental". How about Ilocos? More likely he'd refer to the region.
Also, if one's writing letters, or personal forms like bio-data, the city name is usually added with the word "City" indiscriminately, and the "province" doesn't have the word "Province" on it, unless it's "Quezon Province" (there's actually a legit reason to move that one). While I do not like appending the word "City", I'm OK on appending it on cases such as Cebu City-Cebu and Iloilo City-Iloilo, etc. –HTD 16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If we base our MOS on current practice, then we really wouldn't be able to reach consensus, as we pinoys have our own different ways of calling places, like for example, people in the provinces refer to Metro Manila as Manila (the same way foreigners and expats do), whereas majority of local Metro Manilans know Manila as just this one city where Erap is mayor. I suggest we go back to the basics, plain names, municipalities/cities with no namesake be titled without their provinces and by their plain names. Although i still think majority of wp readers know Cebu, Leyte and Samar as islands, if we can merge the island and province, like for Cebu, then lets do it. Ex. Cebu is an island and the nth most populous province... But Leyte referring to just its northern half, and Samar its western third is just a disaster. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What I don't like about plain names is that many would have to be disambiguated anyway, so there'd be no uniform naming scheme in the long run. The only major problem is the case of cities which don't have provinces because they'd have to be "plain names", while some would inevitably be disambiguated (just as what's happening now). It will be a disaster if you're making a list of places, and you want all links to point to real articles and not redirects, as what I did in Regional Trial Court. If there were no ICCs and HUCs, we would have all towns and cities in the town/cityname, provincename format and it would've been easier. –HTD 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the current naming convention for cities and municipalities is having to check on their status regularly and having to retitle them every time one moves up the ranks and becomes a city or an ICC/HUC (from X, Province to simply X; or X, Province to X, Philippines and then there's also X, Region). So consistency is a big issue there, and of course the hassle of renaming them, forcing editors to keep track of the latest cities so you end up visiting each article for their current status and title before you could link them anyway. The town/cityname, provincename format also runs counter to the general wp:mos on concise article titles i learned recently. --RioHondo (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The proposed amendments I suggested won't let you check out updates "regularly" as new cities will still remain at their current article titles; the only "upgrades" which would have to be checked is if it free of political control from a province; I dunno how often is that, but presumably, that should be rarer than towns upgrading into cities. One doesn't have to check out "regularly", we usually get updated on upgrades once they happen, which is at random intervals.
As for WP:CONCISE, it doesn't mean article titles have to be short. It means it could be of any length, as long as the reader recognizes it. New Bataan, Compostela Valley and New Bataan both satisfy WP:CONCISE; "Municipality of New Bataan" doesn't, even if it's actually shorter than the first one. –HTD 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So i did a quick google search on "New Bataan" and here's what i saw:
New Bataan, Compostela Valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/.../New_Bataan,_Comp...
New Bataan is a second class municipality at the Compostela Valley province of the Philippines. The municipality was ...
‎Brief Profile - ‎Barangays - ‎References - ‎External links
You see what I mean that even if we drop the province name, the readers will still recognize it as it appears in the intro included in the result?--RioHondo (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Inexplicably, readers should recognize something when they read the entire thing. Of course, you can't force anyone to read the everything, or even the first sentence.
Assuming someone don't know what/where "New Bataan" is, once a reader saw this at the search box, would they know what it is? Would it be a rock band, a ship, a vision (a la Philippines 2000), a place, a TV show, what? "New Bataan, Compostela Valley" tells you from the get-go that New Bataan is a place. If you're a Filipino, you'd conclude that New Bataan is either a barangay or district in the town of Compostela Valley, or that New Bataan is a town in the province of Compostela Valley, with the latter option presumably getting a higher chance of conclusion, since barangay articles are still quite rare around these parts.
Assuming the reader knows that there's actually a town in Compostela Valley called New Bataan, would s/he sufficiently conclude that once s/he sees "New Bataan" at the search box, s/he'd go to the article about the place? Well, yes, since there should be no other "New Bataan" a place somewhere else, a band, a ship, a TV show or propaganda by the Bataan provincial government. But what if there is? –HTD 15:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If the lead section of wp articles is not enough to identify the article as pertaining to a place in Compostela Valley, Philippines, google also displays its map preceding the wp search box for our 5th graders. Try it :) As for senior citizens who aren't familiar with these new provinces and know New Bataan as belonging to the old Davao province, the same article appears with Davao Region in its intro line. Again, the provincename is unnecesarry as you have all these clues already in the search boxes. :)--RioHondo (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, surely sending our readers to an external website to read maps, of which they might not know how to decipher certainly helps them; mind you, not everyone knows how to read maps, those DOTA kids certainly don't know. :| Providing context shouldn't be an Easter egg hunt, once the opportunity presents itself, and it's natural and recognizable for the reader, we should take advantage of it. :) The primary way for readers to know that they landed at the right place is the article title, otherwise we won't have article titles and just let the reader find out at the lead. The comma convention helps the reader do just that for places that they're unfamiliar with; for places that they're likely familiar with (such as highly urbanized cities), they're already undisambiguated.
Also, the old Davao province was no more when New Bataan became a town in 1968; the old province split up in 1967. Let's forget about New Bataan, which could be a band, TV show, place or propaganda just by looking at it; how about the nearby town of Braulio E. Dujali, Compostela Valley? The article about Braulio E. Dujali the person still has to be created, and he could certainly be notable since they named a town after him, but what if the town becomes the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The reader would then see at the Wikipedia search box "Braulio E. Dujali" and "Braulio E. Dujali (person)". What if Braulio E. Dujali turns out to be unnotable, but the town article is at "Braulio E. Dujali"? Everyone who is searching at Wikipedia and at Google would certainly expect that an article about "Braulio E. Dujali" would be about a person. Would disambiguate this too? How about places such as General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, or even Plaridel, Bulacan? "Plaridel" is the pen name of Marcelo H. del Pilar, should Plaridel redirect to him, the place, or should the place be the primary topic? –HTD 12:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to Davao del Norte which inherited the old province, which until 1998 was called simply Davao, hence New Bataan, Davao to oldtimers. As for Braulio E. Dujali, there are several ways to disambiguate the municipality, if and when an article on the person is created. Or the person could be at Braulio Estoperes Dujali and wouldn't affect the municipality which is the more popular and notable entry. Just like the town of Vicente López in Argentina and Pedro Muñoz in Spain. No issues with General Mariano Alvarez, the person is titled following the general guidelines on precise article titles for people, which is the plain name (Mariano Álvarez) similar to the municipalities of General Simon Bolivar and Presidente Jânio Quadros which have separate articles for the people they were named after. Think of it as Sultan Kudarat the province and Muhammad Kudarat the person, General Santos the city and Paulino Santos the person. Plaridel would be a dab page as there is also a Plaridel town in Quezon and in Misamis Occidental. But if it was just Bulacan, then definitely the municipality gets the title as the person is called differently.--RioHondo (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
But then we would be making up names now. What if the person called Braulio E. Dujali was actually called "Braulio E. Dujali"? The Sultan Kudarat example is actually a bad one: both the province and the person are actually called "Sultan Kudarat". I don't think no one actually knew his name was "Muhammad"; I would've went for Sultan Kudarat of Maguindanao for the person. As for General Bolivar and Presidente Quadros, I don't presume to know how they truly are called, so I can't comment on those: it should be that the places must be the primary topic if someone talks about the exact term "Presidente Jânio Quadros" with no context. Do people always refer to the people or places when someone says "General Mariano Alvarez" or "General Emilio Aguinaldo" without context? I dunno, but "General Santos" has been about the place, at least recently; I don't think people know who Paulino Santos is, and that he's the namesake of the city. If the place was actually called "General Paulino Santos", then we would have a problem.
As for Plaridel, it might be my Manila bias showing, but the Plaridel in Bulacan might be the most popular of the three as it is the closest to the Metro. But if someone talks about a certain "Plaridel", does he refer to the person, or any of the three towns? Is it actually right for "Dimasalang", Rizal's penname, to redirect to Dimasalang, Masbate? If someone says something about a certain Dimasalang, without context, how sure are we that he's talking about the place in Masbate? –HTD 12:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The purpose of Wikipedia article titles is to name, unambiguously, the topic of the article. There is no rule that you need to provide any information or context about what kind of object or person the article topic is. Try going to a random article in Wikipedia. Would you immediately know what each article is about by just looking at the title? Not always. And that is not a problem since that is not the purpose of the article title. RioHondo has already provided some place articles whose titles would appear to be about persons. Some other examples:

--seav (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Islands[edit]

There is no section for islands, and the naming of the island articles is inconsistent:

I suggest to have only one format: "<Islandbasename> Island". AsianGeographer (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a need for any format for islands except what's standard across all other wp article titles for islands. If there's no need for disambiguator, we'll make it primary topic, also considering common usage. For example: the Islands of Hawaii have Maui, Kauai and Oahu as article titles without appending the unecessary suffix "Island" to them. Just like my above proposal, and following the examples for Luzon, Mindoro, Panay and Mindanao. Cebu and Leyte therefore must have those islands as primary topic, their provinces titled as Cebu Province and Leyte Province instead. --RioHondo (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that Hawaii is about the state instead of the Hawaii the island? The comparison isn't that analogous though. One example that I see are the four Balearic Islands: Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza and Formentera. The 4 articles appear to be are both for the island per se and the political unit that has jurisdiction over the island. I'n not entirely sure because the regional government of the island doesn't seem powerful. –HTD 17:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That's because the state of Hawaii is primary topic and what shows up in most searches on the topic. As for Samar and Leyte and Cebu, i think most online references to them are about those islands, the Philippines being the second largest archipelago in the world, a known global fact of course is that our country is divided into islands, provinces are just secondary imo.--RioHondo (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's an additional point for consideration. There are plenty of articles that discuss both the island and the administrative unit at the same time:

So I think for island LGUs that are roughly coterminous with their island like Cebu and Basilan, there should only be 1 article discussing both. --seav (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"However, the MOSPHIL guidelines for place article titles no longer has consensus support"[edit]

Just noting these on the page here for convenience since the statement "However, the MOSPHIL guidelines for place article titles no longer has consensus support" is being made in Talk:Santa Praxedes, Cagayan one of several RM discussions.

These are noted for reference as they relate to this MOS page. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to MOSPHIL[edit]

Following two years of discussion and contentious debates on updating the guidelines regarding place article titles in this talk page and in Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive34 as mentioned above, a compromise has been reached and a new proposal is being worked on in consultation with members of Wikiproject Philippines. This proposal basically touches on the changes to city and municipality article titles in light of the recent successful RMs as well as introducing new guidelines with respect to other local government units missing in this current MOS, such as barangays as proposed above since 2012. Please feel free to participate in the discussion at WP:TAMBAY. --RioHondo (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)