Jump to content

Talk:Sangguniang Panlalawigan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provincial Board vs Sangguniang Panlalawigan

[edit]

I am not denying that "Provincial Board" can serve as a substitute for "Sangguniang Panlalawigan." However, I am concerned about whether the former is an appropriate substitute for the latter. I am of the opinion that it is not. While it is true that the term "Provincial Board" is still used by some provincial governments, the usage is anachronous and unofficial, as there are no references to such a legislative body in current laws, essentially because "Provincial Board" implies a different sort of provincial legislature, one which is limited in autonomy and scope of power.

The term "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" appears in Philippine English untranslated, much like Dáil Éireann is in Irish English. Judging by the relevant Google hits, "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is the name that is actually prevalently used in official government websites and the (Philippine) English-language media. The problem is that "Provincial Board" persists because it is used the same way when some news articles translate "barangay" into "village" - a recognizable English term is used to convey a concept regardless whether misrepresentation or incompatibility occurs (Brgy. 5 in Caloocan City is not really a "village," while Brgy. Libertad in Dolores, Eastern Samar is). Is the Provincial Board really equivalent to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan? Colloquial usage may say so in terms of form, but the terms as they were intended to be used refer to different bodies in substance.

While there is a point to use the abbreviation "SP" sparingly to distinguish between articles about legislatures of cities and provinces, the "article" column is clearly linked to articles bearing the actual designation "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of X" and will not be confused with any Sangguniang Panlungsod. We also need to think about the consistency of presentation: why are we presenting an article about a legislative body titled "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" when the potential articles about each province's own legislative council are not going to be titled similarly? - isagani (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanggunian" does NOT translate to "council." "Sanggunian" comes from the root word "sangguni" which means "to advise." The use of the English word "council" derives from the Sangguniang Panlungsod (another "SP") in which the nearest English equivalent would be "city council". Ergo, "Provincial Board" is neither anachronistic, but I'd agree that it is unofficial, as there is no English equivalent stated on the Local Government Code. Hence, we should use "Provincial Board" as an the most prevalent English name -- which also translates to using the "<province> Provincial Board" as article titles for all provincial board titles.
Although "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is used in English, another term, "Provincial Board" is also prevalently used. What the Irish call similar bodies doesn't matter. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here are Google News search results:
–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books search results:
–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Council is the literal translation of Sanggunian since sangguni means "to consult", NOT "to advise" - hence its usage in the English translation of four other bodies similarly named. Why change fact? "Board" carries the air of being undemocratic and non-participatory in nature, which it initially was, but the sweeping changes in laws culminated in the establishment of the "Sanggunian" which embodied local autonomy and wider participation.
Another reason why "Provincial Board" is no longer used in official documents is that it refers to a legislative body that was fuzzy in its mandate over chartered cities, which was the subject of Teves v COMELEC. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan created in 1983 solved the issue once and for all when the LGC explicitly excluded high-income cities from provincial government. It is an anachronism, therefore, to call the provincial legislatures of Apayao or Zamboanga Sibugay "Provincial Boards" when such a body did not operate within their jurisdictions.
Our naming conventions are quite clear: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." "Provincial board" is far and away the most prevalent name of the legislatures of provinces in English, granting that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is also English. "Provincial council" even has less "Google News search hits or Google Books search hits (ironically, "provincial council" per se is anarchistic too!).
BTW, the use of "SP" to pipe link n the article is difficult to comprehend, when you add it all of the "Sangguniang Pan-..." of all other LGUs. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you call a member of the province's legislature? If a municipal/city council members are "councilors", COMELEC says the province's members of the legislature are called "Provincial Board Members." In the ballot, they (both provincial and city/municipal legislature) were called "Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Bayan" members. (Note that I used Abra since it's the first province alphabetically.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Far and away" is misleading, since Google hits referring to the provincial legislature as "Provincial Board" will inevitably turn up more frequently for one important reason: it was used for a longer period, starting 1901. Its continued use in the contemporary period, I would argue, seems less, since the terms "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" and "Sanggunian" have been left untranslated in all English-language legislation, and as a result were also assimilated into Philippine English. "Provincial Board" or "Board" are only used as shorthand by the public, media and some government organs, with the official name of the legislature remaining "Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Even the sample ballot furnished uses "Sanggunian" instead of "Board." Why? Because the Local Government Code of 1991 does not provide for the establishment in each province of a "Provincial Board," but a "Sangguniang Panlalawigan."

"Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." What's more reliable than laws written in the English language? "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" remains a widely accepted term in Philippine English, the national variant of English that this article is concerned about. "Provincial Board" is a less accurate (historical) term so why use it?

