Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Barangay article titles naming convention

Since you are discussing barangays here, I inserted this new section right below 'Capitalization of Barangay in a place name'. (If anyone disagrees, I'll move this section to down below)
Was there a poll or discussion before whether the naming format of all barangay articles should be changed to just the "BARANGAY NAME, PROVINCE NAME" or sometimes "BARANGAY NAME, TOWN NAME" and I have seen just the BARANGAY name by itself (e.g. Pasonanca). I would vote NO on this because I find it very confusing, and probably for non-Filipino readers of Wikipedia who came upon such article. It is not easily identifiable whether that place name is a barangay or a town before a province, or is the second name a town or a province, not unless you are familiar with that particular place. What if there are more than one barangays with the same name in the same province? Not only that, I've seen barangays with names similar to a town in the same province. Maybe now it is still fine as there are only few barangay articles in Wikipedia so far. But how about in the future, like 10 or 20 years from now. How many barangays are there in just one province?

There is nothing wrong with the former longer name format, i.e., "Brgy. BARANGAY NAME, TOWN, PROVINCE", and should be the standard as that is how our local government units are divided. That's how our addresses or place name identification came to be in the Philippines because of our geography, population density and history, and uniquely Philippines. Most countries only have two levels, (like in the United States with just CITIES or TOWNS, STATE), so we cannot emulate them with just two place names, they are not us. I really believe that this new naming convention would just bring confusion and not user-friendly for non-Filipino readers who are not familiar with Philippine geography and local government. I believe we have to think from the reader's point-of-view, not ours editors.

I remember there was a discussion or poll before (or something similar) in the early stages of Wikipedia regarding the naming convention of municipality articles (if I remember it correctly), which resulted with the standard format "MUNICIPALITY name, PROVINCE name" format for all municipalities for easier identification of its location in the country, even if the town has a unique Wikipedia name (see WP:Philippine geographic names). I think there should be a discussion regarding the naming conventions for barangay articles? I saw RioHondo's proposal, of which some parts I agree and disagree on. This is the English Wikipedia, and Philippine-related articles should be user-friendly to all readers, not just Filipinos. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TBH I dunno how to deal with barangay names. There are multiple conventions and it's quite hard to pin on one standard. –H T D 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to follow the format "Brgy. BARANGAY Name, TOWN Name, PROVINCE Name" because that's the way it is, how we write it on our addresses. It is just a continuation of the present municipality format, and clarifies exactly which barangay is referred to. I think some are afraid to use it because of the length, so what? Why would you care? There is no rule against the length of the title, but this is the most appropriate, and this is how we identify the barangay from others. Again, do not compare Philippines to other countries, as we have three administrative division of local government, the reason for having three names to refer a barangay.

So what if it's longer? Who is saying we cannot use it. It is the best clearest way. This is the Philippines, why would you bend the rules to satisfy the two-name location identification like others. That's not us. That is not the Philippines. There's no rule saying we have to follow the two-name rule. Again, think about the future and the number of barangays each provinces have. Better correct it now than later. - Briarfallen (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the province name is always appended when they use the address form. In fact I think it's always omitted. I don't even know if the word "Barangay" has to be there unless the barangay number is a number. –H T D 11:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Where I came from, we don't use the word "Barangay" or "Brgy.", but addresses are by House #, BARANGAY NAME, TOWN NAME, PROVINCE NAME. It was a one-street barangay. It would different in a much populated towns. But the PROVINCE NAME is always there. You cannot omit the province name. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey briarfallen. Feel free to provide inputs and suggestions to our proposal here, and i am saying our proposal as i consulted with the regulars folks here prior to writing it, primarily the Duck above. :) As for barangay article titles being prefixed with Barangay, I don't think it works for all barangays either, in fact like HTD i think it's used more for barangays that have numbers as names only, like Barangay 236. It would be hard to get used to Baclaran being called Barangay Baclaran for instance. What more for Alabang, Forbes Park, or even Malanday? Some are also known more as geographic places and less as political entities, like Matabungkay, Pamilacan, Anilao and the future article on Batad in Banaue. Who would have thought they were barangays? So as far as having a standard convention which the MOS is all about, it just won't work IMO. I hope to hear your comments on the other proposed changes though so we could get this thing rolling. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Briarfallen's response

