Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming conventions

Re: Naming of cities, saints. We can follow the names used in PSGC as it is considered standard by the NSO. I would like to site examples from Laguna : Calamba is named City of Calamba and Sta. Cruz is named Santa Cruz. Alternate forms can become redirects. - Bluemask 14:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: saints, I agree that Sta. and Sto. be Santa and Santo instead and I've done that for the lists of municipalities in the provincial articles. The problem lies with cities: Should we use the official name, the semi-official name or the popular name? To cite examples in Metro Manila:

 Official Name (PSGC)      Semi-official Name     Popular Name
 City of Manila            City of Manila         Manila
 Quezon City               Quezon City            Quezon City
 Pasay City                Pasay City             Pasay City
 Kalookan City             Caloocan City          Caloocan
 City of Makati            Makati City            Makati
 City of Malabon           Malabon City           Malabon

I tend to go with the semi-official choices. I pretty much don't think all articles should be titled with the official names of the article's subject (e.g., Philippines vs. Republic of the Philippines), but I find using Makati too colloquial, while City of Makati is too formal. Thus we have Makati City. --seav 14:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I vote for Popular Name then. And to include the formal name on the article perhaps? Bluemask 14:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think all the cities and municipalities should be named using their popular name followed by province (i.e. Talisay, Negros Oriental). That's how all the US city articles are named, even the very biggest ones (New York, New York). BUT maybe we can make an exception for the cities in Metro Manila and those classified as Highly Urbanized Cities-- for those we should just use their popular name (Makati, Quezon City, Bacolod). And of course, use redirects liberally. --TheCoffee 05:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to go with what broadsheet newspapers and traditional encyclopedias use. And I think we are doing that right now. (In terms of consistency, this method is not consistent, but I never place too much emphasis on consistency in naming articles.) --seav 21:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a followup, I prefer New York City to be under New York City (which it is as of February 3, 2005), instead of New York, New York (see all the relevant discussions at the talk page). --seav 21:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must clarify that we use the popular English names of the cities, not just any "popular" name (Manila is more popularly called locally as Maynila). As for unusual names (I've changed the wording on the article btw) like Island Garden City of Samal, I think we can ignore those since its like saying "Big Apple City of New York". When I was still in Davao, we call the municipality of Samal as "Samal" while referring to the island as "Samal island." There's also the fact that Philippine cities/municipalities are classified according to different levels/standards (Metro Manila cities, Davao City are among the class A, being independent from any provincial administration). --Chinfo 06:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bohol

Just checking: the current article on Bohol refers to the LGU Bohol Province, right? It is not the article on Bohol Island which should be a different article...Please clarify. Thanks! Guest818 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Project banner

I've looked on the project page and in some of the linked articles, but there doesn't appear to be a project banner for this WP. --BrokenSphere 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Military History task force

I find it a bit strange that there's a WikiProject for LGUs and not one for the Philippines as a whole, but that's neither here nor there...

A Southeast Asian task force within the Military History WikiProject has finally been created. If there is anyone here who is interested in the subject - stretching from the origins of civilisation up through today - I invite you to please come and lend your support, questions or comments, here. No serious responsibilities or obligations connected to signing up, only another way to meet one another, to work together to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of these subjects. Thank you. LordAmeth 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Department of Public Services

Greetings! I came across Department of Public Services while doing some categorization work. I did a bit of cleanup on it, but I don't have enough knowledge of the Philippines to assess its notability or context. So, if someone could take a look at it and see how it fits in with other barangays, that would be most awesome. Thank you! Rtucker 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents of http://elgu2.ncc.gov.ph/ and official Philippine LGU-Webpages copyrighted?

Hello together, I am translating articles about Philippine-LGU to German-WP. Some of those articles are simple copies of official LGU webpages. I´d like to know, if content of these pages is 'work of the Philippine Government' according to Philippine copyright law and therefore utilizable in terms of GFDL. Thank you! --83.242.61.187 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be the other way around. Articles on some municipalities and cities are first created here on WP than they had their own websites. --bluemask ^(talk) 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some examples of municipalities in the Bukidnon province, where WP-articles or parts of them are identical to official LGU-webpages. In all cases the respective content of the municipality webpages is older than the articles in Wikipedia:

• Baungon, Bukidnon chapter 'Geography' from
• Cabanglasan, Bukidnon from
• Don Carlos, Bukidnon from
• Kadingilan, Bukidnon from
• Kalilangan, Bukidnon from
• Lantapan, Bukidnon from

...
Most of these Links are down at the moment, however their content is available in Google-Cache. --83.242.60.57 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incubator

Location maps, seals, etc. should be available in Incubator. --Filipinayzd 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Population of Local Government Units

As discussed in the PhilWiki Chat and on Tambayan page, this page will be revived to focus on the new NSO/Census data. Philippines is the 12th most populous nation. --Exec8 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippine LGU Project Reloaded

The 5th Philwiki Chat centered on the need to complete all LGU articles.

