|FIND WIKIPEDIA TAMBAYAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA
||Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Barangays – geography
I started this conversation on P199's talk page, but he said to bring it here.
== Barangays ==
As a result of @BhlJRama: adding barangay maps to various (Bohol) municipalities, I have started looking at the barangays. So far, I have only looked at Ubay and its barangays (44 of them). My first puzzle is the coordinates on the article pages. It is not at all clear where these came from, but basically they have been there ab initio. The problem is that they do not at all concord with the maps published by NAMRIA. For instance Bongbong has 9°58′32″N 124°27′59″E, but my calculation from the map is 9°56'28"N, 124°27'15"E. It is pointless to try to verify with Google maps, wikimapia, etc., because they basically form a circular reference. My inclination is that in the absence of any other document, to use the values calculated from the NAMRIA maps. Incidentally these are readily available via Topographic Index Map 1:50,000. Unfortunately Ubay is spread over four sheets: 3820-I Alicia, 3821-II Talibon, 3921-III Lapinig Island and 3920-IV Mabini.
My second problem is with the maps themselves produced by BhlJRama. I think their colouring is not at all helpful, and to a large extent, with the lettering on top, contravene WP:CONTRAST. I am also uncertain of any reference points for these maps. I think they would be better as grey-shades or unshaded, with no lettering. Additions can generally be made at rendering stage. It would be relatively easy to develop a set of "location within" maps that way. I have tried contacting the user (3 times) with no response.
I know in the scale of things this is all basically trivial. However my feelings are that if anything is done, it should be done well, with reasonably true output.
-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 16:31, wikitime= 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Unbuttered Parsnip: You are raising some valid concerns, and I agree that the accuracy may be questionable. And interestingly, the maps at NAMRIA are also hopelessly outdated! They are based on "aerial photographs taken in 1947-1953 and 1979". Quite frankly, I don't see any purpose for the maps because they add no value or significant info to the article. But I respect the editor's contributions. On the other hand, it may be better to bring this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, because we can try to reach a consensus there whether or not the maps should remain, or what format it should have. BTW, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure before moving sections around. Regards, P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Examples: Danao, Bohol ; Sikatuna, Bohol
- Even though the maps are hopelessly out of date in terms of the built environment, the physical geography hasn't changed – the coastline hasn't noticeably changed in half a century, the settlement is in the same place, albeit bigger. So as a reference datum they serve their purpose.
Regarding the maps themselves, I do share P199's feelings somewhat – the maps don't particularly add to the article; in fact their lurid colours tend to subtract. Nor am I entirely sure of their veracity, in terms of orientation, scale and content. Question is, are they a useful addition, or could they be? My feeling here too is that most barangays are completely lacking notability, and are for the most part too inconsequential even to merit a page of their own. What say you? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 22:05, wikitime= 14:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of all the points raised, the most serious is the veracity of the maps. It is very hard to find reliable and authoritative maps of barangays on-line, so where did this info come from? The NAMRIA maps do not show barangay boundaries, so is this WP:OR? If the accuracy and reliability is questionable or cannot be proven with authoritative sources, the maps should be removed as per WP:VERIFY. And like I already said, they add no value or significant info to the article, and often it just clutters the page. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I fully concur. The second point regards the barangay pages themselves – it's not at all clear where their coords came from, since they've been there since pages were created five or more years ago, and the problem nowadays is that Google Maps, Bing Maps, wikimapia, geohack etc. etc. all get their info from each other. Short of visiting each place with a GPS (or is that WP:OR?) the options are either to go back to the physical NAMRIA maps and re-calculate (I wrote myself a helper template for that), or just to ignore. The barangays themselves have zero notability for the most part, and a lot of the content is incorrect or out of date. So a proposal to delete them would get my vote. (Or just merge to e.g. Barangays of Ubay.)
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 17:22, wikitime= 09:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Spot the difference! Or rather, spot the points of similarity!
- I also have a big problem with land areas, both on Ubay page itself and on its barangays. Land area on Ubay page says "• Total
335.06 km2 (129.37 sq mi)" but on [Official Bohol website] it says "Total Municipal Land Area : 20,755.00 hectares" (i.e. 207.55 km2).
On San Vicente it claims area is "4,965.8237 hectares, largest barangay in terms of land area in the municipality" which is clearly wrong (apart from the claimed precision of 1 square cm), since visual inspection of a map shows it only half the size of neighbouring Imelda or Biabas. Numbers seem to be based on a 2007 document which in turn relies on a 2002 cadastral survey document issued by DENR, but not online.