The reason why I'm bringing up this 'barangay naming convention' question is I am being bothered with the recent increase in barangay articles with titles that, in my opinion, disregarding the "naming convention for Philippines geographic names" that was adapted before. At first, it was alright by just adding the BARANGAY name to the MUNICIPALITY, PROVINCE format, which is the normal progression, and IMHO, it was working. But then changes were made, overstepping the naming convention rule WITHOUT THE CONSENSUS of other Philippine editors (since this is a major change to the standard we use per WP:Consensus). Single-name barangay article titles like "San Pedro Cutud", "Arkong Bato", "Balangkas", "Baclaran", etc. are being used or titles being changed and redirected into this format, which is also the format for Philippine CITIES or PROVINCES! Even though we only have 140 plus cities and 80 plus provinces, not everybody would know them all. What if you are not a Filipino and not familiar with our geography? We must try to make Philippine-related articles more accessible or "user-friendly" to Non-Filipinos. As written at the top of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), "that article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists."

I've also seen the naming of barangay articles like Catmon, Bulacan or Cabilang Baybay, Cavite, which is similar to the naming convention for municipalities! Not everybody knows the municipalities of each provinces. How could one determine if it's a barangay or municipality by simply looking at it, if the standard is not followed? Please remember that this is the English Wikipedia, we are writing not only for us but also for the other people around the world, and should be "Non-Filipino-friendly". Also, please don't try to fit the barangay titles into a TWO-NAME TITLE, just because it is the more familiar and commonly used in other countries. It's different in the Philippines as we also have three levels of local government not two, as we have a denser population, different geography and history. There is NOTHING wrong with a longer BUT clearer and more specific title like BARANGAY, MUNICIPALITY, PROVINCE or BARANGAY, CITY as it also tells you its location in the country. Would everyone know immediately where "Balangkas" is? Per naming convention, SINGLE place names SHOULD only mean it's either a city or a province in the Philippines.

My suggestion is just an extension of the current naming convention for Philippine municipality and city articles (or WP:MOSPHIL), by just adding the BARANGAY name to the current format for the either municipality or city title used, i.e.:

For Philippine municipalities, the naming convention in Wikipedia is always "TOWN NAME, PROVINCE NAME". Some municipalities that were started before the adaption of this format, I believe, were all converted to this two-name nomenclature. The former single MUNICIPALITY names, even MUNICIPALITIES with UNIQUE names, were changed to the new format. The single titles were then redirected to the new two-name titles. Examples are "Paombong", which redirects to the main article Paombong, Bulacan, or "Maragondon" redirected to "Maragondon, Cavite", to conform with the present naming standard for MUNICIPALITY articles. So for barangays, the format would be "BARANGAY NAME, TOWN NAME, PROVINCE NAME."

The naming convention for Philippine most PROVINCES or CITIES is just the CITY/PROVINCE NAME by itself. So for City barangay titles, we just add the BARANGAY name to the current article title format in Wikipedia, making it a 'two-name' standard title, separated by commas (exceptions explained below). Thus, it would be "BARANGAY NAME, CITY NAME", which is currently in used for "Forbes Park, Makati", "Alabang, Muntinlupa", or maybe "San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City" if someone wants to start it. (Except maybe for cities with the format "CITYNAME, Philippines", like "Lucena, Philippines", which I don't get why not "Lucena, Quezon", for lesser number of rules.)

So for existing popular barangays like "Baclaran", then we have to redirect it to the main article "Baclaran, Parañaque City" to conform with the naming convention (presently it is the other way around). "Baclaran", by itself, would stay as a redirect and would not be erased. It would also be an education in geography for Non-Filipinos, and also for some of us, I'm sure some Filipinos would have easily mistaken Baclaran as part of Pasay City at first (and also for those who live in central or southern Philippines who are not familiar with Baclaran).

For city names that are namesakes of other places anywhere in the world, e.g. "San Fernando, La Union"; "San Fernando, Pampanga"; "San Jose, Nueva Ecija"; "La Carlota, Negros Occidental"; etc. Then we just add the City Barangay name to the present city title format in Wikipedia forming a "three-name title", just like the municipalities. For example, for the barangays of "San Fernando, Pampanga" like "San Pedro Cutud", the format should be "San Pedro Cutud, San Fernando, Pampanga".

For city barangays, IMO, the "City" word should be appended to distinguish it is a city and not a province for those who are not familiar with our cities or municipalities. With the recent increase of municipalities elevated into cities, who could keep up which ones are new cities. Names like "Diezmo, Cabuyao" would be changed to "Diezmo, Cabuyao City" (presently, it is the other way around as well) or "Alabang, Muntinlupa" to "Alabang, Muntinlupa City", "Forbes Park, Makati" to "Forbes Park, Makati City", etc... Or just follow the MOS, whichever is chosen by everybody. Remember, it is for those who are UNFAMILIAR with Philippine cities and municipalities, for easily discerning a place-name title, whether it is a "BARANGAY NAME, CITY NAME City" and not a "TOWN NAME, PROVINCE NAME." And we SHOULD NOT assume that everybody knows all the provinces, cities or municipalities of the Philippines. Please let me repeat the Wiki policy, "article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists."