• tl:Talaan ng mga bayan at lungsod sa Pilipinas
• ceb:Talaan sa mga dakbayan ug mga lungsod sa Pilipinas
• war:Lista hin mga syudad ngan bungto ha Pilipinas
• ilo:Category:Dagiti Ili ti Filipinas
• pam:Category:Ding Balen ning Filipinas
• bcl:Kategorya:Mga banwaan kan Filipinas
• List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines

The project will involve two phases:

1. Article Completion (start articles), 2000 data
   1. Full Completion of Philippine articles in Tagalog, Cebuano/Sinugbuanon, Waray and Ilocano. - June 21 to July 12
   2. Partial completion of articles in Pampanga, Bicol, Pangasinan and Chavacano de Zamboanga - June 21 to August 2
2. Article Development - July 6 until August 31
   1. Inclusion of LGU officials (2007-2010 term) using lmp.gov.ph and lpp.gov.ph
   2. Adding 2007 Population Data without deleting the 2000 data.

I hope we join together to complete this project just like NAIA-3 (almost done but on hiberation mode). --Exec8 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed for Basilan

Help! A dedicated editor is adding what looks like reams of Original Research to this page, which is already way too long! Can some of you drop by and help out in patrolling so that the additions don't get too far out of hand. I would like to begin to pare back the length of this article by making subsidiary articles out of the content, but the esteemed editor, Jjarivera, is adding and editing without pause for reflection, it seems. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basilan&action=history. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Municipalities Map by User:Ieph

Click to see Image --Filipinayzd (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done! Finally we have a very detailed comprehensive Philippine map! -- Felipe Aira 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect for the 2010 general election, especially for the presidency. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

w00t. --Howard the Duck 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some errors that should be fixed such as municipal and regional boundaries. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's true there are many errors, especially the boundaries. Notice how Novaleta, Cavite is not shown in the map, and also 4 municipalities in Abra appear as one! That is why I am to focus the next days starting now on making a new municipality map of the PH from scratch, wish me luck! -- Felipe Aira 10:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Don't forget the many new municipalities in the ARMM Region and the Sulu Islands. Magalhães (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with Abra. I guess this will take me a month to make. -- Felipe Aira 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if it is one click (flood) per municipality. Here are some errors: Connecting lines Camarines Sur- connect Garchitorena and Quinalasag Island (closest); Caramoan and Lahuy Island (closest), Albay - disconnect San Miguel Island (northest) from the island group and connect it to Tabaco City; disconnect Cagraray Island (second) from Batan and Rapu-Rapu islands; Missing municipalities Camarines Sur - Canaman, Camaligan, and Milaor; Albay - Polangui, Ligao, and Guinobatan, Boundaries - not quite accurate (e.g. Daraga-Legazpi City, etc.) --Filipinayzd (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm making it with Inkscape (same software I used for the POSS pdf's) right now, and I gotta say the images are very cool. I'm currently working at the Ilocos region. -- Felipe Aira 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Here is a sample. Do you like it? -- Felipe Aira 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Love it. --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In case new maps will be published, please upload it in Wikimedia Commons and give the best license on it. --Exec8 (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To Filipinayzd, response on your question that you left at my tl talk page: Yes I am using a special software, it's Inkscape. It's pretty much a free (although less powerful) version of the ever popular Photoshop. -- Felipe Aira 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The map (under construction); I'll be uploading updates continuously

Nice and excellent map but I have noticed some errors, you include Palawan into Region IV-B that supposedly Palawan must be included in Region VI.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Palawan is currently in limbo between Regions IV-B and VI. EO429 moved it from region IV-B to region VI, but AO129 directed that the implementation of EO429 be held in abeyance. See info and supporting cites in the Palawan article for details. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New Maps needed

You need to check new municipalities in the ARMM region as well. Yeah we know its erratic --Exec8 (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan municipal maps need to be redrawn.

