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.


Shortcuts

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

Discussion

Start new topic


Archives

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 WIKIPEDIA TAMBAYAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Find us on Facebook     Find us on Twitter     Find us on Google+     Find us on Identi.ca

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

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)
      • Comment I visited some random municipalities to check on their income classifications. Some do not mention this at all while some belonging to the same province have the same classification. This could be the result of copy pasting, I thought. Not many provincial articles list their municipalities' income classifications too and I have yet to see an authoritative source that tells which municipalities really fall under which class and how often upgrades (or downgrades) are carried out. --RioHondo (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Madness at Talk:Santiago, Isabela[edit]

So apparently, RioHondo who wants the province name removed from town names' articles wants to resist efforts to remove "Isabela" in the title for Santiago, Isabela, a city that isn't a part of the province anymore. Let me get this straight, you want Guiuan, Eastern Samar to be moved to "Guiuan" despite the fact that it truly is in Eastern Samar. Then, you want to insert "Isabela" in a city that isn't a part of that province. What the? –HTD 13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this the same guy who said "more cities will gain independence, which makes provinces less and less relevant", and he wants to include the province's name on a city where it is not relevant. #mindblown –HTD 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I did express my liking to your proposal midway through the discussion. I was even open to moving it to even "Cityname, Regionname" citing a precedent as I am aware of the current title's inaccuracy or contradiction somehow despite its common use in reliable sources which I enumerated. However, my worry is that your "Cityname (Philippine city)" proposal is unconventional and has no precedent and will therefore need for it to be specifically enforced by some convention like WP:MOSPHIL. The only established conventions as far as Philippine LGUs are concerned are "LGUname, Provincename", "LGUname, Regionname", "LGUname, Philippines" and plain "LGUname" (where I based all my RMs on). And I only really deal with LGUnames that are unique and are not ambiguous. When it comes to disambiguation, this I believe should be stipulated in the MOS specially your proposed dab which does not fall in any of the prescribed styles. --RioHondo (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "<Cityname> (<countryname> city)" convention is rarely used below the first division (province/state)-level, but is used nevertheless. Since it's not in MOSPHIL, we'd use the classic WP:AT disambiguating procedures. As I've said, I've already suggested this before in the last discussion that was derailed; to be honest this specific suggestion was badly handled. It should've been made clearer from the start that these are "independent cities outside the Metro that have an identical name from places elsewhere", instead of "City name outside Metro Manila identical with a name of a place elsewhere". You opposed this and wanted <cityname>, <provincename>, and explicitly stated that "Region names are hardly used", but I wasn't clear that this is for independent cities only. This parenthetical disambiguation is the best course of action than appending a province name where it shouldn't be at, or the <cityname>, <regionname> convention that is almost totally never used outside the Metro. It is the natural way of disambiguating as per WP:AT, and preserves WP:MOSPHIL on not appending provincial names on independent cities. I would've went with "<cityname>, Philippines" as the second choice via the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defense. –HTD 13:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm. You're right I did oppose the Regionname suffix for ICCs and HUCs in the last discussion. I was probably focused too much on having a uniform disambiguation for all cities regardless of their status for easier compliance and enforcement. But I realize now that it is not possible given Santiago's case. And now that my perspective has shifted, the Regionname suffix proposed by P199 might actually be a good solution. This I realized when I was trying to organize the Category:Independent cities in the Philippines I created and I ended up categorizing all the independent cities under their respective regions as co-equal with their component provinces. See Category:Cagayan Valley and Category:Bicol Region for instance. Your proposal for "Naga (Bicol)" is actually my model for proposing Santiago, Cagayan Valley in the RM (except to use comma as what P199 had suggested). So if you would agree with this format (which IMO is more stable than "Santiago (Philippine city)", (neither style is commonly used anyway, and there is no hoping that the other Santiago's don't become cities anymore), then you can count on two supporters now. Let's begin? :) --RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • P.S. This is also easier to put in writing than the complex explanation you'd have to come up for Santiago (Philippine city) in WP:MOSPHIL which as you said is only pertinent to that city. I am also still hoping for consistency in application of course, and not have two different guidelines for Naga and Santiago. --RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Naga is a very special case because there are two cities called Naga. "Naga (Philippine city)" would have been still ambiguous. I would prefer "Naga (Bicol) or "Naga (Bicol Region)". We can't use that as an example. The Santiago case will be used in like a couple more examples such as Angeles and Lucena.
        • Also, the parenthetical form is quite different to the comma form. The comma form means the entire form is used when referring to the subject. In the parenthetical form, everything inside the parenthesis isn't used. –HTD 12:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Yup, I see the rationale behind "(Philippine city)" now, independent cities following the style for provinces being in the same level. (I thought all the while you just made it up to be cute LOL). Good, so do we have consensus now?--RioHondo (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

So I created a draft on the kind of changes and update to the WP:MOSPHIL before I forget what has been agreed or conceded to so far. I am willing to yield for the sake of bringing our house back in order, so if anyone has anything to say, please say it now so that we can proceed with the long overdue update to the manual.