Should the word "Barangay" or "Brgy." be placed in front of the two- or three-name title? Personally, I would say just the shorter COMMONLY-USED "Brgy." not the whole "Barangay" word, and depending on the name, using it more like a "barangay indicator" as some barangay names have very common town-like names, number names, or named after a person like (after randomly choosing a town) "San Juan, San Jose, Nueva Ecija" or "Ferdinand E. Marcos, San Jose, Nueva Ecija." Or maybe not used the term, it's up to how others would vote for it. (BTW, somebody removed the word 'City' from the article "General Santos" per MOS? But now it looks like an article about a general).

Please remember that we have this naming convention, which we have been following ever since. With the recent increase of Barangay articles, let's not overstep the standard that was started before, just extend it. And, there must be a consensus before overruling the current standard naming convention. And please view this from the perspective of Non-Filipino readers or somebody from the other parts of the country, not ours, editors. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, reading WP:MOSPHIL right now, there's no more(?) guidance on how to name barangays. I previously pushed for the "<barangayname>, <town/cityname>, <provincename>" convention but I don't now, as there is no clear way on how to name barangays As I said, the only sure thing is to use the word "Barangay" if the barangay's name is a solely a number, as in "Barangay 143" (but not "Poblacion Dos"), then appending the town/city name. I guess I'd also prefer also having the word "Barangay" if it needs to be disambiguated ("Barangay Fort Bonifacio") except for "Barangay Poblacion", which should be "Poblacion, <city/townname>". As for "barangay" vs. "brgy.", I prefer the full word. As for appending the province name to the title, I'm undecided, leaning against, but won't oppose if someone pushes for it. And yeah, I'd strongly oppose the "<barangayname>, <provincename>" nomenclature. –H T D 00:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically we have not yet set a convention for barangay article titles, our MOSPHIL has never had a provision even in its older version, and that is why i started proposing changes to it back in 2012. Now after 2 years of discussion in talk:mosphil and talk:tambay, we have arrived with this proposed new guideline for barangays which basically takes into account the general consensus on disambiguating only when needed. The benefits there are clear: if the barangay is also an island, there won't be a need to create two separate articles for Pamilacan, Baclayon (or Barangay Pamilacan) and Pamilacan Island which would only confuse readers and editors, and degrade the quality of our articles. Another benefit: recognizability, without its lesser known municipality having to be part of its name. For example, very few people would recognize Pamilacan, Baclayon and more people just know it to be Pamilacan or maybe Pamilacan, Bohol even, but never Pamilacan, Baclayon. How about Matababungkay, Lian? Anilao, Mabini? And Baclaran, Parañaque? People thought it was Baclaran, Pasay. Anilao, Batangas is even more common to hear than Anilao, Mabini. And especially Matabungkay! What's Lian? Third benefit with (barangayname): stability of the articles. :)--RioHondo (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So this battle for the renaming of barangays has been going on for quite some time now as I just recently found about it. Now, I have a better view of what's going on here. After browsing through the archives and Talk pages of some barangays, I'm a little baffled as this is against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) article title policy that "article titles should be chosen for the GENERAL READER, not for SPECIALISTS." You may know where and what is "Baclaran", "Matabungkay", or "Anilao", but how about other Filipinos from other parts of the country, or Non-Filipino readers of Wikipedia who are not familiar with those terms or places? We have to think about the readers not our personal opinion or from our personal point-of-view.

Even though there's no consensus yet per WP:Consensus, barangay titles are being changed, even though some editors are opposed by the move to this direction. Hi RioHondo, when you said "WE have arrived with MOSPHIL2", who are the 'We' you talking about. I checked the talk on User:RioHondo/MOSPHIL2, there was no discussion, and it was just started only last August, not two years. There were no discussion elsewhere just discussions on article talk pages about the changes. Not all editors knows what's going on on all articles about the Philippines. All of those article renaming oppose or overstep WP:MOSPHIL, the current naming convention. I saw two people pushing this new naming convention. Your explanation (above) that "the benefits are clear" I'm sorry but you were a little vague with your explanation, and I don't see any benefits. Could you please expand on that as I don't see its connection to "degrading the quality of our articles." Just like the explanation (above) to third benefit "stability of the articles" - stability on what aspect?

