Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.


WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY - Deletion Sorting (Philippines)


Start new topic


00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35

Wikimedia Philippines.svg
AOI • By-laws
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Identi.caYouTubeUStreamYahoo GroupMy Space
Find us on Facebook     Find us on Twitter     Find us on Google+     Find us on

Find us on YouTube      Find us on UStream
This box: view  talk  edit

New articles on built cultural heritage[edit]

I have noticed there has recently been a surge in new articles about the Philippines, especially on the architectural front. Many appear to be the work of new editors, several of whom have been producing high-quality work. Over the past few days, among others I have for example seen Church of the Risen Lord created by @Fmgverzon:, Church of La Milagrosa by @Karkossa:, National Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes by @MIKELAAGAN:, Holy Rosary Minor Seminary by @Jun pasa:, Church of Panay by @Iannekleina:, Santiago Apostol Church, Plaridel by @JJ Carpio:, Santo Domingo Church by @Joannerfabregas: and San Juan de Dios Church by @JJ Carpio:. (I have included all of these in the New articles section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture (where the more recent additions can be seen on the main project page and an extended list at Portal:Architecture/New article announcements.) I think it would be useful if your project page could also highlight this work, especially as we appear to have acquired many excellent new editors. If it is the result of a local initiative, it would be useful to know how it has been set up and who is responsible.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, I think this is the result of the Philippine Cultural Heritage Mapping project by Wikimedia Philippines. You can contact the project lead (User:joelaldor) directly regarding this project. Thanks for bringing this up. --Jojit (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are these articles not nominated at WP:DYK? --Lenticel (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jojit: Thanks for all the background. See my comments at User talk:Joelaldor.
@Lenticel: I fully agree with you that several of these could be nominated for DYK. I have already suggested this to @Rosiestep: but I would appreciate any assistance you can offer.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

San Juan de Dios Church - @JJ Carpio: @Ipigott: I'd like to nominate this one at DYK. Before I can do so, a reference has to be added to each non-lead paragraph. I was unable to find a citation for the Architecture section but perhaps you have access to some other sources. Also, the image gallery appears bloated; perhaps it can be curated to just a handful of images? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, thank you for noticing the article. I've tweaked the article a bit though I am not sure whether I am doing it right. I'm new here so I would appreciate comments from you guys on how to make good quality Wiki articles. Thanks! JJ Carpio (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Santo Domingo Church - @Joannerfabregas: @Ipigott: I'm moving discussion about this article to the article talkpage, Talk:Santo Domingo Church. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott and Rosiestep. We're "nagging" (if you will) the editors in question to come and respond to this, but if you would like a method of faster communication, please feel free to join the project's Facebook group. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sky Harbor, It is best for the conversations about these articles to say 'on wiki' and either be addressed on the project's talkpage (i.e. right here) or the particular article's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree, Rosiestep, but these are new editors that we're talking about here, and we can only do so much to coax them into becoming more engaged on-wiki. We're trying, but sometimes we must also reach out to them using channels which they're more comfortable using, which in this case is Facebook (which also most Filipinos use). --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed there have been a few articles created here for the same place, like Santo Niño Church (Midsayap) & Archdiocesan Shrine of Santo Nino de Midsayap, Our lady of the most holy rosary binondo chinese parish (duplicate of Binondo Church), and Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Anne & Saint Anne Parish Church, Taguig. Are these churches covered by this project? Do the project members actually talk among themselves and coordinate who's doing which? Already merged the first two but i dunno which one to keep for the Taguig church.--RioHondo (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The two articles whose diffs you linked were made before the start of the project last month. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this project still ongoing? Would just like to request for the following articles on Philippine churches in the World Heritage Site list including those in the tentative list (or at least prioritize them if possible)
1. Miag-ao Church Green tickY (ooh that was fast! Thanks @User:Carlojoseph14!)
2. Tentative List
Baroque Churches (extension) and Jesuit Churches in the Philippines
a. Baclayon Church
b. Boljoon Church
c. Guiuan Church
d. Lazi Church
e. Loboc Church
f. Tumauini Church
Btw, thanks to User:joannerfabregas for creating the Maragondon Church article. Regards--RioHondo (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope that structures under the tentative list be part of our priority. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of articles needed[edit]

Last Saturday, June 28, we had a meeting (raw minutes) with the volunteers who are creating and improving these articles on built heritage. Before July ends, the project leads will be deliberating and then assigning them to cover nearby towns and cities to do research and take photographs of all declared (by NHCP or NM) built heritage in their assigned places. Thus, we are expecting an even larger surge of new articles. Before that happens, I hope that we can do a peer review of the articles that they have created thus far. You can find a list of articles created or improved per volunteer at the WMPH website. The idea is to provide them feedback so that they can improve their existing articles and so that the articles they will be creating in the future will have less newbie-related problems. An example of review feedback is the one I left at Talk:St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines). Pinging Ipigott, Rosiestep, Sky Harbor, Titopao, RioHondo, Namayan, Bluemask, Lenticel, joelaldor. —seav (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly an impressive list. Congratulations to all concerned. I will continue in particular to monitor the new articles. I think one of the lessons learned up to now is the need to paraphrase material found in the sources and to avoid copying over chunks of original text. It's also important to include inline references (at least one per paragraph) and, in the reference, to try to provide data on the title of the source article, author (if given), publisher and date in addition to the URL. Of course most contributors are already working along these lines. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see the efforts here and I'll monitor the new ones as well. Some recommendations: (a) newer editors should consider avoiding large content additions at one time, opting instead for incremental edits with inline citations, (b) create a Gallery section in shorter articles, instead of over-saturating the content area with images (i.e. St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Philippines)), and (c) where there is information about a building's design, include an "Architecture" section (or "Architecture and fittings" to include content on a font, etc.). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Peer-review is a good way to assess quality of articles so that we could ensure the reliability of our articles. Just a clarification, Josh mentioned during the workshop that it is not a good way for encyclopedic articles to create a gallery. Or it is okay to place a gallery if the article is too short? Please correct me. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think they prefer linking to a Commons gallery for the pictures instead of displaying all of them in the articles. Anyway, one thing i noticed in some of these new articles is that they seem to have been copied straight from somewhere, like you're reading halfway through at the start of the articles. The lead sentences begin with the history, the architect, some even just introduce these structures as being "one of the oldest churches or buildings in the Philippines" without even mentioning the exact municipality or city they are located, which is supposed to be part of the introduction. But many have been corrected and re-edited, by the same authors or by me when I am in the mood. :) Oh, and another advice: try to begin your articles with this format: Article Title is a ____ located in _____. Its always easier to read to read it like that, and more encyclopedic i think. And do not forget the LINKS. Link every word you can! :) anyways, good job guys.--RioHondo (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage Task Force[edit]

