Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cities

Forced disambiguation should not be used, even for non-independent cities. Also, when disambiguation is necessary, it might be preferable to use the parenthetical method rather than the comma method, e.g. [[San Fernando City (La Union)]] because the name of the city does not include the name of the province. --Polaron | Talk 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know, because non-independent cities are part of the mother province, and independent cities do not need the <Cityname City, Province> or Cityname City (Province)> because they're not a part of any province. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a bit convinced from another discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)) that disambiguation should use parentheses, in almost all of the cases. I believe we should name the article after the name (media popular, not official [if it's too long] nor colloquial) of the article's subject. So the city of San Fernando's article should be named "San Fernando City" because that's what most newspapers do when they refer to the city. But since there are two San Fernando cities in the Philippines (and probably a several others in the world), then they should be disambiguated by a parenthetical term. Now, I don't quite like "(La Union)" or "(Pampanga)" as the disambiguating text because disambiguation should answer "what?" not "where?" or "when?", So the proper disambiguating term is "(La Union city)" or "(Pampangan city)". But it looks ugly next to "San Fernando City" so I'm still ambivalent. But, I guess, "San Fernando City, La Union" is still an acceptable convention for the meantime. --seav 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an ugly prospect. The current Town, Province/City, State convention is much better. --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the name already includes "City", the "what" is already answered and the "where" is the ambiguity. Adding the province in parentheses would be my preference. But, if the entire phrase, "San Fernando, Pampanga" for example, is in common usage, then the comma form of disambiguation is acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which brings me to what form is the most accepted. At the start of WWE broadcasts, it is stated at the top left corner "LIVE from Chicago, Illinois". At the PBA Draft, they followed the Place, Province convention except for "Manila". --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a location and a name. The title of the city article should be simply the name (disambiguated only if needed) with the location stated in the introductory paragraph. Using the comma form as a disambiguation gives the false impression that the province name is part of what the city calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But we have to follow what is the most popular name, but not what is correct. Finding out which is the more popular convention (<Municipality name, province name> vs. <Municipality name (province name)>. IMHO, we should have a standard for all municipalities and component cities, and all independent cities, except in special circumstances. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Just because there's a "City" suffix doesn't mean that it's a city. What about Bonifacio Global City, Filinvest Corporate City, Star City, and Eastwood City? And let's suppose there's another Star City franchise in Cebu. Which then is more correct for disambiguation, "Star City (Pasay)" or "Star City (Pasay amusement park)"? --seav 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's we need to formulate policy on this. I'd say those w.c are component cities use the <Cityname> City, {provincename> or <Cityname City> (<Provincename>), while the independent cities use <Cityname> City or for dab purposes use <Cityname> City, <Regionname>.

I'd say we the Star Cities are in one page called Star City (amusement park). --Howard the Duck 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation term will depend on what the other objects the thing in question is being differentiated from. The answer to the Star City question would depend on what other objects called Star City are there? --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets make this a policy already!

Are you in favor of making this project page into a policy? --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I support all proposals made as of [1]. Vote subject to change pending any future changes. --Chris S. 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support all proposals as of [2] --Edward Sandstig 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support - Let's have a formal community approved policy already. Let the specific concerns be subject to a debate and revision process, but let's have an actual policy so we have a solid starting point. - Alternativity (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Diacritics

Sorry, I don't have a vote. I reverted Andres Bonifacio to the version without diacritics because I assumed this was correct. Since he was born during Spanish times, I guess it should have(?).--Jondel 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the MOS should that, no diacritics unless it is widely used, or is preferred by the person himself, or for the letter "ñ". --Howard the Duck 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But how about the policy that names during Spanish times be written with diacritics. (This is about policy as a whole not only about Andres B.) Also perhaps the name of Jose Rizal should have diacritics whether there is a policy to remove it or not.--Jondel 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know that José in José Rizal is widely used, although not as much Jose Rizal BUT, several Rizalistas I've met endorse the "é" in "José". Also, in Mapùa Institute of Technology, the official website endorses the "ù" in "Mapùa". --Howard the Duck 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found this page while taking my time to study the guidelines. Anyway, here's my take on diacritics in Filipino names:

I've lived in the Philippines for my whole life, and I know for a fact that diacritics are rarely (if ever) used in writing. However, I am still in favor for placing diacritics for practical reasons, even if not many Filipinos do this.

First, not many foreigners --- I mean, non-Filipinos --- are familiar with Filipino pronunciation and accentuation. In the Tagalog language, for instance, it's possible for two words to have the same spelling but with entirely different accents (and, of course, they really mean two different things). Since the English Wikipedia is an international website, the diacritics may help identify the correct meaning intended, especially if the user is someone who is learning Philippine culture and the Filipino languages.

Because Filipinos know the language very well, accents are deemed superfluous in written communication. However, a beginner in, say, Tagalog, may come across with a word that has different accents (and meanings, too). Without the diacritics, this person may have difficulties determining which meaning was intended for the word. A person such as this is still new to the language, and still hasn't reached the mastery of the language which native Filipinos have; placing the diacritics will clarify any ambiguities and also help this person reach fluency to the point when this person will also learn how to live without the diacritics.