You said, "How about Matababungkay, Lian? Anilao, Mabini? And Baclaran, Parañaque? People thought it was Baclaran, Pasay. Anilao, Batangas is even more common to hear than Anilao, Mabini. And especially Matabungkay! What's Lian?" Good, you know then why having just ONE title would be more confusing. The MAIN article should have "<barangayname>, <town/cityname>, <provincename>" as mentioned by HTD or the ones I mentioned above in the beginning of this section, as they are continuation of the present WP:MOSPHIL. SINGLE names, like Matabungkay or Baclaran, should only be used as REDIRECTS to its main article as it contradicts the present MOSPHIL, that single names are only used for 1st level local government units like provinces or independent cities (in MOSPHIL we included all cities as this solve the problem of discerning which ones are independent or not).

The idea of "disambiguating only when needed" is tantamount to the Filipino's "Bahala na" (Come what may) attitude and not looking into the future. There are only few Barangay articles on Wikipedia for now as people just started writing them maybe 1 or 2 years ago, the reason why it's not in the MOSPHIL. But think about 5, 10 or 20 years from now. With over 40,000 barangays in the Philippines, would you be able to easily pinpoint where one particular barangay is located, just by the single title alone? Wouldn't it be easier if there's a disambiguation tag for barangays according to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If all unique Philippine place names are all converted to a single name title, how can one easily identify which ones are provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangays if you are not from the Philippines or live in a different area of the country? You would be alienating those readers who want to learn more about Philippines and its geography through Wikipedia as there is NO ORDER in our naming convention. I don't think this is following Wikipedia's article title policy that "article titles should be chosen for the GENERAL READER, not for SPECIALISTS." - Briarfallen (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't say im a fan of long replies but here's my two centavos:

Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas – I don't know about Lian, but i know Matabungkay, and it's in Batangas.

Anilao, Mabini, Batangas – I don't know Mabini, but I know Anilao, and it's somewhere in Batangas.

Baclaran, Parañaque – could this be referring to the side of Baclaran covered by Parañaque?

Pamilacan, Baclayon, Bohol – I don't know Baclayon, but i know Pamilacan to be an island near Bohol. Rename it to Pamilacan Island then. And the barangay to Barangay Pamalican.

X Recognizability

X Stability of article title

X Having one article for the barangay and its namesake island

You can browse through the tambayan archives also from late last year or early this year for that long discussion on the naming convention that occupies a whole page. The proposal was also opened up middle of this year. If the barangay is called simply Biak-na-Bato, why name it Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan? You're not just trying to confuse readers. You're making something so simple sound so complex. You would also be going against WP:COMMONNAME with this long convention you are proposing. Baclaran is just Baclaran.--08:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And then there's also those barangays whose territories are still contested. The barangay of Fort Bonifacio, Taguig for example. Both WP:COMMONNAME and COMMONSENSE will tell you to just name it as Fort Bonifacio. Canlubang is another example whose territory is thought to cover huge parts of western Laguna from Biñan and Santa Rosa up to Calamba. Calling it Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna would be technically correct, but is unrecognizable to the majority of our readers. In summary, what you're saying as a specialist naming convention is actually the reverse for the majority who are locals. The plain title doesn't tell them more than they need to know, and adding the municipality and province qualifiers to the barangay title would be seen as being too specific when half the time they don't even know which places fall under which lgu. Is Balintawak in Caloocan or Quezon City? Is it Sucat, Parañaque or Sucat, Muntinlupa? Between the plain name and the qualified title, guess which one would get more views. --RioHondo (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess no one will dispute that "Matabungkay, Batangas" is wrong. It appears that "Matabungkay" is a town when it isn't. I'd rather go with Matabungkay (Lian, Batangas), if it ever needs to be disambiguated.

I'd also guess that this is the "tourist spot" argument I made months ago, when people associate a small place with a larger area. See also: the case of the use of "Manila" to refer places in Caloocan to Las Pinas. My friends associate, for example, "Barangay Malamig" for our favorite cheap water park. "Dude, where's our gimmick?" "At Malamig!" This is the case with these "famous" barangays and towns. –H T D 12:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, as we have agreed in our proposal for barangays, which is to use the unqualified name where possible. Now, the only thing that needs fixing I guess is when it is not, and has to be disambiguated. You presented a really good alternative to the usual comma convention, which is to use the parenthetical convention. I am open to Santa Clara (Santa Maria, Bulacan) and Buena Suerte (El Nido, Palawan) especially since Barangays are not always present in addresses (if they are, they are styled in different ways: the number zone for instance, or the barangay purok/ barangay sitio variants, some write barangay first followed by street, some go straight to subdvision and omit the barangay), and therefore need not follow the comma convention that are standard for municipalities and cities. A second option would be just Barangayname (barangay). Either way, parenthesis works better for us. But Matabungkay stays at Matabungkay. We simply don't need Lian to mess and confuse what we know is the only place that has that name, the beach resort village in Batangas. :) --RioHondo (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