New Municipalities in the ARMM Region include:

• Maguindanao
  • Datu Anggal Midtimbang
  • Mangudadatu
  • Pandag
• Tawi-Tawi
  • Sibutu
• Sulu
  • Omar
• Basilan
  • Akbar
  • Al-Barka
  • Hadji Mohammad Ajul
  • Hadji Muhtamad
  • Tabuan-Lasa
  • Ungkaya Pukan
• Shariff Kabunsuan
  • Datu Blah T. Sinsuat
  • Northern Kabuntalan

Revised map should be created for:

• Maguindanao
  • Buluan
  • Talayan
  • Talitay
  • Pagagawan to Datu Montawal (rename)
• Tawi-Tawi
  • Sitangkai
• Sulu
  • Luuk
  • Tongkil to Bangulngi (rename)
• Basilan
  • Lantawan
  • Sumisip
  • Tuburan
  • Tipo-Tipo
• Shariff Kabunsuan
  • Upi
  • Kabuntalan

Exec8, I am basing my maps on existing Wikipedia maps that are used on infoboxes of municipalities, and I am just simply redrawing them, and putting them altogether. In the case of new/resized/divided/partitioned/whatever Mindanao municipalities, I can see that there are still no Wikipedia maps, available, so I'll just try to find ones from other sites. And also Exec8, I publish all my original images, except photography, under the public domain at Wikimedia Commons, as part of my advocacy for the Commons.

And lastly, I am sorry for not responding as fast these weekends, all PLDT connexions here at (most of) Dasmarinas were cut off due to some man stealing the PLDT cables. And as such, I wasn't able to create maps during these weekends (where I have the most free time and no school work) so progress was slowed down.

The provinces of Abra, Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, Apayao and Cagayan are already done; and you might notice that the image on the right now includes those provinces, if it doesn't refresh your cache. That's a high resolution image (2568 x 3876). And people, what do you think would be the best resolution for the Philippine map (all provinces)? The higher the resolution, the more detailed it is, but there's a bad side on to it; the file's bigger, and of course a pain in the neck for those with slooow connexions. Currently, I am working on Batanes. -- Felipe Aira 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe scorpion_prinz have access to the new towns in ARMM. --Exec8 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if you can keep the resolution as high as possible, then just upload a smaller file for people with slower connections (and people that just don't need that much detail). By they way you're doing incredible work, keep it up. :) TheCoffee (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the highest resolution possible is around 300dpi. The MediaWiki cannot create any thumbnail for anything higher than 12,500,000 px which around 300 until 305 dpi. -- Felipe Aira 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know there's an inland body of water between Ifugao and Isabela. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the Magat Dam reservoir. --seav (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it should be included? It wasn't since the locator maps (my bases) didn't. Perhaps it isn't big enough? -- Felipe Aira 10:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess, it's significant enough in this map, which I'm aware was derived from Google maps.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to include those bodies of water, and perhaps other significant bodies of waters too, in my next upload. I'll use the idea of yours, which is Google Maps. -- Felipe Aira 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might get the extrapolation problem with your methodology: when you end up doing Tawi-Tawi, it might become out of scale with Batanes. --seav (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about scaling; I had that problem when working on the Batanes Islands. I am using another Philippine Map as a cross reference. The Map is on the background, almost transparent, as a cross reference, of my Inkscape file whenever I am/will be working with Island groups. -- Felipe Aira 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Also, are you making sure that all municipality/city shapes are closed paths and that all of their individual bits (e.g., islands of Itbayat, Batanes) are together? (In the SVG file, each city/municipality should have only one <path/> element.) --seav (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed paths in a way that "there are no spaces between paths"? If that is, then yes all are closed paths. And also the bodies of water to be included in the map are Magat Lake/Dam, Pantabangan Lake (a lake around 3/4 of Magat; near Baler), Cagayan River, two rivers/lakes near Cagayan, minor lakes in Pangasinan (I am doing Pangasinan now). I'll upload a new one 2 days from now. -- Felipe Aira 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed paths as in closed curves (like 'O') and not open (like 'U'). Also, associate separate pieces (like islands) of cities/municipalities together so that each one can be selected by just a single click. --seav (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep they are closed. You mean I should group them? Yes, I am grouping them. For what purposes then? Do wish you me to upload its SVG too? Are you planning to edit it in the future? -- Felipe Aira 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just added the provinces of Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija and Tarlac, and also bodies of water as requested. -- Felipe Aira 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the Ph locator maps

While I am working with Zambales, I noticed that something in the Ph locator maps are conflicting one another. On the right shows Subic, Zambales. Look at Pampanga's coast line. In the following two maps, Pampanga's coast line seems to have been smoothed with it's entire features removed entirely. Google Maps confirms that the map on the right is the correct one. Any motions on correcting the tens of locator maps of Pampanga and Bataan towns and cities, which are wrong? -- Felipe Aira 07:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally. I have discover Geolocation error too. In the municipality of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. I check it with Google Earth it was pointed to the mountains. Point to the municipal hall and update the geolocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lebak,_Sultan_Kudarat#coordiante_error

Guides to help you correct.