Similar to the History task force suggested in a separate thread, I would like to propose to create a Cultural Heritage Task Force. This task force will be a natural complement to the Cultural Heritage Mapping Project currently being undertaken by Wikimedia Philippines. Does anybody object to this idea? —seav (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, so long as other people who are not involved with the CHMP may join in as well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

LGU update[edit]

I have requested the following municipality articles to be moved according to their true common and/or official spellings showing evidences of their official seal, official website, and images of municipal halls or welcome sign from those municipalities carrying their real spelling:

Bulacan —> Bulakan
Impasug-ong —> Impasugong
Ma-ayon —> Maayon
Pigkawayan —> Pigcawayan
Pinamungahan —> Pinamungajan
Sapi-an —> Sapian

Also, the following municipalities need to have their maps replaced to reflect their new names:

Sultan Sumagka (renamed from Talitay – MMA Act 228)
Datu Montawal (renamed from Pagagawan – MMA Act 152)
Banguingui (renamed from Tongkil – MMA Act 71)
Mataasnakahoy (erroneously spelled as Mataas na Kahoy)

The following recently created municipalities in Maguindanao have no maps yet:

Mangudadatu, Maguindanao(created in 2006 – MMA Act 204)
Datu Hoffer Ampatuan, Maguindanao (created in 2009 – MMA Act 220)
Shariff Saydona Mustapha, Maguindanao (created in 2009 — MMA Act 252)
Datu Salibo, Maguindanao (created in 2009 – MMA Act 222)
Northern Kabuntalan, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 205)
Pandag, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 204])
Datu Anggal Midtimbang, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 206)
Datu Blah T. Sinsuat, Maguindanao (created in 2006 – MMA Act 198)

Anyone here knows how to create/edit LGU maps?--RioHondo (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to request new and changed maps at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. -- P 1 9 9   20:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
For the municipality article move requests (first list), I would like to note that the main reason why I supported the recent similar move request from Miag-ao to Miagao is that the Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC) listed the name as "MIAGAO". This doesn't hold for the other listed municipalities where the official national-level standard apparently conflicts with the municipal-level standard. (What about at the provincial-level? What do the province websites list?) Given this conflict between 2 official sources, please note that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use the official name (Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton) in titling articles but rather what most reliable sources use. Looking at Sapi-an/Sapian, local news articles use both spellings but "Sapian" is used by around 300 links as opposed to 80 for "Sapi-an", so I may support the move to "Sapian". (I personally would like to standardize on using PSGC as much as possible, but Wikipedia policies trump that.) —seav (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(Oops. Sorry for the almost blanking of the page; my browser crashed. I noticed what happened and was about to fix it but Blakegripling ph beat me to it. :) —seav (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
It's OK, at least it ain't something a little revert/fix can't do, aye? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That only goes to show that the PSGC or whatever central government data agency is not always reliable when it comes to geographic names and spellings. WP:COMMONNAME for me is how the LGU officials and residents themselves commonly refer to their LGU, not what the central government thought their LGUs are called or how their names are spelled when they entered them in the database and published them online for others to follow. Their seals, websites, what is visible in their own locality is what we should follow, and not these central government agencies which continue to call this marsh in Mindanao as "Ligawasan Marsh" or this national park on Lake Pantao Raya in Saguiaran as Pantuwaraya Lake National Park (the DENR could have just copied the name of the barangay where it is located). Miag-ao is just like Ligawasan whose misspelling was picked up by many with those official government entries to UNESCO's heritage list. :)--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind moving, but as far as I know, there's still no consensus to drop province names from municipalities. So why is it that the move requests all involve dropping the province name? --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is. But you can discuss that with your Philippine chapter president or chairman of the board of trustees in your next assembly. :) As far as im concerned, this is in line with what WP does for article titles and editing in general. Achieving consensus through discussions which the individual RMs did (part of the whole WP:BRD process). But i guess you already know that. Some BAU stuff. :) --RioHondo (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we all actually please defer these moves until we've found consensus? The last discussion stalled. –HTD 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with the article naming discussion was that it tried to include everything at once. I suggest a new approach to discuss only municipalities, cities, provinces, one at a time. BTW, Baloi, Lanao del Norte, may also need to be renamed, which appears to be commonly written as Balo-i (see official website). -- P 1 9 9   18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with this suggestion, re: article naming discussion. –HTD 18:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey P199, thanks for noticing. Will request for it to be moved too. Hopefully we can get a dedicated editor to start updating those maps too.--RioHondo (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Another thing: in order to make locator maps for the new places in Maguindanao, we need an authoritative/official map or source to base it on. I have not been able to find this. Do you know where we can find this? -- P 1 9 9   15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this map posted in the provincial article looks updated. It's the same map posted in Maguindanao's official website. P.S. I know someone who does this really well, only he's busy in that other discussion lol. --RioHondo (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I had seen that map, but I don't trust its accuracy. It's clearly more like a tourism map than an official survey or cadastral map. -- P 1 9 9   20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Province names in municipality article titles redux[edit]

As HTD mentioned above, the last discussion on this topic (which is so large that it occupies its own archive page) did not reach any conclusion among the participants. So I'd like to restart the discussion by trying a different tack in solving the issue. Permit me to provide some background first.

