Talk:Barangays of Navotas

List articles don't mean separate articles may not be created anymore

Some people have too much time in their hands to fix what ain't WP:BROKE instead of devoting their time and energy in WP to ACTUAL ARTICLE CREATION and PAGE IMPROVEMENTS. What is the whole point of merging articles that are notable on their own as per WP:GEOLAND may i ask? This deletionist attitude is what is preventing WP Philippine articles from expanding and covering more topics. I suppose if list articles are everyone's cup of tea, then please merge all those individual articles on roads back to their main Circumferential, Radial, and National Route articles and forget they were ever written individually by me and others. You can also merge all those congressional districts I and HueMan1 created recently back to their provincial and city legislative list articles. Even if i didnt write these articles for Navotas, I am extremely disappointed by idle hands with no article contributions to show here. Like come on, try writing articles for once and I'll show you how it can be redirected, merged or deleted in a second. There are already many wannabe "admins" in WP, we dont need more of you here TBH.--RioHondo (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@RioHondo: first of all I will express my dismay over your evident statements targeted at me. I know this, since I browse through all of talk pages of articles or venues (e.g. WP:TAMBAYAN) which involve (or involved me before). I know you said a previous revision of Tambayan that I'm a "talker," and you jokingly said you want to ban all users who haven'y created even one article in such talk venues, and I know you are alluding to me. Your joke strikes me like a double-edged sword, thus having me tell myself that I must create articles. Articles that are worthy and having sources, as enshrined by the principles of Wikipedia - to have reliably-sourced articles with very few or little issues as possible.

That's why I created this Barangays of Navotas, in hopes of creating a series of articles with such similar titles - "Barangays of x," as suggested in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippine-related_articles#Barangay_notability. I checked to @P199:, and they responded positively. Same applies to @Emperork:, who said the article was ok, just only hide the column showing seals. I tried to make the table as comprehensive as possible, with reliable sources, and incorporating all important contents from the articles that I redirected to here, including images. Also, I retained select information of four selected barangays that I found very helpful to readers, although I tagged these as needing sources. I placed them below the table. And the article also incorporates details about three former barangays: Northbay Boulevard South, Tangos, Navotas, and Tanza, Navotas, mostly details about their "daughters" - the new barangays since 2018 - with sourced statements. Tanza was fortunate enough to have its information incorporated here (location), while the first two had redundant information that I thought including here would be repetitive to the 2018 division details.

I will defend my actions of redirecting all barangay articles to this "Barangays of Navotas." I'm fed up of giving a list of barangays and the reason why I redirected all of them to here, but I will give you principal reasons:

• Many of the articles have two to three sentences, one paragraphs. And much of these articles are tagged as having questionable doubts of notability.
• The population figures of these barangays as shown by them are outdated (most in 2007 census).
• Apart from the population sources, their main content, as opposed to those in the infobox, are unsourced.

I will specially mention three barangay articles that were actually deleted before - Bagumbayan North, Bagumbayan South, and Bangkulasi. According to the deletion logs, they were proposed to be deleted because they were unsourced, lacking sources to establish their notability. If you say that I stop this deletionist attitude, then why not bother also question the two admins who deleted these three, or the onw who tagged the three as PROD?

Deletion logs (note that in my preferences I use PST)

12:48, 10 September 2019 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Bagumbayan North (Expired PROD, concern was: No sources cited.) (thank)

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Bagumbayan+North

12:49, 10 September 2019 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Bagumbayan South (Expired PROD, concern was: No sources cited.) (thank)

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Bagumbayan+South

19:26, 31 August 2019 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Bangkulasi (Expired PROD, concern was: No sources cited) (thank)

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Bangkulasi

If you say why improve each, my answer that wouldn't be simple. It's better to manage and update information of barangays in such one single article. My efforts in contribution are greatly hampered by my personal schedules. I'm not against the existence of barangay articles. I found barangays of Cabuyao worthy to have their articles retained because they have sufficient sources and they have much prose that discusses them not in very trivial manners.

You also say that I'm an "admin-wannabe"? You're wrong. I will never seek the position of an admin. Should someone suggest me or someone include me in the candidates (requests for adminship), I will immediately and unconditionally decline ALL such requests. It's not being an admin that will dictate the improvements of articles, it's being constructive contribution, with sense and reason.