Note: Provinces and islands follow pretty much the existing guidelines. There are no significant changes to the majority of the cities either, only this proposal will provide a clearer distinction between independent and component cities and introduce the missing disambiguation needed for ambiguous independent cities. I have incorporated HTD's compromise proposal for municipalities here too, and introduce the missing MOS also for the growing number of barangay articles.

1. Provinces

2. Independent cities

  • <city name> for capital cities (preferred primary topic).
  • <city name> City if sharing the same name as that of a Philippine province or region.
  • <city name> City if renamed after a person upon cityhood.

* <city name>, Philippines if sharing the same name as that of a non-Philippine city or municipality but with no other city or municipality in the Philippines with the same name.

* <city name>, <region name> for Metro Manila cities and other independent cities that have the same name as another city/municipality in the Philippines or elsewhere.

* <city name> (region name) for Metro Manila cities and other independent cities that have the same name as another city in the Philippines or elsewhere.

3. Component cities

  • <city name> for capital cities (preferred primary topic).
  • <city name> City if sharing the same name as that of a Philippine province or region.
  • <city name> City if renamed after a person upon cityhood.

4. Municipalities

  • <municipality name> for unambiguous capital municipalities ("preferred primary topic" rule does not apply).

5. Barangays

6. Islands

  • <island name> (island) if disambiguation is required.