The only mention of "Provincial Council" occurs once in the article, to provide an accurate literal translation of Sangguniang Panlalawigan. It is never implied that it is the actual term used to refer to the provincial legislature in English, since every instance within the article calls the current provincial legislatures as "Sangguniang Panlalawigan."

Regarding the SP pipe links, anyone reading the article would easily comprehend what is being referred to is the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Simple as that. They are reading an article bearing the name and are clicking on links bearing the name of provinces. And, not all local government legislatures are called "SP," in fact, only the city council is the other one abbreviated as "SP." Barangay and municipal councils are called "SB." Why "SP" would be difficult to understand is beyond me.

The salient issue being skirted in this discussion is not really addressed yet, and whether it was deleted deliberately from my original second response or not, it doesn't matter:

The other issue I had brought up before, which remained unaddressed, is consistency of use: while the term "provincial board" within the article is only used to refer to the historical incarnation of the provincial government organ, and all instances of reference to the current provincial legislatures use "Sangguniang Panlalawigan," "Sanggunian" or "SP," why are we then creating articles titled using a term that will not even be used within the future articles? -- isagani (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

-- isagani (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, WP:TLDR. The only issue here is WP:NC. If someone proves that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Foo" is the predominant English usage to refer to individual provincial legislatures, this discussion won't go anywhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How convenient that there is now a lack of cooperation in helping to reach somewhere by engaging in valid and healthy discussion. How unfortunate too, because I think there were good points there. :-( Essentially no one can prove which was has wider usage since all we've got to back us up are Google hits, which can be interpreted in whatever way. But what we have are English-language laws, official paraphernalia and the media in the Philippines that all use "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" untranslated. I think most will agree that naming this article "Provincial Board" is going to be misleading, inaccurate and inconsistent with standard use (since it is a term for a historical form of provincial organ, after all), and therefore contrary to WP:NC, and that's why the article title has remained "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" ever since its creation. Why we are suddenly now to name future articles as "Provincial Board of X" is something I'm still confused about. Apayao, Compostela Valley, Kalinga and Zamboanga Sibugay did not have the privilege of each having a "Provincial Board" because these provinces did not exist before the 1970s - giving them one now would be grossly inaccurate. -- isagani (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provincial board sounds like a misnomer to me even if it does have wide usage. A board brings to mind a more executive body relating to commissions and committees. It doesn't bring to mind the idea of an assembly. Probably an example of inexactitude or loss of nuance in Philippine English. Or maybe it reflects legislators wanting to exhibit executive powers or maybe something else. I would call to attention the lack of description in the article of what the sanggunian's actual duties and responsibilities actually are. It doesn't give specifics or examples so it's hard to judge if the sanggunian's role is really legislative or executive. Lambanog (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the spirit which the usage of "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is intended to bring to mind: deliberation, participation through adequate representation, and separation of powers. The Local Government Code of 1991 provides that the Sanggunian exercise legislative functions, by removing the governor (a provincial executive) from it and only limiting the involvement of the vice governor (another provincial executive) to breaking voting ties in 1992. The powers and duties of the SP are provided in the LGC's Section 468. I've added a new section in the article about it, thanks for the suggestion. -- isagani (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being reminded over the dispute we had with the naming of the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Similar to the construction "Cemetery of the Heroes" that was shot down in that discussion, we're not in a position to neologize. If the term is used as it is in English-language jurisprudence and discourse, then that term can most certainly be used, no questions asked. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't need a Google News/Books search know that "Cemetery of Heroes" is almost never used to refer to the "Libangan ng mga Bayani." Same with Pamantasang Lungsod ng Maynila which is woefully found at University of the City of Manila; but this is unlike "Provincial Board." The name "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is a Filipino phrase, which is derived from Tagalog -- Cebuanos would rather call their provincial legislature as the "Cebu Provincial Board."
I'd concede that the LGC and all laws refer to a province's legislature as "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" and I'd even oppose a move to a different name for this article. However, when we refer to each province's legislature, "Foo Provincial Board" is far and away the most prevalent usage, even if you consider "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" as an English name. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "far and away most prevalent" is always going to be disputable. Such a claim is made less meaningful when almost all available official provincial government websites, presented in the English language, call their legislative bodies "Sangguniang Panlalawigan."

