Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles

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

"the name of the province generally takes precedence"

[edit]

Why? This runs counter to normal disambiguation practice (where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence) and similar examples in other countries (Osaka, Limerick and so on). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME is in this case just a way of determining the PRIMARYTOPIC. If the COMMONNAMEs of two topics are already disambiguated, then there is no need for disambiguation, and the previous clause (in the case of a province sharing the same name with a municipality) makes it clear that we aren't talking about cases where the COMMONNAMEs are already disambiguated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing subsection under "Historical Figures" for figures who lived during Spanish Colonial Period

[edit]

Proposing a change in the "historical figures" section, which currently says "names of historical figures (roughly those who were alive during Spanish rule) should generally follow Spanish conventions". I recommend creating a subsection "Spanish Colonial period" and rephrasing that "names of historical figures who lived during Spanish Colonial Period". Or maybe we could just rephrase it. The proposal of a new subsection makes room for a later subsection for historical figures who lived during the Philippine protohistoric period. -Alternativity (talk)

Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities

[edit]

We need to change this: "A municipality should be suffixed by the name of the province in which it's located." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*My POV: Using comma convention and province name (or should I say, recognized administrative division name) has been the norm for articles of incorporated settlements in USA, Japan, and Australia. Nevertheless, in most other countries, articles of incorporated settlements with unique toponyms drop their comma convention, be it famous, noteworthy, or not. Using the current discussion (as of 03/21/2020) at Talk:Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands, here are some examples: Canada's Thorold and Pitt Meadows (whose population is on par with most of our municipalities), Algeria's commune Tindouf, France's commune Casteljaloux, Italy's commune Isernia, Greece's municipality Ioannina, Poland's town Pisz, South Korea's town Pyeonghae, Thailand's thesaban's (municipalities) Phetchaburi and Loei, Zambia's city Solwezi, Ireland's Drogheda, Germany's Lörrach, Spain's Écija, et cetera. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Japan and Australia, there have actually been discussions/RFC to drop the comma convention (remove the prefecture name for Japanese cities, towns, and villages, and the state name from Australian settlements when the prefecture and state are unnecessary for disambiguation). See the Japan RFC. As a result, there have been move requests (e.g., [1]) and WP:BOLD moves (e.g., [2]) to drop the prefecture name if unnecessary. For Australian places, the current guideline (WP:NCAUST) states: "the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name" although this is not mass-enforced but generally applies to new articles only. In short, basically it is only U.S. place names that have a really (fanatically) strong preference for the comma convention. I suggest we adopt what almost all other countries have adopted: no comma convention. —seav (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Just to add, while doing my hobby in reading maps I took note of Kelafo in Ethiopia. One on the World Almanac's 2001 edition map courtesy of MapQuest and the other on a Xerox-copy of a Hammond Map, labelled "Callafo." On Wikipedia the article title for this town is just Kelafo, not "Kelafo, Ethiopia," and not even "Kelafo, Somali Region." Neither do "Kelafo, Gode Zone, Somali Region" nor "Kelafo, Gode Zone."JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only one WP:RM did not succeed (Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar#Requested move) and it was closed as no consensus (which is a subtle but different outcome from a consensus not to move).
Furthermore there have been a lot of uncontested WP:BOLD page moves since 2014 by various editors that have dropped the province name. Here is a non-exhaustive list of example moves:
Since the previous discussion ended up in a deadlock, I would like to present these move requests and bold page moves supported and done by numerous editors as evidence that dropping the comma convention is the preferred position by the community. —seav (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added note: Another ongoing move request is also taking place, this time for Capas, Tarlac → Capas: Talk:Capas, Tarlac#Requested move 21 March 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move for all unique municipalities following our WP:MOSPHIL for cities. We don't include the word City in their titles despite its prevalence in contemporary media precisely because their plain names are still the most common. Combine historical references when those cities were still municipalities, towns or pueblos with recent ones, they all agree on their plain names. So using the same logic, why add the province name when these municipalities are commonly referred to by their plain names? Some places need disambiguation, sure. But majority of our place names are unique and is actually a reflection of our culture. Hispanic Asian Malay Polynesian. No other country has this combination. :) And like Cagdianao which was only recently included in a new province, Dinagat Islands created in 2006, there's obviously more references to it if you include those sources dating back to when it was still part of Surigao del Norte and possibly even from when it was still the unified Surigao province as a sitio or barrio. And how often do we create new provinces or even rename existing ones? Compostela Valley was renamed only last year. Davao Occidental was created only recently too like 2016. And then there's the plebiscite for Palawan that will again disturb the peace for these municipalities. So for the nth time, using the plain and simple names not only adheres to the WP:AT guidelines, it is also the COMMONNAME, PRIMARYTOPIC and provides the most stability for our municipality articles! Thanks for notifying me to this unfinished business though. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*@Seav: @RioHondo: before I retire tonight hehe :-) I would like to add a commune in France that is least populated - with only 1 people (?, or person) - Rochefourchat. Yet it doesn't follow comma convention, despite the fact that France's recognized administrative divisions are département's. Using logic and reasoning, should we strictly follow comma principle as the WP:CONSISTENCY states, then Rochefourchat should not be Rochefourchat but "Rochefourchat, Drôme" or "Rochefourchat, France," and a fellow commune in the same département, Donzère must have been "Donzère, Drôme" or "Donzère, France." Comparing France and the United States, France has >35K such incorporated settlements, more than USA's approx. 30 K such types. (Ref's - Communes in France and Political divisions of the United States) Yet French communes enshrine <CITYNAME> only for its uniquely-named communes. One more example: Bezonvaux. The depopulated but still official commune or town, it must have been entitled "Bezonvaux, Meuse," which is not in the current case and status.