1. Google Earth - use it to see the exact location. Copy the coordinates.
2. learn how to obtain geographic coordinates.
3. Use this GeoLocator
   (project page)

• 
• 

Well, Pampanga's coastline is a pure delta of the Pampanga River. So, the coastline can be the farthest extent of the delta or the most inland submersion of the Manila Bay. --seav (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe google map can help you delineate it. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So it is decided that the maps will be redoed. Well then I'll just upload new PH Locator maps of my own version after I finish the whole map. -- Felipe Aira 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Error update: I found an error on how 2 Municipalities of Bulacan are bounded. This is the boundary between Calumpit, Bulacan and Pulilan, Bulacan in which the boudary between the two of them has a significant space between them that makes the illusion that there is a municipality between them. -- Felipe Aira 13:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting for Geographical maps

Is there any chance we're going to be able to have a map that details geographical features, such as mountains and peaks and rivers and lakes? Or perhaps we can have a collection and directory of Sattelite images relevant per location? Useful for such articles as Marikina River or Mount Sembrano -- Alternativity (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about just crop the Philippines from existing satellite images. They are in the public domain aren't they? Then just overlay political boundaries over them. Just like how the map of Algeria on the right was cropped. -- Felipe Aira 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Not all satellite images are public domain. LANDSAT images are public domain but practically every hi-res satellite images you see in Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps, and MSN Live Maps are copyrighted. --seav (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna try, Demis Gallery, not exactly as sophisticated as this topographical map, but you can manipulate the map, to show rivers, streams..etc. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok final question: do you wish me to create geographical maps of the Philippines? If yes, that's no problem; I'll be happy to do it. However I cannot promise that it will be on this year, and I may only start working on it on December, since I expect to finish my map on mid-September. And if so happens, I'll just get NASA's since theirs are public domain. -- Felipe Aira 08:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Aira, yes po. The Laguna de Bay - Pasig River watershed is a pet concern of mine, but I think major mountains and river and lake areas would also benefit from this. I suppose in the end these major geographic points are the main reference for these maps rather than municipalities... Alternativity (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough Shoal

Can we have it represented by at least small dots on the map? --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Will include those. Also I will include the Spratly islands, but only the islands occupied by the Philippines; that is based on this map: Image:Spratly with flags.jpg. -- Felipe Aira 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If its not too much, maybe just dot them around regardless if we occupy them or not, so as not to appear that there's no land feature in the area, just have them grayed out maybe. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think that only those occupied by the Philippine government should be included in the Philippine map since it wouldn't be right if I did otherwise. Just as how this (Image:Deutschland Bundeslaender 1957.png) only shows Germany even though Germany has a lot of neighbours. -- Felipe Aira 10:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated

I guess you can just remove that "lake" between Malabon, Caloocan and Manila.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's part of the geography. -- Felipe Aira 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It fully covered by land now. =)--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's so then I'll remove them. PS Google Maps say otherwise. -- Felipe Aira 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, don't rely on Google Maps alone. The shore outline in the "Map" tab of Google Maps uses outdated shorelines (e.g., no reclaimed areas). Also, if you switch to the "Satellite" tab, you'll see that indeed there is no lake there. --seav (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Manila's boundary should also reflect this Image:Ph_map_manila.svg. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this (Image:Metro manila map.png) is the one I used as a reference for Metro Manilas shoreline. It just happens that Google said that there was a lake in that area so I included it. Don't worry; it will be gone in the next update. -- Felipe Aira 09:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You can also check out.. it has a reclaimed land along the Manila Bay coast. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Uggh. Kabeet.com is often added as a spam external link to Wikipedia articles... --seav (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe it's you alone tagging it as spam and not everybody else. I find this website very useful... --None 10:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And whether a website is useful or not has no bearing whether it is considered spam in Wikipedia or not. Please see the Wikipedia spam guidelines, Mr. Anonymous. --seav (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Felipe, I hope that you can finish the map in 3 months. Thanks for adding Cavite, Laguna & batangas to the map. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Luzon island is almost complete. Bravo Felipe!. Paki sunod ng Mindanao. --Filipinayzd (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet actually. Catanduanes, Sorsogon and Albay still needs to be added. -- Felipe Aira 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The "peninsulas" of Pagbilao, Quezon are actually islands. --seav (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will correct that. -- Felipe Aira 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yung "lakelets" near San Miguel Bay (Camarines Sur), Bicol river yun. The cut-off channel created two islets within the River. --Filipinayzd (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general)