Nevertheless, if you say that I "destroy" articles, and you want me to leave since the your statements imply that I am destructive, then fine. I will discontinue my plans for articles "Barangays of Pulilan," "Barangays of Bulakan, Bulacan," and "Barangays of Tarlac City." You said such types of articles are very counterproductive. Go ahead, tell everyone that I destroyed Navotas barangays' articles (with reason) and began introducing what you tout "counterproductive articles." Be frank, in your sense I'm a trash and an unworthy user deserving to leave the doors of Wikipedia, the doors where I was warmly welcomed by @AntiCompositeNumber: more than three years ago. I might had an issue before regarding a former paranoraml geography article, but that was resolved.

Addition (unrelated to this article but related to your mocking remark of a "talker"): If you say that I'm a talker in the sense that I don't do anything regarding municipality titles, the reason why is because I'm waiting for another editor to declare if a concensus was reached. You "shoved off" my attempt at Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, telling me to wait until a consensus has reached. However, I know if I declare concensus by myself and edit WP:MOSPHIL, many other editors will oppose, even if you might say I did the right thing of determining a consensus and officially revising the MOSPHIL guidelines. Ever since recently I want to respect other editors, most especially veteran. I respect @Seav:'s position, I respect @Sky Harbor:'s, since I visit regularly the 2013 and 2014 "debates" before. I respect @SmokeyJoe:'s, yet I also respect @Crouch, Swale:'s. So I planned to have a compromise proposed at MOSPHIL talk — all truly uniquely-named municipalities are under <cityname only> from Pasuquin to Mawab; uniquely-named municipalities named after people who are unlikely to have their own enwiki articles or unlikely to have their future articles under such names, like Shariff Aguak and Hadji Muhtamad, may warrant this <cityname> only treatment; municipality names having same spelling or sound to another province cannot be passed like Bulakan, Bulacan; municipalities with saint names cannot also be passed like San Policarpo, Eastern Samar and San Marcelino, Zambales; and municipalities not truly unique remain in comma format. In this way, there will be no impasse in that MOSPHIL discussion, and such further questions will be addressed after the revision of municipality titles section. However, since your "talker" remark I hesitated introducing this proposal.

Like I said before, if I'm a worthless user, then fine. You "own" all Philippine-related articles, and you decide which are worth retaining and which are worth deleting.

After all, I'm very tired of editing. I'm now thinking of retirement. Or should I say, semi-retirement. Semi means I will still make edits (only for locally-stored files deserving to have their safe homes at Wikimedia Commons, through File Ex/Importer feature). I will also contribute more on Tagalog Wikipedia (usually translating articles from here), Wikimedia Commons, and Wikidata (for tlwiki articles and templates needing interwiki links). Sorry po P199, @Koressha: and @Hwilims:, I give up. For me this is a very hard decision, but if you say that this is better for your sense of having productive articles, RioHondo.

Additionally, I'm not angry at @HueMan1: despite they being pinged by RioHondo. They helped me in creating Balete Drive's street sign, which I wished for before for the enwiki article and its tlwiki counterpart.