While barangays aren't always in addresses, once they're in addresses, it's always "<barangay>, <town/city>, <province>". The issue if, referring to barangays outside of addresses, on how they're called. The answer is, there's no single convention, save for barangays that have numbers as their names. This isn't like towns where it's almost universally in the "<town>, <province>" convention, such as "Guiuan, Eastern Samar". –H T D 15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RioHondo, the problem is you are viewing this only from your own personal point-of-view or personal opinion. Your explanation above is all about based on your personal opinion. Yes, you know that Matabungkay is in Lian, does everybody in the world knows that? When you said, "We simply don't need Lian to mess and confuse what we know is the only place that has that name, the beach resort village in Batangas." That shows that you are basing this just your own opinion. Not everybody thinks like you and not everybody in the world knows where Matabungkay is? I would recommend to having the town "Lian" included there, so that people will know that it is part of Lian (like you as you said above), why would you eliminate Lian just because you don't know Lian? Does everybody in the world know that it is part of Lian?

I am in favor of what User:Howard the Duck is suggesting that it should be Matabungkay (Lian, Batangas) or for any other barangays. And no excuses whether one-word place names like Baclaran or Matabungkay should be just single titles or not. This the English Wikipedia and we have to follow rules, not the Filipino kind of wishy-washy ruling. There is no such thing as "preferring Matabungkay as a single title for whatever personal reason" per WP:NPOV. Each barangay should be titled equally that is why it is called a "naming convention."

Also, please stop misusing WP:COMMONNAME as WP:COMMONNAME is for "places, people or things with multiple names", please read it yourself. You only use it like whether to choose "Manila Cathedral" over "Immaculate Conception Cathedral of Manila", or Ninoy Aquino over Benigno Aquino, Jr.; or for geographic names, like Muñoz, Nueva Ecija over Science City of Muñoz. Don't try using it to trump other Wikipedia rules like the NAMING CONVENTION rule for geographic names. Please don't use it where it does not apply. I also saw some people also misusing WP:PRIMARYTOPICS on some Talk pages. Really? Please it does not apply there.

How about Biak-na-Bato? Why use that as an example to get your point across. It is a "disambiguation page" for the word "Biak-na-Bato", in which the barangay article should be listed there, if there is one. Not on the top of the page even though the items listed there are about the barangay. Not all items that somebody might write in the future is all about the barangay.

Another example: Cabilang Baybay, Cavite and other barangay articles of Carmona, Cavite. For somebody who is not familiar with the towns of Cavite, he or she would think that it is a town of Cavite. Why are you confusing the readers of Wikipedia?

Again, the disambiguation only when needed" is against Wikipedia's article-title policy for geographic names that "article titles should be chosen for the GENERAL READER, not for SPECIALISTS." - meaning for the readers, not for your satisfaction and NOT based on your personal opinion. - 02:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

HTD did give this condition: '"if it ever needs to be disambiguated"'. I think thats pretty self-explanatory right there. And for precedents, you can check Binondo and Ermita started by Seav which was supported by the WP community. As i said, there are no rules yet for barangay/district article titles, and what have been proposed are based on the discussions and those successful RMs. Please read the proposal carefully.

It states: For barangays, use [[{barangay-name}]] where possible. If disambiguation is required, use [[{barangay-name}, {city/municipalityprovince-name}]].

Where in the proposal does it say to use [[{barangay-name}, {province-name}]]? If there are articles styled that way, that's maybe because there are no guidelines yet to effect an RM to a different title?

As for Matabungkay, again the Lian part would make your article unrecognizable to your readers. Why would the average reader click on something he is not familiar with? He googles the place precisely because he wants to know about the place. Seeing Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas in the google search result would make your reader think twice if he's got the Matabungkay he's searching for. Whereas if it's in the plain title, there's no doubt there is any other Matabungkay. And he'll just go ahead and click.

And yes, it is common wiki practice to have one article for an admin unit and its namesake island. We're not moving Pamilacan and Suluan to your long barangay format and risk turning them into stubs when Suluan Island is separated from Suluan, Guiuan, Eastern Samar just because of the un-island-like name you are proposing. Island-admin unit articles are in their plain titles always.