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  • And I presume it is reasonable to compare our municipality characteristics with that of French communes, since unlike the United States which have ungoverned areas or communities without local governments - the Census-Designated Places or CDP's, France has its entirety of territory having officially-established communes (well of course except Bezonvaux and 5 other towns in NE that are depopulated but allowed to have their municipal status retained for historical purposes). Same in our case, every part of the Philippine territory has officially-formed incorporated settlements - be it cities (CC's or HUC's) and municipalities. There are no gaps - "unincorporated areas" - in our country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Last addition: Per Southern Leyte article there's a proposal to rename it "Leyte del Sur." And there were former proposals to create new provinces out of Quezon, Camarines Sur, Pangasinan, et cetera. Some approved but had failed plebiscites, others were turned down. But this doesn't mean they won't be made again in the near or distant future. A long term, better eternal, format should be decided once and for all. And to lighten up, I won't be retiring Wikipedia hehe. Retire in my sense above means "sleep" hehe :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seav: But I have one reservation: i'm against the <CITYNAME> format for San Marcelino and Santa Praxedes. Both bearing the names of saints. It is OK for <CITYNAME> format for both San Jose del Monte and San Jose de Buenavista,but for municipalities or cities with names bearing the exact Filipino/Spanish names of saints, I oppose <CITYNAME> only. Instead, use <CITYNAME, PROVINCENAME> for this case.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the logic for these exceptions. We don't add the state name for the prominent U.S. cities of San Francisco and San Diego. And several municipalities/towns/villages in Spain named after saints do not have any province/region name as well: Santo Adriano, San Sadurniño, San Asensio, San Torcuato, etc. —seav (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, except for Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte, all cities and municipalities named after saints in PH are not English names and therefore they are not "names of saints" to the average Anglophone. Santa Praxedes or San Marcelino actually sound like names of places in Mexico or American southwest like those cities in California. You gotta think like a Brit. ;) If those are unique to the PH, their plain names should suffice. Going back to the naming convention, i say what applies to cities should also apply to municipalities, in that the municipality should also neither be affixed with the word "Municipality" nor the name of the province in which it is located, with the same provision for when to use province name. We need to start treating them both as the second-level local government units that they are, except of course the few independent cities that are on the same level as provinces.--RioHondo (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The guideline should reflect the actual convention, which is to disambiguate only when necessary (necessary only when the name is ambiguous and the topic of the article is not primary), as demonstrated by many examples above. —В²C ☎ 18:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of the supporters of the comma and province name convention back in 2013 and 2014. I have indeed noticed over the last few years the many RM and bold moves to plain placename. I never bothered to challenge this flood of page moves, as this would have been tiresome and a waste of my time. Now it has become the de facto norm. So, it seems more logical to be consistent at this time, and just update MOS:PHIL accordingly. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seeing the numerous moves approved as mentioned above, I'm good with this proposed update on MOS:PHIL — Emperork (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we only add brackets/commas when needed per User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation, we do not disambiguate for consistency, WP:ATDAB gives Chicken v Turkey (bird) for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oppose the perverse drive for brevity over consistency and recognizability to a broad audience. Many good things are unnecessary. Title minimalism is not a good thing. If the proposal were to slightly soften the “should”, that might be OK, but in general, obscure small place names, often reused names from other contexts, should use the comma convention. If the local places have truly unique names, not named after distant people or places, and this is generally the case, then that may be a good reason to drop the comma convention. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::@SmokeyJoe: this is the reason why in my original point of view I approve <CITYNAME> format for ALL uniquely-named municipalities EXCEPT the likes of San Marcelino, Zambales and Santa Praxedes, Cagayan (and possibly Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan and Sultan Dumalondong, Lanao del Sur) before @Seav: gave us examples of Spanish communes, which I believe are highly obscure and should be under comma format towns under <CITYNAME> only - Santo Adriano, San Sadurniño, San Asensio, San Torcuato and others. In fact, if I have high boldness and courage I would request page moves for these Spanish towns to <CITYNAME, ADMIN NAME> or <CITYNAME, SPAIN> format since they are not really unique, exempli gratia: San Asensio, La Rioja or San Asensio, Spain. Nevertheless I don't know if Spain has their own MOS or do Europe or EU, and if I did try to argue there I might be reported which will result from me being blocked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This was my stand before: I had full support for <CITYNAME> only for municipalities like Pulilan, Capas, Castillejos, Tigbauan, Itbayat (since Itnayat island is coterminous with the municipality; for the tiny islands like Mavulis Island and Siayan Island, they can be noted under the article Itbayat itself with links to them if they have articles), Brooke's Point, Inabanga, Calinog, Polomolok, Talipao, Languyan, Laguindingan, Marihatag, Claver, Masinloc, Dilasag, Currimao, Galimuyod, Cabarroguis, Balangiga, and Guiuan. Also in my original stand, I had weak support for the likes of General Mariano Alvarez and Sultan Dumalondong, and full opposition for the likes of San Marcelino, Zambales and Santa Praxedes, Cagayan. Maybe I might reinstate my opposition for <CITYNAME> only format for the municipalities bearing names of saints (and possibly, names of people). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: one municipality's name in our province should be under the title "Bulakan, Bulacan." Should it become a city (maybe after 50 years? only Heaven knows) - "Bulakan City." Despite differences in spelling and a provincial decree, confusion can still arise so it must be "Bulakan, Bulacan." But I support <CITYNAME> only for: Angat, Baliuag, Bocaue, Calumpit, Marilao, Norzagaray, Paombong, and Pulilan. Weak support for Doña Remedios Trinidad. Angat's case: the only valid disambiguation for Angat is Angat River, it can be placed as a hatnote at the top of Angat, Bulacan like I did before at Capas -> Capas, Tarlac. Having disambiguation pages with only two entries are unnecessary, and as such hatnotes are made for such disambiguation purposes. Or use the title Angat (disambiguation) for the disambiguation and Angat for the municipality. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* With "boldness," my common denominator now as of March 31, 2020: Mostly support but with some exceptions. Cases are as follows:

100% Support for all one-word uniquely-named municipalities, exempli gratia: Pulilan, Dilasag, Mahatao, Narvacan, Diffun, Mankayan, Majayjay, Nasugbu, Pinamalayan, Tinambac, Daraga (the former US Navy[?] patrol boat is not a valid candidate for challenging Daraga's uniqueness), Matnog, Lambunao, Candoni, Tabuelan, Motiong, Mahaplag, Sirawai, Kolambugan, Mambajao, Baganga, Surallah, Marihatag, Kabuntalan, and Indanan. (Reference: User:RioHondo/LGU)
Mostly (more than 50%) support for cases like: Brooke's Point, Itbayat, Angat, New Lucena, and Northern Kabuntalan
Weak support: exempli gratia Doña Remedios Trinidad, Sultan Dumalondong, Shariff Aguak, Jose Panganiban, Sultan Sumagka, Amai Manabilang and Hadji Muhtamad
additional: also for cases like Datu Unsay and Datu Odin SinsuatJWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute oppose: For not uniquely-named municipalities. Maybe all of us know this case, the likes of either Concepcion, Tarlac or Kapatagan, Lanao del Sur.
Oppose: For municipalities named after, and and pronounced similar to, the provinces such as Quezon, Quezon, Bulakan, Bulacan (should it become city in the future, "Bulakan City")
Oppose: San Marcelino, Zambales, Santa Praxedes, Cagayan, and Santa Josefa, Agusan del Sur.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a unanimous decision? What are we waiting for? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Question to @RioHondo: in this case, have we attained enough consensus to officially revise / update the MOS? I got caught on the hook regarding my requested move at Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, because according to P199 this MOSPHIL discussion is still considered ongoing and not done. Despite bold page moves done by both @Seav: (exempli gratia: Gigaquit amd Kabacan) and @Carl PH 1995: (exempli gratia: Calubian and Mapanas), P199 asserted that no new requested moves (and assuming the meaning of P199's 2nd reply, bold page moves) are to be made on all remaining uniquely-named municipalities. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the proper thing to do. Allow at least a few more weeks, or maybe one month from start of discussion, for other editors to voice their opinions here. If after 1-2 months and the consensus remain overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, you can start moving them all by citing the discussion here. The manual may then be reworded also and dont forget to link to this discussion.--RioHondo (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: I have changed my mind. After a semibreak during the Lenten season, I have come up a opinion section that, I hope, will ease the senior users' decision making on consensus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* NOW: After pondering on what must be the most stable form of article title for municipality with unqiue names, and obtaining POV of my parents and friends, real life and online alike (although this is not valid but somehow reflects to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Recognizability), I hereby change vote to: OPPOSE <citynam> only. Consistency and WP:Recognizability weighs above Conciseness. Article title, and consequently the links in ALL articles that would directly link to a particular article, should and must represent the actual content, and should speak of the subject automatically. I now regret of having made such requests as Talk:Cagdianao and Talk:Polomolok, without realizing the potential huge impact to the readers. And in practice we Filipinos always insert provincename, which is in favor of WP:NATURAL. I might be familiar with all of 1,634 incorporated settlement-type LGU's in our country, but how about other readers? <citynam> only violates WP:Recognizability. There's no guarantee that anyone "should" click the link to know what Nabunturan is, or hover over the link for a preview above this link - Corcuera - to determine if it is a Philippine municipality or what. Using <cityname, division name> complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Now I cancelled my request move for Bocaue, Bulacan, but I regret having made Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands and Polomolok, South Cotabato moved to their inconsistent, not recognizable titles, and making untoward "bold" moves for articles like Tungawan and Marilao 😞 Even I made a mess by conducting page moves at Tagalog Wikipedia 😭 It's my fault for performing copycat page moves in Tagalog Wikipedia in favor of unofficial format for uniquely-named municipalities' Wikipedia titles in English and Waray Wikipedias. Unofficial because these had no official backing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Using the 5 golden rules for article titles

The five golden rules are Recognizability, Precision, Conciseness, Naturalness,and Consistency. (ref. Wikipedia:Article titles)

  • <cityname> only: only passes Precision and Conciseness.
  • <cityname, division name> passes Recognizability, Precision, Naturalness, and Consistency. Conciseness is lesser in gravity than Naturalness and Recognizability.

This will be my final and eternal stand. And IMO, many of the uniquely-named incorporated settlements that I gave as examples last month violate WP:Recognizability. I don't know what Pitt Meadows is, nor do Loei, which is better at "Loei, Thailand." I'll leave to other editors to make major modifications on placenames of other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JWilz12345: On recognizability, you mention a usual misconception about this criterion. It is not meant to give everyone seeing the bare article title an idea what the article is about without the looking at the article itself. If you look at the criterion text itself it says: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" (emphasis mine). To give an example, nobody who is not familiar with Star Wars will recognize what the article title Jakku is all about. Is it a place in India? Is it an animal? Is it a musical instrument? Who knows? We do not title the article as Jakku (fictional planet) or Jakku (Star Wars) or even just Jakku (planet), but simply as Jakku because no other subject has the same name. It is not the job of the article title to introduce the article subject; that job is the responsibility of the article's lead section (see MOS:LEAD) and the the article's short description (see WP:SHORTDESC). So, if you are a foreigner (or even a Filipino) who is not familiar with places in Romblon, you are not expected to recognize what Corcuera is about. However, people from Romblon or nearby provinces should recognize what Corcuera is about because they are familiar with it. This is the essence of the recognizability criterion of the article titles policy.
On naturalness, again you are mischaracterizing how this criterion is supposed to be applied. I agree that Filipinos usually (but not "always", as you assert!) add the province name but that doesn't mean that it makes it natural to add the province name in the context of the article titles policy. As I argue many times over the past decade, the practice of adding the province name is a result of writing mailing addresses and also because it is a quick way to give context to readers where the town is especially if the reader is outside or far from the province. But if you're from Romblon, you don't have the habit of adding "Romblon" after "Corcuera" when speaking with Romblomanons because the context is already apparent. And to use another of your examples, Polomolok, let's look at a couple of recent news articles that mention the town: [3][4]. In the first news article, the lead paragraph says "...in the town of Polomolok, South Cotabato province..." but afterwards it only mentions just "Polomolok" by itself in the rest of the article. Why? Because the context has already been established and therefore there is no longer any need to add the province name repeatedly. That is, once you have already established context, it is already generally "natural" to just mention the town's name by itself. In the second news article, the journalist doesn't even use the comma convention to establish context ("...in Polomolok town of South Cotabato") and also just uses "Polomolok" by itself in the rest of the article. To reiterate my argument in my previous paragraph in a different way, it is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description. —seav (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To give another example, here's a news article today about Igbaras from Panay News: [5]. Aside from the single mention of "ILOILO" as the article's first word to establish context (and this is the standard format for news articles), all mentions of "Igbaras" in the article (including the news article's title itself!) doesn't append the province name to the town name. —seav (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seav: sorry Seav. I was losing my patience on waiting for a true and firm consensus to happen, most esp. that this discussion has started more than a month ago. I got caught up in Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, in which I decided to cancel page move request to <cityname> only. I have placed {{Discouraged}} on my user page since I'm losing my enthusiasm. I might leave the decision on achieving consensus to you and others. I will only decide on page moves for other uniquely-named municipalities in enwiki if the consensus has been made (hopefully sooner than later) and Mosphil guideline has been revised. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll or opinion per user/contributors

[edit]

Hope this section should aid for senior admins to decide on consensus. I based the idea on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive34, but I hope this centralized discussion will be final and not causing a 4th discussion in the near or known future.