Hard to say goodbye, but I hope this will bring tranquility. My decision depends on what will be RioHondo's reply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay JW, let me address all those accusations one by one as I admit not having read your rants in their entirety earlier. As these discussions occurred almost simultaneously during the height of the coronavirus lockdowns, there have been overlapping messages or exchange of tirades from one forum to another. It started with the discussion on barangay notability that you yourself started at Talk:MOSPHIL and you being dead set on getting these articles deleted. You even rejoiced and defended HueMan1's mass deletion of Cavite articles then and you even tag teamed in your defence against me. Over at the legislative districts discussion to split them into individual district articles, you also opposed my proposition saying these articles are unnecessary and a "waste of time" to monitor them. And then you inserted yourself in other discussions where i was in with varying degrees of criticisms or skepticism as youve displayed at MOSPHIL and TAMBAY. Again, there is an active discussion at Talk:MOSPHIL that you yourself started which has not ended in any remote form of agreement so why carry out those mass deletions here which in WP terms is called editing in bad faith? You said you took P199 and Emperork's words and their OPINIONS to start the mass deletions of articles. Question: do two or three people make a consensus? Have you asked the article's creator/s and those involved in the creation of these articles? You already have 1 dissenting opinion clearly posted in that same discussion of yours where very few people were in. Is that what you call consensus? And was that being responsible? Who says we need a list articles of barangays per city/province? Arent they already listed in those city or province articles anyway? In some cases, all you need is to insert their stats and that already makes your list articles useless. We're talking about individual articles already created here that would be the venue to discuss these populated incorporated places in depth. Who do you think is acting like an owner of these articles when he started his bad faith deletion and merger of all those articles in favor of his own created lists? The quality of the articles can be remedied by google search of reliable sources, why hasnt this been done WP:BEFORE such unilateral edits? And again, why was there not even a single AfD for these articles even when we are still in the process of determining their collective fate? So article ownership? Excuse me. I have not deleted an article here that passed the GNG. In fact i created some of these articles for one city, that because of the dictatorial tendencies of some people might suffer the same fate. In fact, im not even gonna continue with the congressional districts project because of your Dictatorial Highness's preference that these be merged too. Your drama here only speaks of your personal or emotional immaturity in owning up to your own mistakes. As for article renaming to plainname titles, again this is all bureaucratic and certainly not my priority as you can see that has been my proposal since at least 8 years ago. Did i mass rename those articles even when i knew there was no consensus at that time? As far as memory serves, i only did 3 or 4 RM's, let me repeat Move Requests with discussions, to gage the wider community's stance on this convention. Whereas here, you did not even care to put these articles under AfD even when you knew there is still no consensus. If people want to create an article on Camputhaw in Cebu City, why discourage them when topics like this are within the scope of Geoland? I want to know more about this place i stayed in Cebu in my last visit and i know a list article wont give me the info i need. Thats all from my end, more on this when discussion at MOSPHIL continues.--RioHondo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently there had been mentions of some insensitive remarks in editor interactions, especially in articles within the scope of WP:TAMBAYAN. I am sorry to hear that, @JWilz12345: (and pinging @Hiwilms: for their name was misspelled) but generally everyone should care to be a bit more sensitive at least to each one to avoid the possibility of shooing potential editors who might be of great help in ways unthinkable yet. I mean we can make mistakes in WP but that does not mean we can just end our statements with subtle refutations or personal attacks.

Let's be clear, ano; I am much of a talker, way before I started a few major revisions in articles such as the RT8D5M, the Line 2, 2000 class. You can view the history as proof, and my contributions as well. Look, I have not made a single article ever since my account was created; that does not mean I would not make an effort myself (with willingness) to learn the mores and standards here. Perhaps they perceived the matter in a quite different way than those do. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 05:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koressha: sorry din po, Koressha. I'm prone to depression and sadness, as evidenced in my userpage. This means some remarks that are meant to be jokes can have adverse impacts to users like me. :-( JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: okay, not really wanting to get involved in this hullabaloo but might as well I would like to tell you something. You stand on article credibility, the former looks onto notability. I suppose a few manners (the causes) had gone awry, and unfortunately the responses (the effect) would not be equally helpful; merely mitigating in a harsh manner. Now understanding further the context, I wish a better outcome would have been the result here in this fiasco. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 12:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