I propose we start moving them to <cityname>, <province>; we'd only use <cityname> City if it is an not within the jurisdiction of any province (such as Angeles City). Even cities from Manila should go to <cityname>, Metro Manila except Quezon City. Ergo Naga City, Camarines Sur goes to Naga City while Naga City, Cebu goes to Naga, Cebu. --Howard the Duck 03:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. I'm no longer comfortable with the "<cityname> City" format we're using. TheCoffee (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no for Metro Manila cities, and all of them should rename as "<name> City". Why should QC be exempt? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the current naming guideline causing problems? At a minimum, all independent and highly-urbanized cities should not require the province name except for disambiguation purposes. Even then, if the name is unique, why append the province name at all? I don't think the province name is part of the city name. --Polaron | Talk 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, look at the first section above #Naming conventions. Let's use WP:UCN as our guideline: While we generally use "Makati" in normal speech, a cursory look at news articles tend to go with "Makati City". The same thing can be found for many other cities. So I personally think that "Makati" is colloquial, "City of Makati" (the official name) is too formal, and "Makati City" makes a good compromise. --seav (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I actually dislike the "City, State" U.S. convention. The guideline now for U.S. cities is to remove the state for certain internationally-recognized cities as designated by the AP Stylebook. Hence we have: New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, New Orleans, etc. instead of New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; etc. -seav (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for using the <cityname>, <provincename> convention is that using <cityname> City imply that said city is not a part of any province; hence for ICCs and HUCs I'd agree using <cityname> City or even <cityname>.

The reason for the exception for Quezon City is that nobody appends ", Metro Manila" anymore when it is referred to (maybe as a way of disambiguating it with Quezon Province). The rest are still appended with ", Metro Manila". And the horrors for San Juan City: how about San Juan, Puerto Rico? That's why I dislike <cityname> City" without any appending term unless as a way of disambiguating it with another name.

In defense of the AP Stylebook, I should had also thought of removing the state name if the cities are prominent; however in our case, only "Manila" can stand on its own, while the other big cities such as Quezon City, Cebu City and Davao City ned the "city" term since Quezon Province, Cebu and three provinces named "Davao" and a region named Davao exist. I even say to ditch the "City" word when an HUC/ICC doesn't need to be disambiguated, like moving Cagayan de Oro City to Cagayan de Oro (I think I was the one who even moved it to <cityname> City).

I'd also disagree that the "<cityname> City" convention is more widespread than say the "<cityname>" convention. See the buses for example, do you see labels such as "Cabanatuan City" or "Pasay City? No, only "Cabanatuan" and "Pasay". I'd even say "<cityname> City" is formal. Like in conversation:

A: Saan ka galing?

B: Sa Makati.

Compare with:

A: Saan ka galing?

B: Sa Quezon City.

If B said "Quezon", A would assume he came from Quezon Province or he'd ask a question of clarification.

I hope everyone knows where I'm coming from. –Howard the Duck 12:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no fundamental requirement for the title of an encyclopedia article to provide context except for the purposed of disambiguation. As long as the name is sufficiently distinct, it should even be able to stand on its own without appending "City" nor appending the province name. Appending "City" is useful for cases where there are non-city entities that are in conlict with the plain name. Appending the province name is useful if there are places in other countries that have the same name. But otherwise, the plain name should be sufficient in most cases. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought off using the plain name per se but I have 2 problems with it:

Filipinos often use the <place name>, <province name> (but not as much as the Americans, they don't have HUC/ICCs anyway).

There is a small set of place names vs. the total number of places. It's like the Springfield.

I'm in favor of a simple plain name for HUC/ICCs outside Metro Manila except QC; I still think appending "Metro Manila" is beneficial to the reader as seen in the San Juan City example. "San Juan, Metro Manila" and "Pasig, Metro Manila" are still used anyway. –Howard the Duck 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For a sample of how they'd be named, see Cities of the Philippines#Largest cities. (incidentally since the top 10 largest cities are independent from any province, there is no example of the <cityname>, <provincename> convention.) –Howard the Duck 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Feb 2009 discussion

Will this change naming conventions for the Science City of Muñoz and the Special Science and Nature City of Los Baños? -- Alternativity (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor them being moved to Muñoz, Nueva Ecija and Los Baños, Laguna, respectively. I think the Los Baños case is similar with the "Historical City of Caloocan", while for Muñoz it is the official name but nobody really calls Muñoz that way. P.S.: I'm not familiar in the case of IgaCoS aka Samal, maybe someone can find out how it is really called, or if the IGaCoS name is its official chartered name. –Howard the Duck 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to mention is that not adding the province name does not imply that the city is independent. I'm in favor of leaving out the province name if it's not needed for disambiguation purposes. --seav (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunno bout this, since we've universally applied the <Municipality name>, <Province name> convention perhaps even before I showed up here. The only issue for me is for the cities, since they use the <City name> City convention. The thing is, if we use the <Municipality name>, <Province name> convention, it means that if we use the <City name> City convention, that implies that the city is not within a jurisdiction of the province. If anything, I'd even favor a <City name> City, <Province name> convention. For example, when Meycauayan, Bulacan achieved cityhood, its article name was moved to "Meycauayan City." What does the page move imply? Meycauayan became independent from the province of Bulacan. Another nitpick, in {{Bulacan}}, the three component cities are at the bottom of the navtemplate, in a separate row called "Component cities," and they are named "<City name> City"! The proper way would've been "<City name>" since they are already under the "Cities" row. If the municipalities and cities are all in one classification, then appending "City" would've been appropriate. –Howard the Duck 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Baguio City is named as "Baguio" in print encyclopedias. It'll be OK for me if the HUCs/ICCs whose names do not need disambiguation be rendered in the <City name> format. Basically, this is my proposal:

• Barangay articles: <Barangay name>, <City/municipality name>. Add <Province name> if the city/municipality name needs disambiguation. Example: Forbes Park will be moved to Forbes Park, Makati. See also DUMBO, Brooklyn for a similar convention.
• Municipality articles: Keep at <Municipality name>, <Province name>. Example: Angono, Rizal
• HUCs/ICCs with unique names: Move to <City name>. Example: Cagayan de Oro City will be moved back to Cagayan de Oro.
• HUCs/ICCs with names that are named identically with LGUs: <City name> City. Example: Cebu City.
• Provinces with names that are named identically with names from other countries: <City name> ([Philippine] city). Example: San Juan City will be moved to San Juan (Philippine city) as San Juan, Puerto Rico is also a city.
• Component cities: Move to <City name>, <Province name>. Example: San Jose del Monte City will be moved to San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
  • It'll OK for me to retain "City" like San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan as long as the province name is retained.
• Provinces with unique name: <Province name>. Example: Albay.
• Provinces with names that are named identically with LGUs: <Province name>. Example: Cebu.
• Provinces with names that are named identically with names from other countries: <Province name> (province). Example: Laguna (province).

–Howard the Duck 12:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how they are supposed to look, see List of venues played by the Philippine Basketball Association. –Howard the Duck 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009 discussion

We discussed the LGU naming convention somewhat in the Philwiki Chat 8. There's a sort of tentative agreement that maybe we should drop the province name in all city and municipal article titles if they don't need it for disambiguation purposes. This is based on the Use common names guideline. For instance, why Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro instead of just Puerto Galera since that's the only Puerto Galera there is? Take note that this only concerns how articles are named or titled. The name/title is there to succintly identify the subject of the article and is not there to give additional information (such that it is a part of such and such province).

The "subdivision, larger division" naming convention was adopted following the U.S. and Canadian conventions. But the U.S. and Canadian conventions appears to be in the distinct minority. Almost all other countries don't follow the comma naming convention and I suggest we do the same for the Philippines.

There's the argument that the comma convention makes things nice and orderly, but there seems to be no other reason for doing it than for consistency's sake. --seav (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally preferred that but there'll be too many dabbed article names it would be difficult to have consistency. –Howard the Duck 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But consistency for consistency's sake is not a guideline of Wikipedia. I say we drop the province name altogether unless it's needed for disambiguation purposes. --seav (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is less emphasis on subdivisions outside the U.S. and Canada than within it, and normally, that's one of the reasons why the state name (or province name) has stuck: in that there is a strong association between city and state. The same goes for Japan: all articles pertaining to cities and towns in Japan retain the prefecture name, even in cities whose name is the same as that of the prefecture (see Saitama, Saitama), and only major cities retaining the exception. This is an issue over postal conventions, where in Europe, Africa and Asia, very few countries require the writing of first- or second-level administrative divisions, whereas it's the case for a bunch of others, us included. Common use here is very hard to define, in that we cannot just use spoken conventions (Howard's main contention for overhauling the system), but written ones as well. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor either, actually. The question is how articles will be dabbed for articles like Bulacan, Bulacan, for example. In print encyclopedias, Bulacan, Bulacan is dabbed this way: "Bulacan (city)" if the LGU is a subunit within a larger LGU. If they are in different provinces, a fictional Luzonland would've been Luzonland (Isabela) and Luzonland (Sorsogon). Can anyone have more concrete examples? Would this remove the word "City" on article titles that don't need the word city for disambiguation (like Makati City would be moved to Makati, with Quezon City staying where it is)? –Howard the Duck 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The comma convention does a fairly good job of disambiguating places in different provinces. In addition, the comma convention adds a level of disambiguation in itself: people will readily know that it is a third-level sub-unit of a second-level LGU. Abolishing the comma convention removes that level of disambiguation and can possibly even add to the confusion of readers. We have to consider here that the average Wikipedia reader is ignorant of the LGUs around him/her, save for the town and the province, and even more so for non-Filipino readers. For all I care, a Fil-Am who has never been to the Philippines and is reading about it for the first time can readily believe Poona Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, when abolishing the comma convention, is a province when it is not. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the function of the article title, which is to succintly identify the subject of the article. The title is not there to indicate or imply that a place is a municipality, a province, or whatever; that's what the lead section is for. Take note that there is no Wikipedia-wide guideline that says that we should cram information into the article title, but in contrast, the Use common names guideline actually says to simplify the article title as much as possible and only add more characters for disambiguation purposes only if necessary. Since the use common names guideline is an established convention, we use Manila instead of City of Manila or even Manila, Philippines (this example also demonstrates the primary topic disambiguation guideline), and it implies that we should have Puerto Galera instead of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. --seav (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reindent: I like the no-comma version. If implemented would it look like this:

• Barangay articles: <Barangay name>.
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Barangayname> (<Municipalityname>)
• Municipality articles: <Municipality name>. Example: Angono, Rizal will be moved to Angono
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Municipalityname> (<Provincename>)
• HUCs/ICCs with unique names: <City name>. Example: Cagayan de Oro City will be moved to Cagayan de Oro.
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> (<Philippines>)
• HUCs/ICCs with names that are named identically with LGUs: <Cityname> City. Example: Cebu City.
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> City (<Philippines>)
• Component cities: <City name> Example: San Jose del Monte City will be moved to San Jose del Monte.
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> (<Provincename>)
• Provinces with unique name: <Provincename>. Example: Albay.
  • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Provincename> (<Philippines>)
• Provinces with names that are named identically with LGUs: <Provincename>. Example: Cebu.
• Provinces with names that are named identically with names from other countries: <Provincename> (Philippines). Example: Laguna (Philippines).

–Howard the Duck 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether we use parenthetical or comma notation for disambiguation is another discussion. Right now, I am inclined to use the comma notation. But if we agree to use the parenthetical notation, the term that goes into the parenthesis should answer "what?" first before "where?". So it should be Laguna (province) then Laguna (Philippine province) if needed instead of Laguna (Philippines). For example, look at the dab page I Love You. We have I Love You (1979 film) instead of I Love You (1979), and I Love You (Donna Summer song) instead of I Love You (Donna Summer). Parenthetical dabbing answers "what?" first before "who?", "which?", "when?", or "where?" --seav (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor comma notation on component cities and municipalities. On HUCs/ICCs, I'd prefer the specs at the top.

As for parenthetical disambiguation, I copied what was done in print encyclopedias. For example, Nassau can mean different places. For the capital of the Bahamas, it goes as Nassau (Bahamas), for the German region, it's Nassau (Germany) (In Wikipedia, it's currently at Nassau (state).

I'd actually accept any proposal as long as ditches the word "city" on component cities that do not need to distinguished with other places of the same name. As for the special case of San Juan City, I'd prefer it to be moved at San Juan (Philippine city). –Howard the Duck 04:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article titles give first impressions of articles. People uninterested in reading the article refer to infoboxes. Regardless, the comma convention still makes things much clearer than disregarding it altogether. We cannot always rely on the lead to disambiguate articles from each other. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a comma disambiguator by default even when it's not needed only solves a "first impression" problem that is not really even a problem. Even then, it doesn't solve all such problems until we do so for all articles and not just municipalities. Do we then move Sultan Kudarat to Sultan Kudarat, Philippines because the article on the province might be confused for a biography, especially by a non-Filipino (or a Fil-am that is not familiar with the Philippines)? As I said, the lead section (especially the very first sentence) takes care of such mis-impressions. --seav (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The comma disambiguation impression works only when you apply comma disambiguation selectively (such as applying it on municipalities but not on component cities); it disappears when all articles don't have comma disambiguation already. –Howard the Duck 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have consensus or even an agree-to-disagree-but-it's-ok status? --seav (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest on you giving us examples on how this will be implemented. –Howard the Duck 12:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we all agree that removing the province name when it is not needed for disambiguation purposes, then:

1. Draw up a worklist listing all municipalities (not cities yet), per province. Something like List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines.
2. Note in the worklist which ones need no disambiguation like Puerto Galera and Angono. A sure criteria is a redirect from the bare title.
3. For those which need disambiguation, decide whether the municipality meets the primary topic disambiguation and note it in the worklist.
4. Move those articles identified in step 2 and 3 to the bare name. If needed, ask the assistance of admins for those that can't be moved by non-admins. Place a note in the talk page pointing to the worklist.
5. Create disambiguation pages if needed (these should also be noted in the worklist).
6. For those that need disambiguation, discuss whether we stick to the comma convention or adopt the parenthetical convention.
7. If we decide to use the parenthetical convention, we do another round of moving articles.
8. Clean up links and navigational templates.
9. Next we discuss and tackle cities.