I hope I didn't miss anything. Comments? I'm good with all the above proposals, I mean it's better than the loopholes and breakups we have now, and HTD needs only to agree with Naga and Santiago being suffixed by , <region name>. Let's get moving now. :)--RioHondo (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to treat independent cities as if they're provinces. After all they're primary LGUs, and they deserve the the respect that they'd get by using the parenthetical form. Use "<cityname> (Philippine city)" for example 2.4. "<cityname>, Philippines" is almost never used unless you're writing to Time magazine and for foreign media. –HTD 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Lol! Okay i gotcha! Finally. Now that makes a lot of sense and yes, i do see your point with example 2.4. Check out my revisions. Let me know if I got it right. --RioHondo (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd stick with the current Metro Manila convention used in San Juan and Pateros, and should be used in Valenzuela, considering "<cityname>, Metro Manila" is still widely used, as opposed to <cityname> <region name except Metro Manila>" which has never been in widespread use anywhere. –HTD 15:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'll work on the wording of this new MOSPHIL next. Meanwhile, comments and suggestions from other stakeholders are most welcome and much appreciated. --RioHondo (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
See this draft proposal I created in paragraph form which basically describes all the above agreed guidelines between HTD and me. Or do you prefer it in bullet point form albeit more space consuming for WP:MOSPHIL? Feel free to edit the wording on this draft also. If there are items you don't agree with or would like to propose a different guideline, please notify us first here. Thanks! CC: those who participated in the last discussion Seav, Sky Harbor, P199, Bluemask, TheCoffee, Ianlopez1115, JinJian. Aight let us know what you guys think.--RioHondo (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There's this pet provision I want inserted. If a town was upgraded to a city, and its name was changed too, it has dibs on using the word "City". The examples for this one are Roxas City, Lapu-Lapu City, General Santos City and perhaps a few more cities. I'm willing to give an exception to GenSan, but the first two are badly titled. –HTD 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm trying to think of a better wording for Lapu-Lapu City as I don't want to disturb the other "LGUs-renamed-upon-cityhood" that are already stable as much as possible (like Ozamiz and Cagayan de Oro). Roxas, Capiz actually falls under the preferred primary topic rule for capital component cities even under the existing guidelines (see my example up there), so we only have to enforce it and initiate the RM to its plain title Roxas (which even under the general WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule is possible thanks to its popularity as a destination, RXS for instance). As for General Santos, this became a city in 1968 when R.A. 5412 was passed. However, the city has had that name since 1954 when the then municipality was renamed from Buayan through R.A. 1107. I'm thinking if we could just assume that "Lapu-Lapu City" is its real placename so we won't have to insert this bit in the already long provisions for Independent cities. Or as a normal disambiguation perhaps from the more popular figure for whom this city was named and therefore out of the scope of MOSPHIL? I'm good with "Lapu-Lapu (Philippine city)" also but would have to insert an exception either way. Hmm. I know of another city that was renamed upon cityhood which might also be affected by this provision: Rizal City, though the city was renamed back to Pasay in 1950. We don't want this to be interpreted as a basis for moving it to Pasay City. What do you think?--RioHondo (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. How about this alternative? We can rephrase the "(Philippine city)" provision to state simply: "if no other city in the Philippines has the same name" so that it can include Lapu-Lapu (Philippine city)?--RioHondo (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Why not just Lapu-Lapu (city)? It is the only city with this name anywhere else (I think). --Bluemask (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right! And thanks for pointing that out. Of course, that title does sound awkward when you think about it now. It's just that we have to box all these cities under one of the conventions we have introduced, and as you can see, there's quite a lot already. Let me think of a way to introduce this exception to the [[{city-name} City}]] provision instead without affecting the other unambiguous and stable "LGUs-renamed-upon-cityhood". You can help! :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh i remember now. There was a proposal for "[[{city-name} City]] if renamed after a person upon cityhood" from the last discussion which I think might work for Lapu-Lapu's case. That way, we exclude Cagayan de Oro from the unnecessary City suffix. And I'm thinking of applying it to independent cities only, so that Ozamiz and Roxas can be also be spared. As for my Rizal City concern up there, forget it as that city obviously didn't retain the person's name. Hehe. My worry for applying this to component cities is that people might start to wonder why some cities have this (special accommodation issues) and might be tempted to follow suit with their own RMs. But if everyone is good with Ozamiz City and Roxas City then it's alright with me too. Will just need to do a lot of explaining eventually.--RioHondo (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a problem with "Lapu-Lapu, Philippines" (interestingly, not "Lapu-Lapu, Cebu") or "Lapu-Lapu (Philippine city)" or "Lapu-Lapu (city)": it's not called as "Lapu-Lapu". It's always "Lapu-Lapu City", even in normal conversation where the word "City" is usually omitted ("Where are you going?" "Lapu-Lapu City"). Same with Roxas the city in Capiz: it's never called "Roxas" or even "Roxas, Capiz", but as "Roxas City". This is unlike most cities where the word "city" is either for disambiguation or is just superfluous.
Pasay's renaming has been reverted. If it was still "Rizal City" now we'd call it as "Rizal City" because of Rizal province. But it isn't so it's called Pasay. It doesn't apply when it's reverted. –HTD 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's my test for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: If you post that word on the wall without any context, what's the first thing that comes up? If there are multiple answers, it isn't primary topic, as in the case of "Roxas." If you post "Roxas" at a wall, people may assume that it's a surname, not a place. This is the same with places such as Balangiga, which could either be one of two massacres, the city or the bells. –HTD 11:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Or Sagada, which could be the "mountains", the municipality or the "hanging coffins." Lol! Anyway, since this is the WP:MOSPHIL, what applies to one applies to all in the same category. Hence, Lapu-Lapu City, Roxas City and Ozamiz City. Is there anything else that you would like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:AT to be "selectively" applied to with regards to other Mosphil items? ;)
P.S. As a traveler, the first thing that comes to mind when I see Roxas on a wall is that it's not my boarding gate but I know it's not too far from Kalibo or Caticlan where I should be boarding.--RioHondo (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We could totally use your "as a traveler" example if everyone flies. But I'm sorry Cebu Pacific, not everyone flies lol. Your example isn't even right. I said that there's no context whatsover. A "Roxas" sign on the boarding area of course means the destination airport. If you're in comfort room, saw a door vandalized with "Roxas", you'd probably think of some person surnamed as such. Heck, even if you're at an airport CR.
This is unlike "Sagada" that really means "mountains" when you see it somewhere anywhere. –HTD 13:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Or Aparri, which could also be the mountains, the municipality, the river maybe? or the french pronunciation for in Paris. Angeles and Lucena are surnames too though. --RioHondo (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I highly doubt people would associate "Aparri" with the Cordillera mountains, or even with the Cagayan River. I don't think people realize that the river flows right through it, or that the mountains are "reasonably" close. All they know is that it's a place in the northern part of the country, thanks to the Eat Bulaga theme song. There's no confusion in that regard. –HTD 13:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments?[edit]