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive. Naming conventions, like any other guidelines on Wikipedia, can be either be prescriptive or descriptive or a combination of both. Sometimes, guidelines get proposed or updated/revised due to discussion (without any article-based trigger) and so the update to the guideline is prescriptive. Other times, guidelines get updated to reflect what actually happens to the actual articles. In this case, the update is descriptive.

A little bit of history. There are instances where naming conventions in Wikipedia have been descriptively updated. Here are a few notable examples:

  1. WP:USPLACE For a long time the guidelines stated that all cities, towns, and counties in the US have to have the state name in their article's title (the comma convention) with only New York City as the exception. Then Chicago was moved from Chicago, Illinois and the guideline was updated. Philadelphia followed. This resulted to a lot of discussion that finally ended with a consensus for the AP Stylebook exceptions. Note, the Chicago and Philadelphia are descriptive guideline updates which helped push for the AP Stylebook prescriptive update.
  2. Australian place naming conventions. In early 2010, the Australian place-name convention stated that every place, except capital cities (when no disambiguation is needed), need to have the state name in their article titles. Despite those conventions, move requests like for Ballarat and Coffs Harbour became successful. This resulted into a descriptive (to match the moved articles) and prescriptive (to apply to the rest of the articles) update of the guidelines to not impose the comma convention.
  3. WP:NCROY In 2010, the royalty and nobility naming conventions had a pretty strict guideline where names are always disambiguated with the country such as William II of England. Despite that, there have been several successful move requests such as those for "Elizabeth II" (instead of "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"), "William the Conqueror" (and not "William I of England"), and "Napoleon I" (and not "Napoleon I of France"). ("Napoleon I" has since been moved to just "Napoleon".) Because of these move requests, the naming convention was updated (after discussion) to specify various exceptions to the original rule.

Back to PH municipalities. Since the discussion for the article titling guidelines (aka naming conventions) for Philippine municipalities had arrived to a deadlock of sorts, this means that updating the guidelines via the prescriptive path might not be best. So RioHondo initiated the descriptive approach, by initiating a bunch of move requests to see what other people (especially admins who would close the discussion) think as there are quite a lot of people who follow move requests over at WP:RM.

As a result, we have had the following municipality move requests. All but one of them were successful. (Links go to the move request discussion.):

Apart from these municipalities, we have had several other successful move requests to remove unnecessary disambiguation from article titles of other places:

In light of the successful requested moves listed above and following the precedent set by Chicago, Ballarat, and Elizabeth II, I propose that we descriptively update the naming convention to use the <placename> convention instead of the comma convention for municipalities in the Philippines. This proposed update, will then prescriptively apply to the rest of the municipalities in the Philippines. —seav (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My home computer is busted (haha) so I won't give as much input as I wanted to, but my points still stand as the current nomenclature completely satisfies WP:NC. I have no issues on how barangays, islands and "districts (places)", are named. The moves should not have had proceeded as even B2C remarked on one of the earlier discussions that the policy first has to be changed rather than piecemeal moves. –HTD 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? When did B2C say that? For the record, he has officially stated: Consensus for a rule change typically does not happen until consensus is established for some number of individual changes, establishing a trend that shows broad consensus for the rule to reflect the new changes.seav (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's at Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar: "I've been over there now, but Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?" Talk:Aparri#Requested_move is especially shameful as it was only the two of you that had a discussion. This piecemeal moves have to stop until we've settled in on what to do. –HTD 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(P.S. Love the term B2C used: "subvert". –HTD 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC))
I think you misinterpreted of B2C's comment. Note that in that discussion, I had actually advocated that people participate in the Tambayan discussion instead of voting (I said, "I would vote for Support, but..."). B2C read my comment and replied with a "but" and then linking to his FAQ using the "Q" as the link text and where the "Q" is essentially my comment and the "A" is B2C's actual position. —seav (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, did you get to change the guideline during/after the discussion? We had a discussion. What happened? You, in B2C's words, subverted the guideline one article at a time. Dreadful. –HTD 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you think a particular closed move request is in error, there's WP:MR. If you think my or RioHondo's move requests are "dreadful", there's WP:ANI or WP:RFCC. Doing "piecemeal moves" or "subverting the guideline" is a legitimate way of updating Wikipedia guidelines. That is exactly how the US place naming conventions, the Australian place naming conventions, and the royalty and nobility naming conventions got updated. —seav (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not asking for an immediate reversion of the move, as frequently moved pages are bad for the readers. All I'm asking for a discussion that leads to something. I dunno about the examples but you gave (Lizzie and Australian places), but it shouldn't only be you and RioHondo, plus give or take B2C and some other RM regular who doesn't know squat what he's discussing about at an RM. That can be viewed as sneaky and bad faith. Even the first three moves were done while we're discussing the whole thing!
Also, I realize that the "kayo-kayo (or tayo-tayo) lang" discussions that involved RioHondo/you nominating and You/him supporting, then the RM being closed with no one else commenting, is like the Interim Batasang Pambansa. It's shameful. –HTD 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Having seen how the moves have been done, I support Howard's position on the matter. Two people supporting your position - of which in some cases one of them is you or RioHondo - hardly constitutes consensus. At least with clear guidelines, we know what's happening on the matter, and we're better able to respond to those changes if necessary, rather than be forced to acquiece to something you want us to support because you've been going at it behind our backs. The IBP analogy in this case I feel is not apt; in fact, the better analogy is the 1972 Constitutional Convention! --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. It appears that you both have compared what RioHondo and I did to Marcos' influence: as if requesting and supporting article title changes is equivalent to becoming a dictator. I know you both mean well, but I feel offended with such a comparison. There are better ways to say you disagree without resorting to the sort of comments for which Godwin's law was created.
It seems you both think that Rio and I have collaborated "behind your backs" on something that you both disagree with. The truth is, Rio and I merely have the same viewpoint regarding this naming issue and that these move requests are not coordinated between us. I cannot speak for RioHondo (re why he initiated his move requests), but I started my move requests with the aim of finding out what the wider community thinks—including admins who would be closing the move requests—regarding my preferred naming convention that in my view is based on policy, by giving concrete examples in the form of actual move requests. Besides, the previous discussion arguably ended in a deadlock; the move requests was really a different tack to evolve the guidelines using actual articles as examples. I never informed RioHondo whenever I request for page moves as that would be against WP:CANVASS. As for my participation on Rio's move requests, I learned about them because I monitor Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Article alerts. In addition, I would also like to note that B2C, whose view against unnecessary disambiguation I agree with, is a very frequent supporter in these move discussions. But just the same, I never contacted him about these requests; it appears he is just very passionate about the issue of article titles, monitors the list of requests at WP:RM, and jumps into discussions as he sees fit.
Now that I have stated all that, can we go back to discussing the actual topic and not on user behavior? (If you still feel that our actions are inappropriate, as I have mentioned before, there's WP:RFCC. But, I am stating that I don't think I violated any policy on user conduct.) Given all of these successful move requests, I think that there is a case to be made for adopting the <placename> convention over the current comma convention. (If your counterargument is the perceived behavior between Rio and me, I can name one famous logical fallacy for that.) Among all of these move requests, the only valid opposition presented is the legitimate concern about what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g., Balangiga), but when confronted with move requests where the town is the only topic with that name, there was no opposition (except for a comment that we ought to modify the guidelines first, to which I replied that guidelines can be desriptively changed as well).
That said, if you think that page move requests where only Rio and I have participated is not conclusive of anything and should not be given any consideration, then we still have the following successful page move requests where other people apart from Rio and me participated: Sagada, Banaue, Santa Praxedes, Dingalan and Vintar. For the rest, I actually wish that the closing admin had extended the discussion longer so that more of the wider community could participate, but it is what it is. Unlike AfDs where deletion is often final and so discussions are often extended to gain more viewpoints, move requests are reversible and are not usually relisted. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Btw, @seav, after Chicago and Philadelphia have been moved to placename, did updating WP:USPLACE require another round of discussion or was it just unilaterally updated to reflect the multilateral decision in those rm discussions? So far we have established consensus with the WP admins/other users that unique AT's need not be disambiguated. Let us know what Wikimedia Philippines have decided regarding this matter. :)--RioHondo (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Philippines has no authority to decide on the matter, as it has no authority to exercise editorial control on the projects, even if it wanted to. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But WMPH is composed of regular editors too, so I'd like for seav to get them to participate in this discussion to update MOSPHIL after 15% of all LGUs have been made to conform to wp standards in the last 7 months :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
While I don't oppose extending the discussion to include more editors, the presumption that somehow the two of you can win over other editors sounds very unconvincing. I seriously wonder what has happened with all previous attempts with trying to get consensus: do you interpret that as people being comfortable with the status quo and we should leave it as it is, or as people not caring with what the guideline is and they'll just blindly follow? I remain unconvinced that even if you manage to move all LGU articles in the process to the naming convention that only the two of you support (plus or minus an editor or two), you can claim to have "obtained" consensus. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's see. The first three RMs clearly indicate that you were part of that consensus building. Only the majority decision didn't go in your favor in the first two. Balangiga having other entries (notably the bells which could be the more popular entry) was not moved and I understand that cos that's just how WP is. Simple BAU stuff. --RioHondo (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You know, it's my fault it has come to Rio and Seav rubber stamping the discussion; the reason why Balangiga wasn't movbed was that I was able to devote time to that discussion. I've been busy, my computer died, I hate using laptops (haha) and there's way too many discussions ongoing. That's why I'm suggesting to defer all RMs until we figure out what to do. That's my request for now. I'm not even asking for reversion of the moves. –HTD 13:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
RioHondo, Sky Harbor is right, WMPH has nothing to do with editorial discussions on Wikipedia. My position in the chapter does not and should not have any bearing on these discussions. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As the discussion at Talk:Banaue#Requested move shows, I was not impressed by circumventing MOSPhil through move discussions (RM draw in editors who know nothing of MOSPhil, so logically they support a move contrary to the guideline). Anyway, again the discussion is limited to the same Tambayan editors who are divided into 2 camps. Each camp has their own supporting arguments, and after the long previous discussions, I doubt there is anything new to say. It is unlikely that we'll reach consensus between the 2 camps. So, without consensus, the existing guideline (<place, province>) stands. -- P 1 9 9   14:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. A no consensus result does not always mean that the status quo is preserved. See Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means (note: an essay) for a viewpoint. For example, WP:BIODEL states that a no rough consensus AfD discussion for certain BLPs may result in deletion contrary to the default keep result. —seav (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not helpful (all that applies only to deletion discussions). In our case, a consensus has to be reached in order to change WP:MOSPHIL. -- P 1 9 9   15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also like for the Lizzie and Napoleon analogies to stop. The cases for those two are the exceptions rather than the rule. What you're (Seav) pushing for is policy for every article. The Australian naming conventions don't matter as other countries do it differently, such as the U.S., Philippines and China. The Aussie precedent should be cited as a precedent until everyone follows them. –HTD 16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Re Australia: my point is that naming conventions can change due to individual page moves that contradict the convention, and not the point that countries can have their own standards. Re Lizzie: My point is that naming conventions can change due to page moves, period, regardless of whether the change is to overhaul the convention or only to add exceptions. —seav (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seav's proposal. I know that if everyone simply agreed to follow the general convention which applies to almost all WP titles, disambiguate only when necessary, there would be very little if anything to discuss. --В²C 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In this day and age, B2C, I'm surprised you'd still insist on an "almost all" rule. Yes, not as bad as "a rule with no exceptions", but almost as bad. Rules should be flexible, amirite?
  • To think that the disambiguation in this case is as natural as "we've been using this method ever since we had addresses". It's not even Some dude (his job) which is unnatural. I can't understand what's the deal with the opposition to this, TBH. –HTD 17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also can we please stop citing the WP:UNDAB essay B2C basically wrote last year after being tagged as historical in 2006. I'm betting 90% of its citations after 2013 involve B2C actually doing it. It's as bad as Seav and RioHondo's shameful RMs then saying the new results are the new "consensus". –HTD 18:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:UNDAB is well-founded in actual policy, guidelines and conventions. If you know of any deviations from that, please fix them or at least raise your specific concerns on its talk page. Thanks. --В²C 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Why can't we use the actual policy at WP:DAB, then? If we're basing arguments on policy, we might as well cite the policy instead of an essay derived from that policy that's apparently not good enough to be policy per se. –HTD 12:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
        • One could copy/paste the content of UNDAB into a comment here, or even just the particularly relevant section, but that would take up a lot of space, and is a waste for those already familiar with what it says. --В²C 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Other proposals[edit]