And yup, disambiguate only when needed as per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. This argument is getting old TBH. You should have joined in the previous debates.--RioHondo (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RioHondo, your claim that the RMs for Binondo and Ermita were "supported by the WP community" is contentious at best, and utterly incredulous at worst. The agreement of two non-Filipino editors—editors who are not aware of our own naming conventions, as others have contended when those RMs went into effect against pleas for you to actually stop circumventing existing convention so that you can get what you want—is hardly an indication of "consensus" as far as I'm concerned. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sky Harbor, ask your President seav. You get to see each other regularly through Wikimedia right? He started it, we supported it. You got issues with his RMs, go talk to your friend, not to me cos we have nothing to discuss. Im not protesting HTDs RM's eventhough I opposed them during deliberation. Santiago (Philippine city) is one. EDSA (road) is another. See we even incorporated those changes brought by those RMs in our proposal. Thats cos I understand how these RMs work. Thats how WP works. You can start another RM if you wish.--RioHondo (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RMs for Binondo and Ermita were done just when there were intensive WP:MOSPHIL discussions were ongoing. These were commented by two WP:PINOY editors, no one else from here, the discussion was short, which means it shouldn't be taken as consensus that overrides WP:MOSPHIL. If someone makes a new RM someone can cite that fact. The RM on Santiago was rather long, and the article's name was indeed within the scope of WP:MOSPHIL but it seems the dabbing procedure is outside WP:MPOSPHIL's scope. You could argue that the consensus there is for that article alone as it is a "special case" and shouldn't affect other articles. EDSA (road)'s RM is outside the scope of WP:MOSPHIL as roads aren't included. –H T D 13:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition re: Binondo and Ermita RMs -- these are also outside the scope of WP:MOSPHIL as these are generally informal but well-defined "districts" that is looked upon as one large "barangay". –H T D 14:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RioHondo, you said, "disambiguate only when needed as per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE." Maybe you should read WP:PRECISE thoroughly. Down below, it gave one geographic name, Bothell, as an example. Even though Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, they used Bothell, Washington. So please stop using this excuse as it is not appropriate for geographic names. Same with WP:CONCISE, it is not for this use.

You also said, "As for Matabungkay, again the Lian part would make your article unrecognizable to your readers. Why would the average reader click on something he is not familiar with?" You are again talking from your personal point-of-view, these are just your opinions. You knew that Matabungkay is in Batangas. Even you admitted that Wikipedia EDUCATED you that Matabungkay is a barangay of Lian. Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia? You cannot separate Matabungkay from Lian as it is part of Lian. Wikipedia is not about yourself. Different people have different level of understanding what the word 'Matabungkay' is. Please stop viewing it only from your own perspective. Please follow the no. 2 of Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.... "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

We have to follow a naming convention rule, not the Filipino 'Bahala na' attitude. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. So those people who are not familiar with the Philippines will find it easier distinguishing which ones are the barangays, town, cities or provinces as we have three levels of local government not two.

From the Talk Page discussions I have seen, all of these renaming of geographic names were based on either WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPICS, which were inappropriately used for geographic names as I have explained above and disregarding our naming convention rule. I think those place names should be reverted back per WP:MOSPHIL. I agree with Howard the Duck, some of those were even renamed DESPITE objections from other editors. Again, Wikipedia is about for the knowledge of the READERS not us editors. Again, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) policy, article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists (i.e., persons who are familiar with these places). -- Briarfallen (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be starting to move some of the barangay articles that were moved to a BARANGAY NAME, PROVINCE format, which is so wrong as it is confusing as it is the format for municipalities per WP:MOSPHIL. For now, I am changing them back to BARANGAY NAME, MUNICIPALITY NAME, PROVINCE NAME format. -- Briarfallen (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, this also includes municipalities that were converted into single-name titles. -- Briarfallen (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

RioHondo, I am moving your response to the bottom of the section per Commons:Talk page guidelines:

In addition re: Binondo and Ermita RMs -- these are also outside the scope of WP:MOSPHIL as these are generally informal but well-defined "districts" that is looked upon as one large "barangay". –H T D 14:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