BTW, if anyone has any more proposal they want to add where the current WP:MOSPHIL is unclear or lacking, please don't hesitate to suggest them here. Also, please take time to review our updated draft proposal. Comments/suggestions are always welcome. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think using the income classification to decide the article title is a good idea. Having gone through nearly all LGU's to update formatting and references, I have noticed that the income class changes almost every time it is reviewed. For instance, President Manuel A. Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte, was classified as 5th class municipality, and was re-classified to 2nd class for CY 2003, reclassified again as 3rd class municipality CY 2005, again reclassified as 2nd class municipality in 2009 ([1]), and currently is a 5th class (based on NSCB which I consider an authoritative source). I realize this is not a 1st class town but it is just 1 example that shows how the income class swings back-and-forth, even from 1st class to 2nd or 3rd. Are we going to rename the article title then every 2 years or so? Highly impractical and counterproductive! -- P 1 9 9   14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is the closest to the US AP List that HTD & Sky have been pressing for since the start of the discussions. You know if it was only up to us, we would have followed Canada's and Australia's. :) But as updating our MOS guidelines has become urgent at this point, with those successful RMs to municipalities and the unprecedented Santiago (Philippine city), there's really not enough time for debates that just go in circles you know. Our AP List is the NSCB. Forget whatever you read in other local government websites. And the NSCB conducts census and updates LGU income class every five years, not 2 or 3. So after the census next year, the next time we have check on its website is still 2020. Updating articles every five years is just about right and is doable for me. Btw, municipalities may probably change their income status every year or 2 years depending on the sum of their income for that year, but as far as the national government and the Local Government Code is concerned, they only really get to receive higher salaries for their officials, higher revenue allotment and tax ceilings from the national government when their average income for four (4) consecutive years increases beyond the threshold for that income class. Ergo, there is only the NSCB that the national government relies on when it disburses funds to municipalities. So I would say the NSCB is the sole authority on this matter, let's give it a shot. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any more concerns regarding our proposal? Suggestions on certain guidelines for other place article titles? I think we're good with the use of "ñ's" and diacritics for places, so we'll retain that. I am thinking of inserting a provision though regarding the use of full names for places, like those named after saints (for example, using Santo not Sto. and Santa not Sta. which I encounter a lot specially with barangay articles). But this one is minor and will simply add that in the General Usage section in the intro, along with a provision that says LGU names should be written by themselves without attaching their LGU type except if its part of the name or provided by the guidelines. This should take care of the persistent use of [[Barangay {barangay-name}]] as well as discourage the special titles for cities/municipalities.--RioHondo (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Street markers[edit]

Roxas Boulevard Signage.PNG
OT: does anyone know how to make marker images for our Metro Manila streets like this one in the Roxas Boulevard article? (Though, I believe they have started replacing those green signs with blue across Manila). As Manila's main thoroughfare, it is important that EDSA has this i think. And also for the other Metro Manila street articles.. :) --RioHondo (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
OT: Search for "font search service". It will lead you to fonts that have similar fonts as this file has. -Ian Lopez @ 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(Moving this to a distinct conversation topic) I do not think putting those markers is a positive development. It only duplicates the infobox name, in image form, and adds nothing to the article. Metro Manila's streets do not have a distinct street sign style to justify it. TheCoffee (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Lucrecia Kasilag" or "Lucrecia Roces Kasilag"[edit]

There's a question up at Talk:Lucrecia_Roces_Kasilag regarding the article title for the National Artist. Comments on the talk page are welcome? :D - Alternativity (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

The article Iglesia ni Cristo has been nominated for Good Article review. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Content inclusion or exclusion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#2011 License revocation. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated content[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Japanese occupation of the Philippines#Duplicated content. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for source[edit]

I am seeing if anyone in the Philippines has access to this source: A Preliminary research on the religious and political right in the Philippines
It would be useful in creating a section on Conservatism in the Philippines. There is a note regarding Religious conservatism in the Philippines, but not much on the political side. Any assistance regarding this would be helpful.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The link you provided looks OK for citation as a supporting source pblished by the Institute for Popular Democracy advocacy group. It says that the paper content is available on payment of a fee. See also A Preliminary Research on the Religious and Political Right in the Philippines. The Institute. 1989.  Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I will add what little I have to the religious conservatism page, and hope to find more later. Please see my please see post as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

EDM[edit]

Hi. We could be very happy if we could discuss anyone in the Philippines who is a good contributor to the Electronic Dance Music here in the Philippines, for those who know someone,, please don'y hesitate to post one here :))