  • Compromise use plain place name unless disambiguation is needed for cities, first class urban municipalities and provincial capitals. For the rest use the comma convention. –HTD 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thanks for trying to break the impasse. Yet the income classification system is unknown outside PH, so it may be confusing to readers why some use comma convention and why others don't. -- P 1 9 9   16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think this how this could be an issue. Not everyone knows the external MOS that decided which American cities can be commaed or what. At best if a reader looks at a category of "Municipalities of <province>" and sees some articles don't have the article name, he can deduce that the place is important. –HTD 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What's the reasoning behind selecting provincial capitols and 1st class urban municipalities? You mentioned "important". So is your position that importance is the criteria? Of course it's hard to define "importance" and is that the reason why you selected those types of municipalities? Anyway, I agree that capitals are indeed important. —seav (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I figured if we'd be having some threshold for "important" municipalities without discriminating a lot of other "important" ones, "first class urban" towns might do it. These are also quite "popular" nationally or even at their respective provinces. –HTD 11:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Maybe we should draw up a list of what municipalities are affected. Then people can look at the list and agree that these are more or less all important or comment that there are some that they consider important but are not in the list. —seav (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Heck, I made this proposal without ever looking at a list. If we started looking at lists we'd be subjective on what to include and not. –HTD 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody else have any comments, or is in support/opposition to HTD's proposal? —seav (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys okay after Typhoon Glenda?[edit]

Finally managed to get online. Are you guys okay? --Lenticel (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in Manila right now, but I'm hoping everyone's alright there. (Also, allow me to make a wiki-related pitch: if you have pictures or videos of the typhoon, please upload them to Commons so we can populate Category:Typhoon Rammasun (2014).) --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm at Bulacan now to avoid the rolling blackouts. Internet is, at best, intermittent in Manila so it's best to go North if you want stable Net and electricity. The damage here isn't that bad but I'll post pics if I find any interesting (for lack of a better term) damage. --Lenticel (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, my folks and I are fine here. Took eons for electricity to be back up though, much to my chagrin. As a matter of fact, certain areas in General Trias, Cavite are still without power for days on end. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Manila? Metro Manila? National Capital Region?[edit]

I think it's time to resolve this issue of conflicting names for the Philippine capital city, the Philippine capital administrative region and the metropolitan area in the Philippines. As of now, these three entities overlap each other in almost all articles here in WP. As someone who does a lot of organizing and maintaining Manila-related articles including their categories and templates, I am starting to grow impatient with the lack of unified naming guidelines with regards to our city, region and metropolis. And im sure many editors especially contributors from other nationalities who authored many of these articles are just as confused as I am.

Take these articles on Manila for example:

As much as I would love to create these topics for our metropolitan area and/or region (I'm a Manileño from outside the City) , i can't as they are already covered in those articles.

And many of those Category:People from Manila are not actually from the city but from other areas in Metro Manila.

I think it's safe to say that Manila is the commonname for the metropolitan area, for both foreigners and locals, like me.

The National Capital Region (Philippines) Many of the government-related articles on the region are named NCR:

Perhaps when it comes to administrative matters, the commonname for the administrative region is National Capital Region (Philippines).

How about the City of Manila? It is not uncommon to see this entry in many of the articles as a form of disambiguation from Manila that almost always refers to the metro as a whole. And Manila has never been exclusive to the city alone and is used as the generic name for the metro area:

I have been meaning to move History of Manila to History of Metro Manila; Timeline of Manila to Timeline of Metro Manila; Geography of Manila to Geography of Metro Manila and all those categories like Category:Organizations based in Manila where the Asian Development Bank is under, and Category:Diplomatic missions in Manila that has the Embassy of Israel. But that would leave Manila bare or empty and I do understand Manila is the common international name for the city AND metro area, as how their authors intended them.

Unless anyone can offer an alternative solution to this mess, i propose that:

  • 1. Manila be moved to City of Manila
  • 2. National Capital Region (Philippines) be created that will discuss briefly pure administrative and regional matters of NCR formed only in 1975 through the MMC/MMA/MMDA. Those government agencies belong here.
  • 3. Manila be made as an article about both the growing city and metropolitan area that developed from Intramuros to Province of Manila to the Province of Rizal the City of Greater Manila to the MMC/MMA/MMDA and continued expansion into Greater Manila Area.