Sangguniang Panlalawigan, with limited to no use of "Provincial Board"

Provincial Board, with some usage of "Sangguniang Panlalawigan"

The following provinces currently don't have up-to-date, working websites, but through a simple Google search, one can see that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is also used by the media and the legislative bodies (and their members) themselves, and in most cases, actually more frequently used (preferred) than "Provincial Board": Abra, Apayao, Basilan, Benguet, Biliran, Camarines Norte, Catanduanes, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Ifugao, Isabela, Kalinga, Lanao del Sur, Masbate, Misamis Occidental, Mountain Province, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Occidental Mindoro, Palawan (website up, but not enough data), Quirino, Tawi-Tawi, Zambales, Zamboanga Sibugay

Whichever way you look at it, Sangguniang Panlalawigan (1) is a valid term used in Philippine English (2) has widespread usage and official status (3) is a more accurate term to call all provincial legislatures, given the history of the development of local autonomy and the existence of new provinces that did not EVER have legislative bodies called provincial boards. Acceptability, recognizability, precision (and while we're at it, consistency) — aren't these in the spirit of WP:NC? -- isagani (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Far and away prevalence is not equal to "official name." For example, California's legislature is officially called the California Legislature, but it is not located there -- it is located on the far and away prevalently used name: "California State Legislature." My favorite example for this is Amanda Leigh Moore is located at Mandy Moore.COMELEC uses both "Provincial Board" and "SP" on their website both on new and old provinces, while most references in Google News and Books use the term "Provincial Board." The only stats that should be considered are the Google Books and News search hits, since that is the nearest-possible way we can determine if the name is viable for WP:NC.
Frankly, the dispute on the accuracy of the term "Provincial Board" is hogwash. It was been way too blown out of proportion and the autonomy for provinces hasn't that changed considering they still get money from the national government.
I'm also going to create an article about the Manila City Council. I think it's indisputable "Foo City Council" is far and away the most prevalent name, and not "SP of Manila." If we'd go through with the "SP of Foo" name for provincial legislatures, we'd have a series of articles that goes like this:
P.S. Please stop changing the links until the discussion is over. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the use of "far and away prevalence" denies what has been presented here. Yes, "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is official, but is it more commonly used in Philippine English? Yes. Is it supported by reliable sources? Yes. Is it the more accurate term? Yes. Citing Google hits again and again without proper interpretation of why the results are the way they are distorts reality. As pointed out before, "Provincial Board" will appear more frequently because it has existed for a longer period. "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" holds equal validity as it also appears in English-language Google news and books hits.
I have no problem with "City Council" or "Municipal Council," since these are literal equivalents of the official names "Sangguniang Panlungsod" and "Sangguniang Bayan," and therefore embody the ideals of greater local participation that the name change in the 1970s intended to bring. "Provincial Board", however, does not do the same justice to "Sangguniang Panlalawigan," and as such is not a fitting direct substitute. -- isagani (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it more commonly used in Philippine English?
Eh. No. Just as what we've seen in Google News searches (even excluding archives), "Provincial Board" is still used.
Is it supported by reliable sources?
Yes. But so as "Provincial Board." With a wider margin.
Is it the more accurate term?
Yes. But I still have to be convinced that "Provincial Board" is inaccurate to the point that it misleads the leader on what it is. "Provincial Board"
Is it the more prevalent term?
Far and away yes. This is not Google "misinterpretation:" "Provincial Board" is still far and away the most used term in present-day references and the like, even considering the fact that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is an "English" term. I doubt even the man on the street heard of the term "Sangguniang Panlalawigan," but "Board Member" is in pretty common usage.
What do you call members of the province's legislature?
This is not a Google News/Books search, but just plain old Google search. This way, we can find out how the provincial legislators are called:
  1. "Sangguniang Panlalawigan member:" 9.040 results
  2. "Board member" (+Philippines): 2,860,000
More to the point: In Bulacan provincial government's official website, provincial legislators are called "board members." On the link above the province government's official website used "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" as the title, but used the term "Board Member" to refer to the members of the "board"? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Google search results from the contemporary period exclude other provincial organs such as the provincial board of election/canvassers, of education/schools, of businesses/corporations? Do they account permutations of Sangguniang Panlalawigan such as "Sanggunian," "SP" or spelling mistakes? Indiscriminate use of Google search results does not do us service. Again, I can counter with my own search results which put "SP" (110,000) ahead of "PB" (52,600). This is going nowhere unless we can actually flesh out why we believe our respective positions should be the case.