Repinging those who replied here before - @Seav, RioHondo, Born2cycle, HueMan1, P199, Emperork, Crouch, Swale, and SmokeyJoe: - to air their thoughts on the opinion poll here. My user image is getting tarnished in the increasing manner, as days, weeks, and months pass by. I won't vote here from now on, and I'll involve on page move requests after a firm and true consensus has achieved. Thanks and sorry to everyone. 😞 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was pinged. I think I oppose the change from standard comma use in most place names because it is over-emphasis on concision, and neglect of recognizability and consistency. I think it is wrongly ascribing "disambiguation" to the COMMONNAME format for most places (most, excluding the unusually unique. The decision should be based on sources that introduce the subject from an outside perspective. For places where there a none or few quality sources, directory-style sources are not quality sources, then you need to look for consistency with similar places that do have quality sources. Locality, Region is a very commonly seen format, and it should be used especially where the locality name is misrecognizable for something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks JWilz12345 for driving this conversation. This discussion is limited however to a few editors, but if you look at all the contributors to the many RM's that have been held, it is clear that the general consensus is for <placename> only. It is de facto now standard across WP (except USA). I have resisted this in the past, but a great number of article titles for LGU's are already as plain <placename>, so I see no advantage to revert this. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my opinion above, we generally don't disambiguate unless necessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquely-named municipalities using <cityname> only

[edit]

Uniquely-named municipalities using <cityname, divisionname>

[edit]
  • In other words: comma convention

Continuation of discussion for uninterrupted flow

[edit]

@Seav, RioHondo, P199, and HueMan1: another evidence of the community's support - at least gradually - to the usage of <cityname> only for uniquely-named municipalities. Through my casual visiting of Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU, and for some reason (maybe pure coincidence or having a deep meaning?) I chose to go to section #22 - "Article names for Philippine cities: <cityname> <city>" and at subsection "Request for page moves," I visited Talk:Bacolod#Requested_move (I removed "City" for convenience should all visit this link for reference). I immediately saw the basis of @JinJian: for their proposal to move Bacolod City to Bacolod, which was accepted and the city's article moved accordingly. To quote the highlighted part (CTTO: JinJian) _ "Capital cities/municipalities with the same name with that of another local non-capital city/municipality. The capital city or municipality need not have the provincial name attached to it since it is the preferred primary topic; while the non-capital municipality/city should include the provincial name." It might signify that "only capital municipalities" can be moved to <cityname> omitting provincial disambiguation, but this is one early instance of the community's acceptance to the <cityname> convention for municipalities with unique names, albeit gradually (in cases of capital municipalities). This was in 2010. And the evidence of the community's gradual support for non-capital municipalities with unique names: successful pagemove requests for Dingalan, Vintar, and recently, Cagdianao. Plus also unchallenged, bold page moves like Dasol by @Exec8: and Barotac Nuevo by @Hariboneagle927: _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC) -- changed my stand _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed discussion on articles on uniquely-named municipalities

[edit]

I started this subsection of the discussion @HueMan1: started more or less three months ago, because the above parent section has been marred by my reckless flip-flops. From using globally-recognized de facto form ("cityname" only) to strict comma convention then back to the de facto norm with reservations. Coupled with the fiasco at barangay article issue, I then decided (without thinking twice) to go on a "semi-retirement," although after encouragements from some other users (you can see those in my talk page), I chose to not retire. And after a long break and restoration of some energy, I am now ready to reiterate my original stand, suggestions, and some reservations.

First of all, I strongly support the use of <cityname> on all municipalities with totally unique names, but use comma convention for those not unique and those causing ambiguity to readers. (I will elaborate my suggestions relevant to this part below) Reasons include:

  1. Stability: there are still chances for provinces to be either renamed or split apart or (rarely, but may occur in distant future) merged. With cityname only format, the articles of the uniquely-named municipalities won't be affected.
  2. Conciseness: One of the 5 pillars of WP:AT, which states that in most cases, articles need to be disambiguated whenever and wherever necessary. But if no other article with exact name exists, then the title of a uniquely-named municipality's article goes best if it's on standalone cityname format.

In addition, I will quote sir @Seav:'s position on the true essense of article titles: "It is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description." The title, according to him, gives emphasis to what the article is all about.

Through this position and Seav's POV on our fondness to add province name on municipalities including unique ones, "As I argue many times over the past decade, the practice of adding the province name is a result of writing mailing addresses and also because it is a quick way to give context to readers where the town is especially if the reader is outside or far from the province," I reinstate my full support on using cityname only for all uniquely-named municipalities.

Again, using selected settlement-type LGU's of other countries as global examples and models:

My reason for renewing this discussion

Even though there's a de facto (or apparent consensus) based on the discussion, it is still not yet closed, technically. This contrasts greatly to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?. Here, the consensus stating the removal of prefecture names for uniquely-named Japanese cities and towns is sealed with finality. This finality and closure is indicated by the purple blue box enclosing the entire thread with small grey box on top-right, which I presume is a "final and official judgment by a senior Wikipedian."

There is no such boxes enclosing this thread that indicates the recognition of senior Wikipedian/s to the revised convention for municipalities.

I was warned by @P199: before at Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, to not initiate move requests for uniquely-named municipalities (or even conduct bold moves) while this discussion is still open. Saw also P199's warning at Talk:Sagada and Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar.

A notice box at the top of MOSPHIL indicates "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Maybe exceptions may apply, but that's for cases like Manila vs. Zamboanga City and Davao City (I just read Talk:Zamboanga City#Requested move and Talk:Davao City/Archive 1#Requested move last night (PST). Unlike the municipalities section, which obliges (using should wording) Wikipedians to format titles of all municipalities' articles under <cityname>, <provincename> format.