Anyone's got any thoughts on this? Or is everyone comfortable with the current mess? :) But definitely a National Capital Region (Philippines) article has to be made as there are already a growing number of references to it, and that's what all the government portals call the region.--RioHondo (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd only support Manila's move to City of Manila if the term "Metro Manila" isn't that popular; as in the current levels in the popularity of the use of the term "National Capital Region". –HTD 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Manila" referring to both the city and the region is a mess. But I have not personally decided what the best solution is although I'm leaning towards the status quo. You can look at London, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles for other examples where the city proper is confused with the greater region. But ultimately, I think it will be upon the Tambayan community to decide. —seav (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That Los Angeles example truly is the best example, IMHO. Pasadena and Los Angeles are two different cities in Los Angeles County, but most people don't usually know the difference between the city and the county. People even believed that the Lakers played in the city of Los Angeles the whole time (lol). –HTD 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. As for names of man-made places, just use the WP:NC. We don't call "UP Diliman" as "UP Quezon City" or even "UP UP Village" or something. It's not our problem if they want to use Manila's name and everybody else is doing it. It's marketing. –HTD 15:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember we had this conversation some years back, HTD. Up to now, I am still restless with the lack of order as you can see. :) But have you guys seen those articles on the regional government agencies? They all link to a National Capital Region article that does not exist and is only a redirect to an article with a completely different name: Metro Manila. Their titles alone can be confusing. Do you think we should start building its own article that will discuss all these admin/governmental matters? As for Metro Manila, i know it will be hard to rename it just like that due to its popularity, but would shifting its focus to strictly the metropolitan area and its urban profile with the new NCR article focused on the political jurisdiction itself be an ideal remedy? I mean, metropolitan areas grow and the urban agglomeration that is Metro Manila which is now extending beyond NCR can be a whole different topic from one that has a defined territory with the role of a capital district like NCR. Anyone else agrees? Anyways, i guess theres nothing we can do with Manila and Metro Manila unfortunately. --RioHondo (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region" one and the same? I mean, you shouldn't see news about robbery in Antipolo in the Inquirer's Metro (take note: not "City") section, right? It's in the Nation section or at the generic news section. Also, some government agencies use the term "Metro Manila" as another name for "National Capital Region", most notably PAGASA. What if PAGASA says it's signal #3 in "Metro Manila" and it's #2 in Rizal? Surely Taytay, Rizal is a part of the "agglomeration"? So what signal number is it in Taytay? –HTD 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, metropolitan areas can have a different meaning from a human settlements perspective hehe, but i was hoping we can give National Capital Region (Philippines) its own article as it is a prominent and notable entity that has administrative/governmental uses (as in those references in those government articles). And also, Metropolitan Manila (MMC) and NCR were created through separate decrees three years apart, and metropolitan areas can grow depending on the transportation infrastructure and economy (think North Rail and South Rail) while administrative regions are plain political jurisdictions. :) So... how do we get the NCR article started?--RioHondo (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You haven't exactly answered my question. You're insinuating that "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region" are different. Perhaps NCR just replaced MMC? Most references treat them are coextensive. Perhaps you're looking for a different article like Greater Manila Area? –HTD 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Just trying to come up with a reasonable argument here for creating an NCR article. :) See the Metro Manila LGUs also have NCR in their navboxes making it look like MM and NCR are two different regions. :) --RioHondo (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But we already have an article, not just on the title you'd like. As for navboxes, it shouldn't appear that way as "National Capital Region" is piped linked to Metro Manila, implying that "Metro Manila" is another name for the "National Capital Region". –HTD 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rio for trying to clean up duplication and redundancies. I think the article title for Manila should stay as is (the discussion about whether or not to add "city" has been beaten to death and we don't want to set another precedent for other cities). It should just be made very clear that the article is limited to the city itself, and info about greater Manila be removed (unless it is intrinsically relevant). And I thought like HTD that by definition Metro Manila is the same as the National Capital Region. If so, then there is no need to create the National Capital Region article, but the info can just be merged. As for institutions that carry the name "Manila" but are located outside Manila city limits, well, that's not our problem if they want to be misleading. We just need to properly identify their location in the article (which we already do). -- P 1 9 9   19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess the looming RM is for "Manila" to be moved to "City of Manila", which doesn't make sense since no one calls it "City of Manila". How about "Manila (city)"? Interesting, but I'd rather see "Manila" become a disambiguation as neither the city nor the metro would claim primary topic status, but the city can claim it solely on "dibs", and that if "Metro Manila" is moved to "Manila" it will trigger more confusion since "Metro Manila" term is well-known.
We have terms, or words, in both English and Tagalog, for the place Erap is the mayor, and the place where the MMDA is in charge of flood control. "Metro Manila" and "Kamaynilaan" are not unheard of, neither is the use of the word "Manila" to also refer to the metro. If a foreigner or promdi says she's going to "Manila" and ends up in Cubao, there's nothing wrong there. It's like a shortcut. Once the "Metro Manila" term dies, then we can move the metro article to "Manila". That's not happening yet. –HTD 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, there is no "looming RM", just a regular discussion. I hope we don't contradict ourselves, when clearly even you use "city of Manila" as well. Anyways, good chat. Btw, have you ever been on any one of those Wikipedia Manila Meetups? (which I heard takes place more often outside the City. Lol) ;)--RioHondo (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I dunno why you are insisting on the "city of Manila" bit. I was clearly distinguishing what "Manila" I was talking about there, as the article "Manila" was about the city, so the categories and daughter articles should be about the city. –HTD 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha! Actually, City here is valid as I use it all the time