--seav (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the titles of city articles there are two distinct questions:

1. Do we always put "City" after? When I first established the +"City" convention, my motivation is that most of the new cities tend to "celebrate" their cityhood by always referring to their city's name with the "City" appended. You can often see this in news articles. Right now I am leaning towards removing the "City" altogether owing to WP:COMMONNAMES. But I'd like to check some scholarly/book sources first before deciding on my position.
2. If the city name is not unique, how do we disambiguate it? In this case, we decide on the same dab convention for the municipalities (either comma or parenthetical).

--seav (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree on steps 1-5 but I prefer doing it cities first since there so many municipalities. Strip all municipalities and cities of the province's name from the article title. If it needs disambiguation, decide if it's the primary topic, if it's not, I prefer adding (<Municipality>) name for barangays and (<Provincename>) for municipalities and component cities. For provinces that need disambiguation which are not primary topics, I still prefer adding {Philippines), and for HUCs/ICCs adding (Philippine city). I prefer Aurora (Philippines) than Aurora (province), since for example, if you live at Liechtenstein, you won't really care about the levels of political subdivisions in the Philippines, just the name of the place.

If the article's name needs disambiguation, is not a primary topic, and there are similar names within the Philippines, then I prefer using (city), (municipality) or (barangay) unless it it has the same name with a place from another country, which I'd prefer using (Philippine city), (Philippine municipality) and (barangay) of which the best example is San Juan City which should really be moved to [[San Juan (Philippine city) right now. –Howard the Duck 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, anyone?

Hello, I proposed to WikiProject Council a wikiproject that focuses to University of the Philippines. I created the basic skeleton here. Currently, there are four supporters (including me), one of us not willing to become a participant. So I am hoping that someone out here in the Tambayan who is willing to join the project. No, this is not open to UP students only, all Wikipedians are welcome. Thanks and God speed. --The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Barangay kapasigan council pasig city

I'd appreciate someone looking at Barangay kapasigan council pasig city, which I came across at WP:DEP. I know just enough to figure out that this has something to do with Pasig City, but I have no clue how to figure out the correct title for the article. If someone could move it to the right place and add a bit of context, I'd appreciate it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would some of you Contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia?

The Tagalog Wikipedia is short of articles, we need to expand the Tagalog Wikipedia as Tagalog is our Native Language. I hope some of you would atleast contribute 1 article or a 2 so it would help the Tagalog Wikipedia boost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMarcelo (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Philippine LGU WikiProject at the NSCB National Convention on Statistics

The Local Government Unit Wikiproject is on display at the 11th National Convention on Statistics (NCS) on October 4 to October 5, 2010. This will be a good opportunity for collaboration and resource sharing. --Exec8 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Help

I notice that the are different compare to some city or municipality. Any standard that we can copy?

I use the infobox code below

{{Infobox settlement
| name                    = 
| native_name             = 
| official_name           = 
| settlement_type         = 
| motto                   = 
| image_skyline           = 
| image_alt               =
| image_caption           =
| image_flag              =
| flag_alt                =
| image_seal              =
| seal_alt                = 
| image_shield            =
| shield_alt              =
| nickname                = 
| image_map               = 
| map_alt                 =
| map_caption             = 
| pushpin_map             = 
| pushpin_label_position  =
| pushpin_map_caption     = 
| coordinates_type        = region:PH_type:city
| coordinates_display     = inline,title
| coordinates_footnotes   =
| subdivision_type        = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name        = {{flag|Philippines}}
| subdivision_type1       = [[Regions of the Philippines|Region]]
| subdivision_name1       = 
| subdivision_type2       = [[Provinces of the Philippines|Province]]
| subdivision_name2       = 
| subdivision_type3       = [[House of Representatives of the Philippines#District representation|District]]
| subdivision_name3       = 
| established_title       = Founded
| established_date        = 
| parts_type              = [[Barangay]]s
| parts_style             = para
| p1                      = 
| leader_party            =
| leader_title            = [[Mayor]]
| leader_name             = 
| leader_title1           = Vice-Mayor
| leader_name1            = 
| area_total_km2          = 
| population_total        = 
| population_as_of        = 
| population_density_km2  = auto
| population_demonym      = 
| elevation_m             = 
| blank_name_sec1         = [[Cities of the Philippines#Classification|Income class]]
| blank_info_sec1         = [[Municipalities of the Philippines|1st class municipality]]
| timezone                = [[Philippine Standard Time|PHT]]
| utc_offset              = +8
| postal_code_type        = [[List of ZIP codes in the Philippines|ZIP Code]]
| postal_code             = 
| area_code               = 
| website                 = 
| footnotes               = 
| blank_name_sec1         = Spoken languages
| blank_info_sec1         = 
}}

As for population

{{Philippine Census
| title= Population Census
| 1960= 
| 1970= 
| 1975= 
| 1980= 
| 1990= 
| 1995=
| 2000=
| 2007= 
| estimate=
| estyear=
| estref=
}}

Bonvallite (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)