"Board Member" is also used, there's no denying that, but the elective office is not under discussion, it's the legislative body, which carries a name that no longer equates to "Provincial Board." The common Filipino obviously knows "Sangguniang Panlalawigan," how could they not? They cast their votes on ballots carrying this name, and none of these ballots translate the name into "Provincial Board." I'm summarizing why I support the use of "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" instead of "Provincial Board":

  • It is the official name, which has widespread use Philippine English by the public and the provincial governments themselves. It meets WP:NC for it is recognizable, natural (in that it will be the title expected by readers looking up information on provincial legislatures), precise and concise.
  • I believe that using a less accurate title (since it has been established that "Sanggunian" = "Council" and not "Board"), despite its continued use, does disservice to Wikipedia. In addition, several provincial organs are also called "Boards" (Provincial Board of Canvassers, Provincial School Board, Provincial Health Board). In an effort to conform to WP:NC, "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common."
  • The use of "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" conforms to the last criterion of WP:NC on consistency. If we accept that "Abra Provincial Board" is an acceptable title in lieu of "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra" then we should be consistent and give the same treatment to the actual "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" article by renaming it. But this I doubt sits well with most editors. -- isagani (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TLDR again, but what is the enabling law that established the prior iteration of the provincial legislatures before the enactment of the 1991 LGC? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. WP:TLDR sure makes a lot of convenient appearances. I've restored the unduly deleted revision I did to the History section. It's all in there. -- isagani (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So my question on the enabling law? I'm assuming prior to the enactment of the 1991 LGC they used an old law -- even the ones enacted during the Commonwealth period -- to help govern local governments. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC) So basically, the basis of local government prior to the 1991 LGC was R.A. 2264; Marcos merely changed the name, and increased the number of members of the old provincial board to "sangguniang panlalawigan." B.P. 51 amended the number of members province, but was silent if it changed the powers. The 1991 LGC had a detailed list of the powers of each type legislature at every local government level. I'd come back on this tomorrow if they there were/was/not indeed changes in their powers. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I did now read all of what you've said, and it helped you used bullet points. So I figured I'd use them too:
  • As what I had said earlier, the official name is not necessarily the most prevalent name. If anything, usage by most provincial governments is fuzzy at best: they call them "sangguniang panlalawigan" but they call the members as "board members." In non-official use, "Provincial board" is far and away prevalently used as compared to "sangguniang panlalawigan."
  • The English translation of "sangguniang panlalawigan" doesn't matter, because it is "English" already. Hence, we are faced between two English terms, we just have to determine which is more prevalently used.
  • In English, "Provincial Board" and "board member" conforms to the first four criteria in WP:NC:
    1. Recognizability -- "Provincial Board" is recognizable not only by Filipinos but also by non-Filipinos
    2. Naturalness -- In English, people expect to see an English term, considering "SP" is also "English," "PB" is another "English" term, and it is also more predominantly used than the former.
    3. Precision -- "Foo Provincial Board" is WP:PRECISE unless another "Foo Provincial Board" in another place. In that case, we'd use WP:DAB procedures.
    4. Conciseness -- Minor point, "Foo Provincial Board" has less characters than "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Foo."
  • As for "Consistency," We can be inconsistent. I recognize the term "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is the far and away most prevalent use to describe provincial legislatures in general in the Philippines, but when it comes to individual legislatures, "provincial board" takes the cake.
  • –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping continue the discussion with civility. Regarding laws: the provincial board was created in 1901 (Act 83), with cumulative changes codified in 1916 (Act 2657), itself revised by Act 2711 in 1917. Act 2711 ("The Revised Administrative Code") continued to be amended and used into the Commonwealth and Third Republic. It presumably was the code in force in 1975 when PB was renamed SB/SP and expanded. The LGC of 1983 finally codified cumulative changes to laws regarding provincial government, including the powers and duties of the SP. The LGC of 1991, currently in force, is basically a revision of the 1983 code.
I acknowledge the points made, and respect the position, but will have to disagree, among other things, on one important issue: if we decide that "Provincial Board" is indeed THE most suitable article title for the specific individual articles (a position I still am not amenable to taking), then we on principle have also decided that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is less suitable to title anything, including this main article. Consistency is one of the five main points in WP:NC for a reason: inconsistency is in poor form and can mislead readers. Therefore it is imperative that we title everything either "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" or "Provincial Board." That being said, I still am of the opinion that "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is the more suitable choice for the reasons I have provided before. Notwithstanding its official status in legislation or widespread use in Philippine English, the term is consistent with all other local government legislatures that have in their title "Sanggunian", or in English, "Council." -- isagani (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy to wade through all of the amendments (if any) between R.A. 2711 and the 1991 LGC. Are there differences in the stated powers of the two groups of bodies?
We can have separate names for each of the provincial legislatures and the general term for the legislature per se. U.S. state legislature articles are all named differently, although that's under a federal setup, while the Philippines is a unitary state; ordinarily local government units in unitary states are the same in all levels (the Philippines is somewhat more complicated with the independent cities).
It's not an all or nothing approach, in the lead of each of the provincial board articles it can start as "The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Foo, more popularly known as the Foo Provincial Board is the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial legislature) of Foo." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree with the proposed titling system. Titling each individual article with a term that is not even good enough to name this main article is what I am (still) opposed to. Even though "Provincial Board" has its practical merits, its use for the proposed articles does not satisfy the consistency criterion of WP:NC. And it never will, unless we decide that "Provincial Board" is THE suitable term to call provincial legislatures and change this main article's title - something which I don't think is appropriate. isagani (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Provincial Board" is not the suitable term to call the provincial legislatures generally -- that belongs to the current name "Sangguniang Panlalawigan." However, in referring to individual provincial legislatures, the suitable term is "Foo Provincial Board." We're consistent anyway: in general terms we use "SP," in individual terms we call it "PB." The five criteria is not an all-or-nothing approach. Currently, "PB" satisfies 4 out of 5 criteria. That is certainly more than enough. I've seen titles that were decided on less that 3 of the criteria. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "PB" wasn't good enough to serve as title for this article, then we shouldn't settle for article titles bearing the name. It is in very poor form to present individual articles with PB in the title when readers will be expecting them to be titled "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of <province>," given that (1) the main article is titled as such, and (2) "provincial board" is explained in the main article as a designation officially used in the past. As pointed out before, what happened in other cases doesn't matter. Focusing on what we have here, it's clear that SP satisfies all five of the criteria; we should not be settling for anything less. isagani (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue "SP" fails on Recognizability, Naturalness and Conciseness. Precision doesn't really come into play unless you're disambiguating it. As I've said, the general and specific names can be different. "Provincial board" was the name of a previous body of legislatures but is still unofficially, and predominantly still used today, as seen in our contemporary (21st century) references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting 2 1/2 year-old discussion. I will not re-open this debate, but I do want to note that both "Provincial Board" and "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" are Filipino terms and not universally recognized by all English speakers. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers may have an idea what a "Provincial Board" is at first glance (must be some kind of decision-making body) vs. "SP." –HTD 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is a related discussion over at Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod#Requested move. There no consensus was reached and so the use of Sangguniang Panlungsod and similar titles were kept. I think that we should have a consistent policy across all four bodies. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