especially to distinguish the old city (central core) from the larger metropolitan area. You can't say the same for most other cities which have neither a namesake province or region. :) I know most people refer to the metropolitan area as simply Manila when you go outside its borders. Like people from the different provinces and overseas Filipino communities refer to MM as Manila. And so it is common to hear City of Manila being used to refer to that place that has Estrada as its mayor. (actually even within its borders, it is common to hear Manila to refer to MM, like i went to a Live in Manila concert recently in Pasay, i listened to Manila's Hottest whjch has its studios in Pasig, have you heard of Thrilla in Manila? Hehe) Are you Filipino btw? But anyway, maybe a stub like National Capital Region (Japan) that is coterminous with Greater Tokyo Area can work to clarify and define more this administrative area used in practically all government records? :) --RioHondo (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen the term "Manila City". Never. "City of Manila" is as rare people in Espana Blvd. speaking Spanish. Even Los Angeles and Madrid know the difference between the city and the county (LA)/community (Madrid). There's no argument that "almost all metro area articles are found in the title where the city article should be". Let's not go there. Again, this "Thrilla in Manila" is all about marketing: the same reason why the Dallas Cowboys stayed as the "Dallas Cowboys" after they moved to Arlington, Texas and wasn't renamed to "Arlington Cowboys", or worse, "Metroplex Cowboys" (same thing to Ateneo de Manila).
For most people, NCR and Metro Manila are one and the same... so wait, you're telling me the MMDA is not a government agency for the "National Capital Region"? What's your definition of "Metro Manila", anyway? –HTD 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: Category:People from Manila -- I tried cleaning this up, but the references are vague on which "Manila" they're talking about. This is what we should be dreading, having the city and metro mixed up, which would be result of any successful RM. –HTD 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe it's a cultural thing? I don't hear a lot of "Metro Manila" being used even in everyday Philippine English. So no, that cant be just marketing, it is everyday speech, just like Mall of Asia is called Mall of Asia or MOA but never the full SM Mall of Asia. Lol, anyway, we can argue between Gil Puyat and Buendia, at the end of the day the title goes to what is on paper (or street sign). :) --RioHondo (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. See, you used the word "city of Manila" in your discussion there regarding the people category. Lol! A natural disambiguation ;) --RioHondo (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
TBH, the term "Metro Manila" isn't that used frequently. It's used for um... metro-wide things. Like public storm signals, anything the MMDA wants to do, number coding, etc, heck even a Singaporean movie. But once it's used, it's clear that the topic is about the metropolitan area. As for marketing, SM City Manila isn't actually called that way; it's called as "SM Manila" by people; the same way Forum Robinsons is "Robinsons Pioneer", and SM Megamall is just called as Megamall, but people know the "real names" of this places a la "Metro Manila". AFAIK, Buendia's the Pasay part, and Gil Puyat is the Makati part of the same street; that or either the LRT station is too lazy to replace signage. And yeah, I had to disambiguate because there were like a lot of Manilas involved in that discussion to be clear. That's unlike on an article that should clearly state what is it all about at the start so you won't get confused. There should be no confusion if it's an actual place or event as we'd know which part of the metro is it, unlike vague "Foo was born in Manila".
I'm interested on what's your definition of "Metro Manila" and "National Capital Region", though. Is Antipolo a part of both? Or just the first? Or neither? How about Bacoor? –HTD 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to know that we agree on three things:
1. That "Manila" is the generic name for the metro.
2. That "City of Manila" can be used to disambiguate the capital city from the capital region.
3. That "Metro Manila" isn't used as frequently as "Manila".
On marketing, i understand the strategies of private organizations and companies do not matter, but what about government and intergovernmental organizations based "in Manila"? You can't call that marketing?
1. International Labor Organization Manila Office is in Makati
2. Asian Development Bank with headquarters in Manila is in Mandaluyong
3. World Bank Office Manila is in Taguig/Makati (formerly in Pasig)
4. International Committee of the Red Cross in Manila is in Makati
5. British Embassy Manila is in Taguig/Makati
6. Embassy of France in Manila is in Makati
Those are just some. Im sure they named their representative offices after the commonname for the NCR region, like we all do. :) --RioHondo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
We need to balance commonname with clarity. People in general may mix up Manila with MM and use it interchangeably, but it is not a good idea to adopt that here at WP. If we are starting to use Manila to refer to other places in MM, then we're creating only more massive confusion for readers. -- P 1 9 9   02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Noone's using "Manila" to refer to "other places in MM." We still call Makati Makati, it's only the Metro :)--RioHondo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"The metro"? I thought the entire place was supposed to be a city or what thingamajig?
Has anyone noticed that primetime news programs and newspapers generally avoid using the term "Manila"/"Maynila" to refer to the metro (excepting for quotes)? For example: "Public storm signal #3 was raised in Metro Manila"; "Stage of rebellion in Metro Manila", etc. They always use "Metro Manila" or "Kamaynilaan". Also, did any one also noticed that government agency almost always avoid using unqualified "Manila" to refer to metro-wide institutions? Probably the reason why they're using "National Capital Region". Manila Police District serves Tondo and not Baclaran, right? Imagine if the moves were successful, the confusion would be worse than what's happening at the category. –HTD 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, and we are not changing anything until the government does something to change this messy setup. Our job would have been easy had the government not passed the selfish/feudalist/trapo-ish Local Government Code in 1991, as Manila or MMC then had a real form of government with a governor and a single council that passes laws for the entire region. The mayors then were merely like area administrators or borough presidents, and the cities and municipalities did not have their own city or municipal councils. Instead, their councillors all worked at the Manila City Hall. Speaking of the Manila Police District, this is probably one of the few that remains from the old setup: national government services provided and distributed per geographic district: Capital District, Southern Manila District, Eastern Manila and Northern Manila or Camanava. (although Eastern Manila District have been divided between QC and the rest). The police districts and fire districts were based on this setup. :)--RioHondo (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't every city (and Pateros) has its own police force? This per district setup for police just screams bureaucracy and patronage. And they've never been called