My suggestions for the actual wording for the de facto consensuses to bear real fruits

These suggestions come from my interaction with User:Seav. I felt it's more appropriate to divulge these here:

Suggestion 1

As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:

Where disambiguation is required:

Suggestion 2

As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:

Where disambiguation is required:

Suggestion 3 (using "case" or "group," but in adding the appropriate wording only either one should be used)

As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:

Where disambiguation is required:

This is my 4th suggestion (new suggestion)

As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:

Where disambiguation is required:

Other suggestions are very much welcome :-D

My principal reasons for the case of Bulakan, Bulacan not meeting this cityname only convention:

  • It is ambiguous, despite an official ordinance as stated in the article, because many Bulakeños tend to refer both spellings (Bulacan and Bulakan) as variant spellings of both the province and the municipality.
  • sir Seav mentioned before about recognizability (can be seen and read above this subsection, in the parent section), using the case of Corcuera -"people from Romblon or nearby provinces should recognize what Corcuera is about because they are familiar with it. This is the essence of the recognizability criterion of the article titles policy." This isn't the case for "Bulakan" because none of us (to a lesser extent we in this Bulacan town) are using this in real life conversation. Both Bulacan and Bulakan are pronounced the same - exactly and literally. The pronunciation of the word Bulacan always refers to the province as the first subject in mind (equivalent to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If we converse or interact, we usually call it as Bulakan, Bulacan; Bayan ng Bulakan (Town of Bulakan); or Bulakan Town (or maybe yung Bulakan na bayan).

To add the ambiguity, our very own COVID-19 tracker uses "Bulacan" instead of "Bulakan" as the municipality's name, despite the fact that it is jointly managed by the Bulacan Provincial Health Office and the Bulacan State University! This means the ordinance is not obligatory. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JWilz12345 for spearheading this. But we can make it even simpler. The MOS only needs to say this:

As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipality-name]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. In that case, article titles follow the [[Municipality-name, Province]] format.

That covers probably 99% of all LGU's. Any exceptions to this rule, such as Bulakan, should be discussed individually on their respective talk pages. It is unnecessary (and overly complicated) to come up with a rule to fit every instance. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P199: that's good! Thanks for the suggestion! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also favor P199's suggestion since it's simpler. —seav (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay notability

[edit]