I've only looked at this one municipality, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see others with the same sort of gross error. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 21:45, wikitime= 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The area of 335.06 km2 is taken from PSGC/NSCB. When I updated the infoboxes of all LGU's in PH, I used the PSGC/NSCB as primary source. But I did notice that there were issues with some values (see Talk:Lanao del Sur#Area, same issues for Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi) and I noticed that often the relative sizes shown on locator maps don't correspond to the values at PSGC. But in the absence of any other authoritative sources, it will be hard to change this. So yes, it may be best to remove the barangay maps because there is no way to verify its accuracy. As for scrapping barangay articles itself, that is a different discussion and harder to justify. That would be similar to scrapping boroughs of New York for example. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I contacted Efren Saz, the originator of the oft-quoted report, to see if he could shed any light. This is his response
I remember i cited three numbers because this is a common problem of LGUs depending on the source. There is a tendency for LGUs to increase the area because of the internal revenue allocation (IRA) share which is partly based on area.I have no way of veryfying these data. I just cited them from some documents i got from the LGU. The problem is there is no way to verify data such as land area of municipalities because there is no actual measurement but estimates. Given the latest tools available using mapping technologies I think such data can already be computed. Should Ubay engage in land use planning using GIS, I think the chance of getting more accurate data is greater. for now, we have to be content with secondary sources and having no way to select which is more accurate I decided to cite the other available stats. To be strict about it, NAMRIA's is the official one. I am sorry you are not able to access the source mentioned but with more diligence maybe you can dig it out from some corner of the municipio. I don't recall exactly where i got this document.
- I don't think a barangay with a population less than 1000 really equates to a borough of New York, which probably has more residents than that in a single building.
- -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 18:53, wikitime= 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikiproject Tambayan PH Article Assessment
Is the article assessment for Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines still active? I'm seeing a lot of un-assessed articles and it seems foreign assessors are also touching the assessment meant for us when it has both un-assessed tags for a different Wikiproject and of ours. Schadow1 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I assess ANY article when I'm bored so I guess it's still semi-active. I don't understand your last statement. Articles may be assessed by different wikiprojects/regional boards. --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- As an example, an article has been tagged for assessment for both Wikimedia Tambayan Philippines and Wikiproject Mountains. A non-Filipino assesses this article for Wikiproject Mountains but also placed an equal assessment in Wikimedia Tambayan Philippines tag. Is this ok? Schadow1 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no rule that only WikiProject members can assess their respective project articles. Wikipedia: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I think that Filipinos are the last people you'd want to assess a Filipino article, as they get too subjective. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 12:34, wikitime= 04:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the above editors. Besides, let's see it in an opposite perspective: Should I be banned from editing/assessing non-Philippine articles on the count that I'm Filipino?--Lenticel (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just some reminders, there are 2 orthogonal assessments done per WikiProject. First is the importance rating (from Top importance to Low importance). This rating should ideally only be filled in by someone familiar with the WikiProject's assessment guidelines. Second is the class rating (e.g., FA-class). This should be the same across all WikiProjects. A featured article is still a featured article no matter which WikiProject the article falls under. So the answer to the OP is either that's OK or maybe not OK depending on which rating you are talking about. —seav (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- And where might these "WikiProject's assessment guidelines" be found, apart from inside someone's head? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 07:33, wikitime= 23:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- here--Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Anyone, or were they self-nominated? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 14:46, wikitime= 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
(reset indent)Lolz, as if there's power to be had. If adminship isn't a big deal then how much more is editing a talk page? As far as I remember it's a voluntary work to see if anybody wants to work on the assessment drive. There was no nomination process since it's merely clerical work. --Lenticel (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I dug this from the archives pertaining to the start of the assessment drive five years ago. Man I feel old. --Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Goodphil for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goodphil
is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
or whether it should be deleted
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodphil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody would like to promote Hinatuan Enchanted River for DYK?
Anybody would like to promote Hinatuan Enchanted River for DYK? Please do so here Template:Did you know nominations/Hinatuan Enchanted River Schadow1 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to help. --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have detected this student project. Please encourage them to announce themselves properly. The information already on the page may even provide a clue to their identity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
From the list, I incidentally just figured out that the Philippines is the only English-speaking country that were not a former British colony (except for for a brief military occupation 1762-64). This criterion is a fact but no one has ever came up with it before, so it might be considered as original research. If if it's not, think we can add it somewhere? ༆ (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- What about other former Territories of the United States like Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or Palau? Or Liberia? Eritrea? Then there are parts of India that were never governed by the British. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)