as "Eastern Manila Police District", just "Eastern Police District". The people who did the naming did it right by dropping "Manila" if they ever even thought of that. –HTD 11:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope, ours is Southern Police District which we share with other southern LGU's. Although theres also MMDA and Macea (mostly traffic management). I dont know about bureaucracy but i dont see anything wrong with naming areas, districts or even provinces based on geography. (Manila Bay? And Manila Isthmus?) you sound like the same LGC and Local government autonomy advocates that i loathe LOL. Umm all three provinces in that peninsula in Mindanao have that in their names. There's also four provinces sharing the name of the gulf in the same island. Local Government Code is primitive. :)--RioHondo (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. Our very own Taguig police just had a pissing contest with their SPD brethren Makati Police because of BGC. As in real cops, not the Macea and the very much hated MAPSA boys who aren't even police. Every city and town has their own police force. It's only the metro has this extra bureaucracy. I dunno if provinces have district police HQs. As for geographical features, they were named a long time ago. The government has more control on manmade things such as agencies and settlements. Getting it right on those is important. –HTD 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Southern Police District has those line units per LGU.. You can call any new settlement with any name but there is no changing the fact that Regional Names are based on geography. So Compostela Valley is still Davao, Santiago City is still Cagayan Valley, just as Quezon City is still Metropolitan Manila. :)--RioHondo (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is the SPD is just another layer of bureaucracy that accomplishes, well not very much. On geography, yeah, no one's disputing those. Metropolitan Manila is Metro Manila is NCR. Those Zamboanga City folk are uber pissed though that the probinsyanos stole their city's name. How would you sort out a "Category:People from Zamboanga"? Just a category that has zero articles but 4 subcategories? What if it becomes the mess that is Category:Manila, which is the impending fate of your suggestion? –HTD 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
So you mean to say each city and municipality should have its own investigation/tactical/logistic/SoCO etc/etc unit? Lol! All for the sake of Local Government Autonomy up to the municipality of Pateros LOL! (Malate district is even bigger). mm. How many primary LGUs do we have? Even the DFA Consul Office can't operate that many passport centers. But with the current inefficiencies of the divided NCR, what with the different traffic schemes, planning, the truck bans and disagreements on the use of the Port, i think youre lucky as we seem to be heading that direction anyway. :) Thanks to the LGC, the different cities and municipalities managed to land citizens in harmful places and dangerous zones all for that extra bucks from subdivision developers. Classic example: Marikina Valley. There is no proper planning and zoning. How can a region the size of a city (only 639 sq.kms.) have as much as 17 lords? The region is even smaller than 81 Philippine cities and municipalities. So definitely if you look at the region's size, economy, population, commuting patterns, Manila's real metropolitan area has already gone beyond that area we call Metro Manila. Why for example, the call centers here have a growing number of staff from the neighboring provinces, Taytay, Bacoor, SJDM included. But anyway, thats just looking at it from the definition of "metropolitan area." The NCR on the other hand is not "dynamic" if you know what i mean. :)--RioHondo (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, each town and city has its own police, which could have its own SWAT, SOCO, children and women's desk (that's actually required) and whatever teams a normal police force have. Come on, isn't this basic local government? If a town has to rely on the other town across the river for its police, they're screwed. Thinking about it, these "police districts" function more like provincial police offices, so they might have some use. Now as for if Wikipedia would care on how the government spends it's money, it's not Wikipedia's problem any more. Think of it this way, if there wasn't "Metro Manila/NCR", there would still be 17 lords, with QC, Manila and Pasay having their own personal fiefdoms, while the other lords answer to their respective overlords in Rizal and Bulacan. Wikipedia should pressure the government to fix up the horrible fair use clause in the IP law, though.
And yes, I'm still waiting on the differences between MM and NCR. I'm waiting........ –HTD 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, afaik only the SPD has a crime laboratory for example, which is why they always lead investigations regardless of where the murder took place in the south metropolis. As for NCR and the metropolitan area, try to do some backreading as I have already explained the difference even since my initial post. But will look for sources that studies the Manila built up area, i just cant remember where i read that Metro Manila is expanding, probably Jica or ADB or PIDS? See Chicago metropolitan area example to see how that area too can have several definitions. --RioHondo (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the "Manila built up area" = "Metro Manila"? In almost all accounts, "Metro Manila" is the "National Capital Region", which may include the "Manila built up area", whatever that is. Perhaps you're thinking of another term. "Metro Manila" can't change every day/month/year/decade without "notice", otherwise, the MMDA people would have reached Kawit by now, and everyone would have been confused with PAGASA's storm signals as the composition of "Metro Manila" isn't stable.
In the old days when the "metro" was mostly composed of towns (only Manila, QC and Pasay were cities), the way to write addresses was "EDSA, Makati, MM" (It changed when the towns became cities, and no one wrote "MM" anymore). "Metro Manila" was understood to be what would become the 17 cities+Pateros. There's no other definition; or in other words, only Congress or NEDA can say what "Metro Manila" is. In the Philippines, "metropolitan areas" aren't "organic". –HTD 15:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, in the official PhilPost-prescribed form for addresses, you still use "Metro Manila" for addresses outside of Manila proper. ;)
That being said, however, we must also recognize that "Metro Manila" is a juridical entity, and its coverage cannot be expanded without corresponding legislation (as Metro Manila was established by a PD, if my memory serves me right). Until then, we can't go around tinkering with definitions. (On the "Greater Manila Area": I was one of the users that questioned the factual accuracy of that article, and I am strongly inclined to delete it as there is no way we have a concrete definition of what the extent of this area, let alone Mega Manila - which at least has some basis - is.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but no one adds "Metro Manila" when writing mail anyway...
As for the Greater Manila Area, I also thought it also meant GMA=MM=NCR. Perhaps there should really be an article about the organic built-up area around the Metro. –HTD 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses and Race and ethnicity in censuses[edit]

Pleas add information about this country to this articles--Kaiyr (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)