Speaking of "revisiting," since most of us are trapped inside our homes due to the threat of COVID-19, I think we should discuss the notability of barangays (again...😅😂) and add some guidelines about it here. Stay safe everyone. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed another time. At least for barangays, we are not in any hurry (see WP:DEADLINE). These discussions take time (years even). Let's focus on the municipal article titles discussion above first. —seav (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This archived discussion may serve as a guide: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles/Archive 3#Barangays. Quoting from veteran Wikipedian @P199: "Normally geographic places don't have to follow the strict notability standards, but on the other hand, if nothing much can be said about a barangay, it is better to add it to the LGU article." (comment by P199 on August 18, 2016) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)
  • My stance on this issue has not changed. Barangays or barrios are legally recognized incorporated places (created through an act of congress or government decree) in PH that form the third-level administrative divisions of the country on the same level as municipalities in Japan and Spain, arrondisements of France, etc. It has its own set of elected officials, a legislature (barangay council), etc. That alone satisfies the primary N guideline for articles on geographic places. How important are barangays in PH? Just last week, the PH president himself instructed all barangay officials to spearhead covid19 measures and enforce a barangay-wide lockdown if there are two or more cases in their barangay. ;) On a regular day, they are the basic unit involved in the delivery of basic govt services. They are also statistical areas with information readily available from PSA. What are not inherently notable are the sitios, puroks and gated subdivisions, but articles on them maybe admitted on a case by case basis, after demonstration of their notability of course. As for the naming convention for barangays, im good with the current setup, plain name for unique barangays, and city/municipality (plus province if needed) for the rest. Cuidaos todos del virus.;)--RioHondo (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen some barangay articles here mostly in the Metro Manila area like Bagong Pag-asa, San Antonio and Santa Cruz in Quezon City; Ayala Alabang in Muntinlupa; Arkong Bato in Valenzuela; Bagong Silang in Caloocan; Carmona in Makati and etc. I do see that most of these articles do have sufficient references and notable as well but I'm not inclined on having all barangays to have their own articles like 42,036 of them as of the 2015 census. For Cebu City where I'm from and currently living, what I did instead was to create an article Barangays of Cebu City and compile them since there's not much resource materials (for now) about the history of our 80 barangays. What we do have are the current barangay officials, the current set of Liga ng mga Barangay City chapter officials, the changes and proposals of new barangays but mostly, it's more focused on the statistics of the barangays. Maybe what we can do is to do the same, by compiling barangays of municipalities/cities and should there be sufficient content for a certain barangay, then go with an article. — Emperork (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, may i remind the deletionist here that there are processes for merger or deletion of articles? Besides, the discussion that the deletionist himself started here is still active and has not reached any consensus yet. Thank you. I suggest the deletionist also disclose his/her other usernames here. Don't think I didn't see what you and your fellow new users did to the articles there and practically blanking them categories out overnight. This was not only done in bad faith but the tag teaming to delete the articles is a violation of WP rules and can get you blocked or banned. Let this serve as a warning.--RioHondo (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo: You might thought that my action at Calampong, Samar was ordered by @HueMan1:. For your information, that is my decision. Barangay Calampong of Pinabacdao to date cannot be considered as notable since it has no cited references, WP:Unsourced. And I think it is right and just to merge it to Pinabacdao article. And to note, I could sense your overzealous attitude in rules. Remember, sometimes Wikipedia:Ignore all rules apply. This might be crazy, but "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Yes, this discussion needs consensus, that is a prime rule. Yet there's very few high-quality edits for most of barangay articles, and most of the contributions to these articles lack citations. In short, our barangay articles have very low qualities. I might be too excessive, but that has been my stand since I always hear from my teacher in real life that Wikipedia should not be used in any form of research and information finding, and I believe criticism to Wikipedia can be addressed (at least partially) by having high to mid-quality and sourced articles. Yes barangays may deserve their own articles, but I want to echo veteran Wikipedian @P199:'s point of view way back 2016: "Normally geographic places don't have to follow the strict notability standards, but on the other hand, if nothing much can be said about a barangay, it is better to add it to the LGU article." Unfortunately, nothing can be said about 3/4ths of all 42,000+ barangays, due to limited references and sources. I only favor the inclusion of articles for more noteworthy barangays like Forbes Park, Makati and Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa. If "inclusionists" insist, prove the WP:Recognizability of each of 42 K + barangays in our country. I favor @Emperork:'s suggestion, but I suggest making "Barangays of X" as a requirement should inclusionists insist.
For my opinion, most of Navotas barangays are unsourced, or with very few sources. I accessed all articles, with Tanza, Navotas as the starting point. I improved that article, but its quality is low, and depth too shallow. So I propose merging all existing barangay articles of Navotas to Barangays of Navotas, akin to Emperork's suggested Barangays of Cebu City. For Dasmariñas (in HueMan1's case) - better have Barangays of Dasmariñas. I highly recommend "Barangays of x" articles if inclusionists insist the recognition and inclusion of all 40K+ barangays in our country
My opinion on naming, I disagree <PLACENAME> only for barangays. Better to have city and municipality names attached, comma format. <PLACENAME> only format should be given to true incorporated settlement-type LGU in the Philippines - the cities (be it HUCs or CCs) and the municipalities.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addition, Placename format for uniquely-named cities and municipalities only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the deletionist. Screw me. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you might want these type of articles similar to List of barangays in Metro Manila - List of barangays in Samar, List of barangays in Ilocos Norte et cetera - "List of barangays of in x," where x = the provinces.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I'm being quoted here (2x now already), I will go on record that I still agree with my standpoint of 2014. If there is nothing significant about a barangay, it doesn't need an article. And even if there is a little bit of significant info, why not just merge it into the municipality article? To created 42k stub articles for each barangay just because they exist isn't helpful to WP. But I will not actively seek to get them deleted (even though I'm a deletionist too) because of WP:NGEO. I would suggest to just be bold and up-merge ones that are meaningless stubs. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments WP:GEOLAND prescribes the inherent notability of these articles. But because nothing significant is written about these barangays in their WP articles does not mean they are all insignificant. It only means the deletionist has not done his work of searching for other reliable sources to improve the articles WP:BEFORE taking drastic or irresponsible action of actually deleting them en masse. And significance is not based on opinion or one's personal pov, it is whats written about these topics in reliable sources that make them all significant. Congressional acts, govt websites info, statistical info, other historical data, those are all available for these LGUs if only their reason for joining WP is to create content and improve coverage of PH articles. But because these LGUs are notable by default does not mean an article will be created for each one of them. It's like the thousands of national public officials we've had since 1898, from the senators and congressmen, assemblymen, cabinet secretaries, justices, etc, we dont have an article for each one of them, because its gonna take more than a lifetime to do just that. But why delete a stub on say Ruperto Montinola, a senator from the 1930s, even lets say its unreferenced like this politician Francisco Felipe Villanueva. All the city and municipality articles mention the barangays, so why prevent people from linking to those? We might as well remove them from the LGU articles. Again, i am not advocating for the creation of articles for all barangays but the very few that are there, we should all help to improve them. Ph geography articles in WP make up a small percentage of total PH related articles, IMO. You should see how much more stubs and unreferenced articles there are in the PH showbiz categories. Music comes next. Trying to get rid of the little that's left instead of improving them, while the showbiz, soaps and movie articles abound says a lot about our priorities here. Every day, at least a couple of those worthless articles are created and noones complaining. Many barangays are even more popular than their cities or municipalities IMO, like Alabang (most people know it as simply Alabang), Baclaran (people think this to be in Pasay), Caticlan, Matabungkay, Anilao, etc. And don't tell me the road articles you created are more notable than the barangays they pass through. Let's see. Tomas Claudio Street? The many articles created on local roads in Cavite with barely any references but just to say they exist? ;) Theres my final two cents on this issue. Dont worry, i wont delete those road articles, i like them cement and asphalt too.--RioHondo (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo: I apologize for my actions, I was just tired of these articles being outdated. Most of them are containing original research and some are not even following the manual of style. So, I decided to take it on my own, to redirect them to their parent city or municipality. I am so sorry. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo, P199, HueMan1, and Emperork: My renewed comment after the Lent
First of all I want to apologize to RioHondo if I became too ill-tempered in my comments above. And to P199 if I have become an impatient user and person. That is why I chose to semibreak for a while during the Lent, and focus on my personal tasks and some contributions at tlwiki and Commons.
And for the renewed comment: Since barangays constitute our country's most fundamental administrative unit, despite the cities and municipalities being the recognized incorporated settlement-type LGUs, I now say that they can have their own articles only if there are sources. And barangay articles should be created on case to case basis. For example, Taliptip, Bulakan can stand since it is the location of the disappearing village as repeatedly mentioned on Philippine media and the controversial New Manila International Airport (why o why it doesn't have info about the adverse ecological and livelihood impact? hmmm…). Should Taliptip's article be created, the redirect might be changed to Taliptip, Bulakan. Canlubang, Calamba also deserves its own since it is a noted industrial barangay of Calamba, Laguna. So do Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa and Bagong Pag-asa, Quezon City, which now it has an added notability, but unfortunately because of it being the home of 21 residents of Sitio San Roque who demonstrated in the midst of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines.
Barangays that do not pass WP:NOTABILITY or inclusion of sources are better merged to their mother cities and municipalities, or like Emperork's suggestion create a "Barangays of x" article, where x is the name of the settlement LGU (cityname only if uniquely-named and comma if not uniquely named) Example: Barangays of Pinabacdao and Barangays of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. A complete table listing all barangays for each article is very useful. I feel List of barangays in Ilocos Norte insufficient, if barangays need more recognition, either individual articles for deserving barangays or lists like Barangays of Laoag, Barangays of Pasuquin or Barangays of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. For reference there are 42,045 barangays as of May 2019, as per the enwiki article.
My stance on barangay article's naming convention is still the same: comma convention, with the incorporated settlement LGU as the affixed name. Exempli gratia, Bantog, Anao and not Bantog nor Bantog, Tarlac. Other examples: Baclaran, Parañaque (special thanks to @MidasHotel20: and San Juan, San Jose, Dinagat Islands. The <placename> style should be reserved for the country's 1,634 incorporated settlement LGUs. _JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