OMG. If this was an issue of credibility, then normal useful editors will by all means do all the googling they can to elevate those articles to the standards they want. But no, they don't even contribute to article creation anymore, they even have the gall to say what articles should stay or go. And the worst part is they even start a discussion and try to act like a consensus has been reached and then act unilaterally according to a consensus which exists only in their heads. See if i was bothered about the credibility of the PNR railway station articles, i would have long sent all of them to a columbarium to be cremated. They dont even have the civility to get these articles through the normal processes of an AfD if that's what they really wanted and despite a discussion already underway, and then the temerity by which they go on different discussions to say this is unnecessary, or these articles should go. Like okay, Mr. Quality over Quantity, we totally get how deletionists like you don't get things done here. What matters to you is the bureaucratic or administrative, like rate this article here, tag this article for prod, move articles around, and have the final say on matters like you created all the articles. Now where was I? I have not even created an article in days because these actions by all of these wannabe admins have been VERY ENCOURAGING. I think ill go on semiretirement myself because i didnt get what i want either. Lol.--RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Ooh someone who is at fault end up writing more. Look, i did warn people in that unfinished talk in WP:MOSPHIL regarding unilateral mass deletions of articles in contravention of WP:GEOLAND and while a consensus has not even been established in that same ongoing discussion started by the same people. This is very personal to me as this goes against the notability guidelines and census building for which I have been writing articles here for the last decade. You dont start a discussion and arbitrarily carry out a decision yourself when it is clear from that discussion that there is dissent or opposition to your personal agenda. I did the same to HueMan1 and warned him with his unilateral deletions of articles for Cavite. These OCD actions and WP:BADFAITH decisions (again as discussion in WP:MOSPHIL has not concluded) need to be called out. These people dont even carry out individual AFDs for these articles anymore or a WP:BEFORE to save our Philippine articles. They are even proud to call themselves deletionists! Those actions and the constant opposition to new articles such as individual congressional districts as separate from those earlier created legislative lists are below the belt, insensitive and does not inspire writers like me at all to continue creating more PH related articles. I could have even sent these talkers to WP:ANI for their actions in contravention of existing policies but i did not out of respect and allowed those articles to vanish for good even if i knew those could still be saved. At least with User:seav, even if he is unfortunately a semi-deletionist too, he at least nominated these articles individually in the past to AfD and i did manage to save a few of those articles with quick research of reliable sources. Again, you will be judged for your actions here and thats only cause you talkers have been acting on a whim in complete disregard of our established norms and protocols in WP. Your actions do not inspire to say the least. But i'd still call you out for your actions at WP:MOSPHIL in whichever forum you join to criticize, quack and quack more. And this is no joke just as deleting people's hard labor in WP IS NO JOKE. If a PH related article has been prodded, our natural tendency in WPH should be to do something to remove those tags, i would if i was aware. But people want to have it their way, so face the consequence or stay under the radar of people who are actually in WP to create and not destroy.--RioHondo (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's your response @RioHondo:, then I mightbas well declare semi-retirement. I'm tired of arguing your unreasonable assertion that every 40,000+ barangay needs their own article. I leave to other editors to determine the faith of Barangays of Navotas. If that will be deleted, then go! Mind you, I read this several times before, from the time I was not yet an editor to today - Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Excessive_rule-making. And to warn, much of barangay articles that I visited tend to be lower of quality. Remember, quality over quantity. But if you insist that ALL 40K + deserve their own articles, then fine. I don't deserve to contribute here anymore! I semiretire! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's not what I said at Talk:MOSPHIL. There are hundreds of thousands of Pinoy actors, hundreds of thousands of Pinoy musicians and hundreds of thousands of Pinoy politicians, past and present, more than all barangays combined. Do we have articles for each one of them? For Pinoy celebrities, they are probably getting there. But do they bother you? And what if numerous stubs are created for them with only one or two lines of description? Most of those stub articles stay because in the end they satisfied the GNG. What is our GNG for barangays? Geoland. Only control freaks and OCD editors have issues with quantity, as if the burden of regulating them is on them. Why regulate in the first place? Are we in some authoritarian website or "wasting paper" here? Instead of deleting this recently created article on Zardo Domenios and other similar Pinoy stubs just because they dont pass your "quality standards", would you help add to it? Cos im sure that stub of an article will bother you, just as the individual PNR station articles here will which are all poorly created stubs. You didnt refute my statement regarding your arbitrary decision making regardless of the occurrence of a discussion and notability so this all on you. Btw I am itching to merge this one and only article you created for Tomas Claudio Street back to List of roads in Metro Manila and say it didnt pass our "quality" standards. Lets see. Hmm.........never mind. I am not OC, LOL. I actually wouldnt mind if you create more road article stubs even if those are just cement and asphalt vis-a-vis the barangays they pass through which are inhabited by hundreds and thousands of people. Id like to treat both roads and barangays as equally notable places and i dont discriminate :). Lets leave it to the real admins to discriminate.--RioHondo (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)