Second (corollary to the first point), the diacritics will help establish the correct accent pattern for each word. Since most words in Filipino may have more than three syllables, the diacritics help establish the correct rhythmic flow and speech patterns.

Using the Andres Bonifacio example, people who are not familiar with Filipino (actually, the name is Spanish) pronunciation may pronounce Andres as Ándres (same accent as in Andrew)instead of Andrés. The diacritics make this clear.

For the same reason, Mapúa (ma-póo-wah) University (a well-known university in the Philippines, by the way) is best spelled with the diacritic on the letter u. When I was younger, I often mispronounce it as Mápua (map-wah). The diacritic helped me learn the correct pronunciation.

Another example: the phrase "national anthem", when translated into Filipino, reads Pambansang Awit. To avoid any mispronunciations, it's advisable to spell the words with the diacritic (i.e., Pambansáng Awit...note that I spelled Áwit there without the diacritics, since in Filipino it's normal to accent the first syllable in a two-syllable word). Otherwise, a well-meaning foreigner who uses regular Spanish accentuation may accidentally mispronounce it as Pambánsang Awit or even Pámbánsang Awit.

I also have a personal example. My surname has three syllables, and most three-syllable words or names in the Philippines are accented on the second syllable (for example, bayáni [="hero"]). However, my surname's correct pronunciation places the accent on the last syllable (as in, kakanín [="rice delicacy"]). Most people mispronounce my surname, which is why my mother advised us (me and my siblings) to place the correct diacritic whenever we write our names on official forms.

The case for keeping (or discarding) the diacritic in a Spanish word or name that is normally spelled with the diacritic (for example, José and Corazón) is another matter, but for me it is also a valid point, in keeping with the Spanish legacy in the Philippines.

Hence, I am voting in favor of diacritics --- Tito Pao 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Afterthoughts:

Since opinion is varied on whether diacritics should be enforced in Philippine names(or not), it may be helpful to take a look at the issue in another light under two opposing perspectives:

1. In the classroom, diacritics are taught. It's in the elementary (usually, Grade V or Grade VI), high school and college curricula. Hence, it's also a question of whether we can apply what we have learned in school (which may sometimes not be the case). Most academic English-Filipino/Filipino-English dictionaries (not the cheap, pocketbook editions) print the words with diacritics. (As far as I can remember, diacritics are still in use in UP Diliman's newsletter (The Collegian).)

2. In actual usage, Filipinos rarely (if not "never") use diacritics in everyday language. No documentation is necessary for this, because it's all over the country (i.e. in the newspaper, on TV)

However, given the first statement, just because Filipinos rarely use it does not necessarily mean that Filipinos should not use it. You can think of diacritics as an option available to the Filipino language to those who want to make use of it. If someone elects to use diacritics, why should we discourage this person from doing so? Put the other way around, if I were a school teacher, why should I force other people to use something that they are free not to make use of? For me, taking one of these points of view does not respect the freedom of choice that we have in acceptable language usage. As far as I can remember, both the use and non-use of diacritics are still part of acceptable Tagalog usage.

In this light, I'm offering a proposal for a way around this concern:

1. First, redirects for words spelled with or without diacritics may be created. Preferably, the main article should have the diacritic, while the ones without would redirect to the main article. Hence, as an example, José Rizál should be the main article, and Jose Rizal the redirecting article.

2. Second, the name may be spelled in diacritics the first time it is mentioned in the article (in particular, in the title and in the first instance on the article proper).

3. Third (and for me the most important point), for subsequent mentions for the rest of the article, no one should discriminate against other contributors who use the diacritics (or who don't). Since both usages are acceptable, this should be left as a matter of taste.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. Do let me know how we can work this out. --- Tito Pao 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Yes in the classroom, diacritics are taught. But they are not taught to put those diacritical marks on the words themselves. It is used for pronounciation guide, to differentiata "lobo" (balloon) from "lobo" (wolf, see, I've forgetten already what marks to use, lol)
2. Wikipedia isn't about what is the most correct, but what is the most popular. Hence in the Philippine-related article, we use the American, not the British style of English, color not colour, apartment not flat, etc.
3. And to top it off, a vast majority of Filipinos from the Spanish period up to today haven't spoke fluent Spanish. All they know are the uno, dos, tres, the simple words, but they can;t construct complete sentences. That's why on Rizal's Noli Me Tangere, he asked for the creation of an Academy of the Spanish language, right?

So for me, the way to go around in this issue:

1. Use diacritical marks if the person himself used/uses/endorses it. (ex: The Mapua Tech website uses "Mapúa", so we should use that.)
2. An expert on a particular person says it is correct to use diacritical marks on that person (ex: Rizalistas said using diacritics is correct).

--Howard the Duck 08:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities, part 2

After much thought, the name "City" should be part of article name unless the city has the same name as a province (ex.: Cebu City and Cebu). In all other cases, we'd use <City>, <Province>, or if it's not a part of a province, plainly <City>. --Howard the Duck 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to adding this page to the "Wikipedia style guidelines" category?

There's been very little traffic on this page, but it has had the infobox at the top for a long time, and I don't see anything unreasonable (although I'm not from the Phillipines). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the naming convention for Philippine LGUs

There is an ongoing discussion about the naming convention for Philippine LGUs over at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general). --seav (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)