@JWilz12345 are you okay? What's with all this moving articles back and forth? The mere fact that i didnt do anything to resurrect those articles means i let it pass and thats water under the bridge now. And having seen for myself how lousy indeed some of those Navotas barangay articles are just now lol (sorry, if you only coursed them individually through the proper processes we could have discussed the merits of each one without having to upset each other) i now agree to settle. If a barangay article is no more than the basic stats (location/population/area/officeholders) and not more than three lines containing the above, you can redirect them to the City or Municipality article. PROVIDED that those are all that can be sourced after you've carried out your WP:BEFORE duties as a responsible editor of WPH community. However, I still wont agree to a blanket rule that all barangays are not notable and therefore need to be deleted. They are all still notable by default as per our N guideline. And as i said in that earlier discussion, we need to revisit this practice of creating these "List of barangays in LGU" articles because those can easily be added to every City or Municipality article (if they arent already). Like area, population, density and maybe names of officials, these could easily be placed in a table under the geography or administritative units subsection of each LGU article like how our province articles display these stats for each of their component LGUs. Articles like Quezon City also carry a few lines of description for their barangays or districts so if these are all that can be written in those barangay list articles, i suggest that they be added back to the main City/Municipality article. At least now you know these processes, it's okay to be WP:BOLD once in a while, but at least inform the community of what you plan to do, if not through AfD, at least in the talk page or the talk page of its main article that will be affected. Many of the articles ive written here are in this geography and politics department, so i was just trying to protect my babies LOL. Check out Don Bosco, Parañaque, Tambo, Parañaque and other barangay articles i created for Paranaque. Would you delete them too? LOL. I know you wont. Cheer up. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RioHondo and also JWilz12345. I got pinged on Talk:Barangays of Navotas but I'll comment here instead just to centralize everything. I just got back on PC and was able to go through the discussion. The Barangays of Navotas article came about because of the article I started which was the Barangays of Cebu City which I brought up into the discussion above more than 2 months ago. JWilz12345 did informed me about this on my talk page and I replied favorably with respect to the article itself and he did mentioned that "selected important details of some barangays" were being moved to the said article. I was not able to followup if it also meant moving existing barangay articles to the said article but since that already happened, hopefully we can get a consensus on this one to guide those who may create the same articles as well in the future. I do subscribe to RioHondo's idea that separate brgy articles "maybe admitted on a case by case basis, after demonstration of their notability" since I'm not inclined on having all barangays to have their own articles. I'm sorry if this has caused such trouble. — Emperork (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Let's talk about rules and procedures here since we are on the issue of a topic wide convention. And maybe this also extends to other similar PH geography-related articles. Many of these articles have been here probably before we even signed up in WP. So definitely they have met all the rules on notability already having been here long and i know there is wide support from the larger WP community based on previous AfDs for articles on even the smallest but verifiable populated place, because theyve built a ton of articles on their own hamlets and small villages themselves. But of course some will seem unworthy at their current state. What do we do? WP:BEFORE. Go through all those checklists first and see how they can be improved. If google does not yield any more info than what is already in there, start a discussion on their main city/municipality article to propose its merger if AfD is too cumbersome or too much hassle. At least get the word out to as many editors and not just a few PMs to close associates, and most importantly, to its article creator/s. Thats how you avoid being accused of bad behavior. In the same way, you want none of the articles you created (your road stubs, haunted lists or House committee articles) to suddenly vanish into thin air leaving you helpless and very upset. But if you think any of our articles need to be merged for any reason, you are free to do so so long as you again notify and discuss with the community first. This case by case basis you are referring to can only be determined by a proper discussion. At a public forum(AfD/Tambay) or article talkpage with other editors. As for barangays of City/Municipality lists, again these need to be reviewed, cos they may be redundant with our city and municipality articles. Im good with regional or provincial listings of barangays, but barangay list for every city or municipality is like creating a municipality and city listing for every province, which we dont have and which we dont need IMO. Is there anything in those city/municipality barangay lists that cant be included in their geography or barangay sections already?--RioHondo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, prior to this discussion and aside from Barangays of Cebu City, I also started the Barangays of Tagbilaran and Barangays of Toledo, Cebu articles. These were originally based from the Barangays of Quezon City existing since 2006 which was started by TheCoffee who was an active contributor to these Phil geography articles way back when we started with the Task force LGU. Also, the barangay list articles I started was based from the List of barangays in Zamboanga City article. Currently, there are also other barangay lists articles of cities: Barangays of Pasay, Barangays of Pasay, List of barangays in Valenzuela, List of barangays in Cabuyao and List of barangays in Sorsogon City. The Barangays of Caloocan was redirected in 2017. What prompted me to create a list as well for Cebu City (aside from living in Cebu City) is to include information about the its LNB officials, the changes of barangays and its leadership. Should there be additional resources on how the old barangays were broken down into several barangays (like the original Barangay Pardo being broken into Barangays Poblacion Pardo, Kinasang-an Pardo, Cogon Pardo, Bulacao (Pardo), Basak Pardo, Toong (Pardo), etc.), I'll be including it their as well and maybe a separate barangay article itself. — Emperork (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There will be no mass deletions of this entire category of barangay lists per LGU either. I only brought it up because i think there was a plan to come up with lists for every city or municipality which i think will only add to the problem. Cos when i looked at some of them, like List of barangays in Valenzuela, its table there is like copied off from the main Valenzuela article, the only difference is it has a gallery of pictures, lots of pictures. This Districts of Davao City article does not look like it shouldn't be placed in the main article as it is too short. So this type of lists shouldnt be replicated for all municipalities and cities as far as the issue of WP running out of paper is concerned, not my issue but for some apparently yea lol. Id rather have a standalone article on this former Augustinian friar land in the northeastern outskirts of Cebu City which turned into a US military outpost and air base and now a bustling commerical hub than a list that talks about their officials and stats and nothing more. But that's just me. ;) Or this barangay that used to be a horse race track where shacks now occupy this oval enclosure. There's so much history and heritage in those barangays of Cebu worth telling TBH if only we arent chained to an imaginary rule governing these topics.--RioHondo (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the majority of users above that we should not have articles on most barangays. It doesn't matter what WP:GEOLAND guideline says if the articles can't meet WP:V, which is a core policy. Even if they can meet WP:V enough to have a few sentences, I don't see how the existence of an article so small it wouldn't merit a subsection on a larger article would help readers. The Barangays of X format makes sense to me as a default. Even if we keep just to municipal/city level articles/lists, that would already be 1,634 articles, which is not a small number. No-one is arguing that if a Barangay is significantly notable it shouldn't have its own article, but those will be very few and very far between. Knowledge of Barangays is so low that earlier this month PSA updated its information\ on the names of two Barangays, which had been outdated since 1990 and 1982. CMD (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If youve just tuned in and unfamiliar with this old debate on barangay notability, there have actually been a move to delete these barangays on the basis of the inherent lack of notability of all barangays. These aren't the first time mass deletions occurred here, we have been dealing with this for quite some time in older discussions. When people delete articles en masse, they dont choose which articles are going, like what transpired here earlier on two instances by two different editors was full on discrimination by class regardless of individual contents affecting one set of barangay articles to the next. And that is what we are trying to sort out here. At least now, noone is arguing that mass deletions are the way to go, and not just in writing.--RioHondo (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the older debates. The rest of your reply does not seem to relate to my comment, but certainly if the articles fail WP:V they should be deleted. CMD (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: I'm sorry. I always made numerous mistakes here, to the point that I'd wish to retire, but I decided not to with the help of encouragements from some other users (at may talkpage). I will let the deletion discussion Talk:Barangays of Navotas push through naturally. I will also let other editors think of notability of barangays. I just got carried by habitual tags at the top of the articles of Navotas barangay, claiming that these do not meet notability, and a PROD deletion made to the articles of Bagumbayan North and South and Bangculasi. Nevertheless I will let other editors decide on the matter of barangays' notability. Again, I apologize and hope we will get in good terms from this point on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) On inclusion of barangays, I'm leaning towards half-support if they are newsworthy. Now I feel that South Triangle, Quezon City deserves an article due to recent issues lately. On Taliptip, Bulakan, this is due to the controversial New Manila International Airport. Any barangays that come into news lately might warrant notability. On title formats, I oppose <placename> only, rather with comma and settlement name. For example: "Taliptip, Bulakan" or "Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna" Canlubang, Calamba (since there is no Canlubang in Calamba of Misamis Occidental) But I will respect the eventual verdict by other editors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let's be honest I'm new to PH LGU-related articles but I'd like to add my input here. I totally agree with Chipmunkdavis on the WP:V and WP:GEOLAND arguments. Surely I go with deletion of articles especially if the content will be deemed unverifiable. Hence, what user Emperork did to create a list article can be the best place to retain the content in barangay articles which @JWilz12345: nominates for deletion, or whatever the case may be. Then we would not have to worry too much about losing content, as they will be retained in a more comprehensive and exhaustive article. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective forms of the Philippines