[edit]

A move request is currently ongoing at Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod. –HTD 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD needed

[edit]
  • (cur | prev) 15:53, 13 May 2013‎ Green Giant (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (42,140 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Green Giant moved page Talk:Sangguniang Panlalawigan to Talk:Provincial councils in the Philippines: Names should be in English where possible) (undo | thank)
With all the Talk on this page this was not an uncontroversial move. Should be reverted by a WP:RM technical request. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi:, are you willing to support a similar measure now? –HTD 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
either way a RM discussion would be helpful In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to old name

[edit]

I propose reverting to the original name of Sangguniang Panlalawigan until a consensus can be reached about this article. Taken together, the following points convince me that we should revert (by moving, not by using "undo") to the status quo ante, if you will, before May 13 2013: (1) there should be consistency across the articles on non-national Philippine legislatures, (2) there was no consensus reached at Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod#Requested move, (3) there is no consensus on this Talk page above about this article's name, (4) Sangguniang Panlalawigan was the original name, and (5) that name lasted until May 2013. If there is no objection or if a consensus is reached, I will attempt to move and if I am not allowed, then I will request an administrator to move it. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should open a separate WP:RM for this one... –HTD 10:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 14:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial boards in the Philippines → Sangguniang Panlalawigan – As stated in the RM at Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod#Notice, this was originally at "Sangguniang Panlalawigan", then moved to "Provincial councils in the Philippines", then finally to its current title at "Provincial boards in the Philippines". The RM in that page affected three pages and was closed as a no consensus and weren't moved. Currently, this is the only Philippine local legislature that's not in "Sangguniang <foo>" nomenclature, and in the interests of being in line in other articles, and having no consensus for a move to any new title, should be reverted back. –HTD 02:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverted more to Provincial Council

[edit]

I reverted User:MidasHotel20's move of this page. MidasHotel20's move was in keeping with WP:Bold and WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss. I applaud MidasHotel20 for his interest and bold act. I have now reverted -- step two -- because it is a controversial move, that has been much discussed above. We need to reach a new consensus before we move the page yet again. This is one of the few places in Wikipedia where being bold will lead to revert and then discussion. Now, is it time for stage three, for discussion? Is it time to reopen the discussion? When is it appropriate to reopen such a discussion? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sangguniang panlalawigan

[edit]

Anong answer ito 49.145.233.168 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sangguniang_Panlalawigan&oldid=1205185498"