[edit]

"Filipino" is not for males only. A lot of people tend to write "Filipino" because that is natural. Example pages: Sarah Geronimo, Yeng Constantino, Judy Ann Santos, Sara Duterte, Leni Robredo, Risa Hontiveros, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Melchora Aquino, Gabriela Silang, etc. "Filipino" is more formal and natural, while "Filipina" sounds informal.

And also, when did it become incorrect to be called Filipino if someone is a woman? Kali Igba (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:PH#Adjective form of the Philippines, the rule does not say that calling a woman a Filipino is incorrect. It has always been correct from the start. However, some rules should be modified for clarification.
For example, changing it from the original (1) to the proposed (2) or (3) is better:
(1) Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to male Philippine citizens or people with Filipino ancestry. It is mainly used for males or mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unknown.
(2) Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to male Philippine citizens or people with Filipino ancestry. It is also used for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unknown.
(3) Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to male Philippine citizens, people with Filipino ancestry, and also for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unknown.
Also, I found a particular issue regarding to articles about Filipinas. This is usually found in the first sentence or paragraph. Whenever she is described as a Filipina, followed by a gender-specific noun (e.g. Filipina actress or Filipina politician and actress), it becomes redundant because it is mentioning the gender twice. Two simple ways to fix this is: first, by changing Filipina to Filipino to become (e.g. Filipino actress or Filipino politician and actress), or second, by changing the gender-specific noun to a gender-neutral noun (e.g. Filipina actor or Filipina politician and actor). For me though, I would highly discourage the use of the latter.
I do hope we get a clarification with these issues as soon as possible. RPC7778 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Filipino should not be gendered for male citizens because it sounds corrupted. Filipino is gender-neutral, isn't it? It also pertains to female citizens. There is no need to gendered it. Kali Igba (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Filipino is gender-neutral. This phrase, "people with Filipino ancestry", already includes female citizens. Nowhere in the rule stated above that "Filipino" should only be used for male citizens. RPC7778 (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why is there a need to gender it? Why not simply state Philippine citizens, not male Philippine citizens?
Also, who's going to decide if is "Filipina" or "Filipino" if both are correct? I've been corrected to use "Filipina" instead of "Filipino" because the person is a woman. Kali Igba (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking this because I prefer to use Filipino. After all, it sounds formal and professional. Filipina, most of the time, is for informal usage. Kali Igba (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually also prefer to use Filipino compared to Filipina for women, even if a gender-neutral noun follows it. Honestly, I think I should add two more proposed rule modifications:
(4) Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to Philippine citizens or people with Filipino ancestry. It is also used for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unknown.
(5) Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to Philippine citizens, people with Filipino ancestry, and also for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unknown.
These two above are the same as the proposed (2) and (3), respectively, but the "male" is removed instead so as not only to give male citizens an emphasis but also to get both male and female citizens equal footing.
I would also like to point out that the Filipina rule in MOS:PH should remain as is (although Filipina women should be removed as it sounds redundant), as it is also correct. RPC7778 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a similar discussion with regard to this. — doclys (❀) 12:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this discussion (which you replied to) came first than the discussion you linked. RPC7778 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippines-related_articles&oldid=1233283322"