^This. You know I will be reverting your moves on district and barangay article titles later on, Briarfallen. You still don't get what outside the scope of MOSPHIL and what WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE mean. The only way you can have your two-name title for districts and barangays is if you can show us where it is stated in our MOS and also, if you can convince the 8 million New Yorkers to rename Brooklyn, Manhattan and The Bronx.--RioHondo (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious RioHondo? After all what I have written above, you still don't get it? Do you even read what I wrote? And now you are comparing the tiny barangays of Valenzuela to well-known places like Brooklyn, Manhattan or the Bronx. Those are boroughs, not districts or barangays, and they are in the US. We are talking about naming conventions of PHILIPPINE geographic names not the US. And why would you hide your response and DID NOT put in the bottom of this section? Don't you even dare UNDO what I have moved. This is not about yourself or do what you think you believe. PLEASE FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA RULES! DO NOT MAKE YOUR OWN RULES. -- Briarfallen (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, keep your cool and be diplomatic in editing (no need to shout). Second, i quoted HTD's reply in that message. Third, don't tell me what I can or can not do in WP. We follow the WP:BRD process here and I can challenge your every edit. Fourth, you don't WP:OWN Wikipedia. Fifth, it's not cool to single out a user for your campaign. You do know those RMs were carried out and supported by multiple users, including our Wikimedia Philippines President. And lastly, you'll meet your challenger after the holidays when he's not too busy. Happy holidays Mr. Lighthouse--RioHondo (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@RioHondo:, while I broadly agree with your arguments, I would like to request you to stop referring to me as WMPH President (which you've done twice in this discussion) in order to bolster your argument. Here are reasons why it does not help in your cause:

I am no longer the President as of the last Board elections in June 2014.
Wikimedia Philippines has absolutely no say in how Wikipedia policies and conventions work.
It seems you are using the logical fallacy argument from authority. —seav (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of a recent discussion HTD, SkyHarbor and I had on using "well-known RSs." Between an editor and someone who held a position in the national wiki chapter, of course I am siding with the latter, just like i'd use GMA News over UNTV News. Hehe im joking of course. :) sorry if this bothered you, though.--RioHondo (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apologize if you think I am shouting, but I was not. I was merely stressing the point that you would not be following Wikipedia rules as you are threatening my edits. If you're about to do something that is against Wikipedia rules, then I have the right, and would not hesitate, telling you to stop what you're about to do. I am just protecting Wikipedia. Let me point out also those RM's were also dissented by other users but for some reasons, they were still moved in the end. Also, I was not WP:OWNing Wikipedia. Please read WP:OWN again as it is about ownership of articles or categories, which I am not. What I am doing is DEFENDING the basic POLICY of Wikipedia regarding geographic names that "article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists," like those of you who knows these places. There is nothing much to say as I have already said what I have to in the discussions above, that you or whoever else who misused WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:PRIMARYTOPICS, WP:PRECISE or WP:CONCISE as excuses for overstepping WP:MOSPHIL (single name place names are for provinces and cities only in MOSPHIL, not for municipalities or barangays). I hate debating and I have no time for an endless one, and this is getting repetitive. If you still don't think you were wrong, you will never get it.

Can somebody else please say something? HTD?, Sky Harbor?, Seav? Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

New year arbitrary break

My preference for barangay articles is to use the bare <placename> convention (like Baclaran) for barangays that shares no other name with any other topic on Wikipedia or which fits the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC usage. Otherwise (there is ambiguity), then the <barangay name, town/city name> format should be used, and then only adding the province name as a last resort if there is still ambiguity.

Now, I'd like to address some specific points given by User:Briarfallen in the long discussion above:

"It is not easily identifiable whether that place name is a barangay or a town before a province, or is the second name a town or a province, not unless you are familiar with that particular place", "This is the English Wikipedia, and Philippine-related articles should be user-friendly to all readers, not just Filipinos", "How could one determine if it's a barangay or municipality by simply looking at it". Wikipedia does not aim to inform an unfamiliar reader what the article is about through the article title only. The job of informing the unfamiliar reader what the article is about is fulfilled by the article's lead section (WP:LEDE). This applies to all sorts of articles, not just places. Examples:
1. Vaynor Park sounds like a park, but it is actually a house.
2. Extremities, Dirt & Various Repressed Emotions sounds like the title of some creative work, but you can never be sure that it is actually an album title just by looking at the article title.
3. Dyspteris sounds like a disease, but it is actually a moth genus.
4. Ground tyrant. No idea. This is actually a genus of passerine birds.
5. Adavathur West sounds like a person's name (like Kanye West or Adam West), or it could be a place name. It is actually the name of a village in India.
6. Oldeholtpade. No idea what this could be. It is actually a village in the Netherlands.
"There is nothing wrong with the former longer name format, i.e., "Brgy. BARANGAY NAME, TOWN, PROVINCE", and should be the standard as that is how our local government units are divided. That's how our addresses or place name identification came to be in the Philippines because of our geography, population density and history, and uniquely Philippines." Article titles are supposed to provide the name of the topic being discussed, not the address of a place. So the article title should ideally just give the name of the topic (i.e., just <barangay name>) and only adding disambiguators when necessary to distinguish article titles with the same named topics. See the policy on WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE for more information.
"article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists". This is a misreading of the guideline. This statement means that given two different names that both refer to the same topic, Wikipedia should use the term that is more familiar to the general reader than to a specialist. Thus we choose dog instead of Canis lupus familiaris. For barangay names, this is not the case. What you are arguing for instead is to provide greater context so that a reader might now that an article is about a barangay just by looking at the article title. But I have already stated above (first point) that providing context is not the purpose of the article title, but of the article's lead section.
"Again, do not compare Philippines to other countries, as we have three administrative division of local government, the reason for having three names to refer a barangay." India also has a three-level (and sometimes four-level) government and also with comparable history and population density, so we could use it for comparison. Villages in India (sorta equivalent to our barangays) are titled with the bare <placename> format and only adding the higher-level district when disambiguation is necessary. Some examples: Bellamkonda, Bhattiprolu, Nadendla, Dhabi Kalan, Phullan, Abhaypura, Kaduppassery, and Puzhakkal. There are two villages in India with the name Chirakkal and therefore we have the article titles Chirakkal, Thrissur and Chirakkal, Kannur.
Heck we can also use Indonesia as a comparison. Indonesia has a 4-level local government: provinces, regencies/cities, districts, and villages (desa/kelurahan). The Indonesian place name convention states "Where possible, articles on places in Indonesia use <Placename>.". And so we have articles on villages in Indonesia like Meure, Rappang, Larike, Ujung Genteng, and Kersik Tua.

To summarize, we should go with the basic <placename> convention (no matter the level of government) that's adopted by the majority of the countries in the world (the latest to convert is Japan, which leaves only the U.S. as the last major holdout), and that is in line with the article titles policy. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is only a convention/guideline and is not policy, and in fact, most countries' conventions actually better follow the article titles policy compared to alternative conventions. —seav (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey seav, thanks for your well written explanation as always. Ever considered saving this essay of yours so you won't have to write it down again for every time we have a new user asking about our article titles? But anyway, the <placename> title for barangays has been the general consensus here and even users who initially opposed the move have already agreed to a compromise and they are all written in our combined proposal. We just need a few more signatures for this to take effect. Again, we are not violating any policy here as Seav said, so instead of resorting to unilateral moves which would only lead to reverts and edit warring, we encourage everyone to discuss the compromise and help us restore a functioning MOS.--RioHondo (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi seav, thanks for your explanation. Actually, Philippines has four levels of government if you include regions.

"It is not easily identifiable whether that place name is a barangay or a town before a province, or is the second name a town or a province, not unless you are familiar with that particular place", "This is the English Wikipedia, and Philippine-related articles should be user-friendly to all readers, not just Filipinos", "How could one determine if it's a barangay or municipality by simply looking at it". That's not how I wrote it in the very first paragraph of this section. I don't know if it's intentional, but please don't take my explanations out of context as this is improper. This what started me into starting this section seeing place names like Cabilang Baybay, Cavite or Milagrosa, Cavite. Anyone not familiar would think that these are municipalities of Cavite. Why confuse readers with such titles.

You also said that "Wikipedia does not aim to inform an unfamiliar reader what the article is about through the article title only." Why not? Like article titles for other plant or animal species are named by their binomial nomenclature, which tells you what class or order, why not for not so known barangay, municipalities or other places. See WP:PRECISE, instead of using Bothell which is unambiguous, instead Bothell, Washington is used. It is more recognizable as a place names by the names separated by comma. Wikipedia is an educational tool, an encyclopedia. I'll answer some of items you brought up later. I'm sorry, a new job this year has given me lesser time on the computer. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the list I posted above, I provide examples where the unfamiliar reader does not know what the article might be about by just looking at the title. This is the usual practice in Wikipedia and there is no problem with this. So an article title like Baclaran is perfectly fine. There is no need to lengthen it to Baclaran, Parañaque just to be "helpful". Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, do the same thing. If you're not familiar with Indonesian geography, would you know that Palembang is a city in Indonesia? If you're not familiar with Indian geography, would you know that Cuddalore is a city in India? Britannica titles the article as simply "Palembang" and not "Palembang, South Sumatra", and as "Cuddalore" and not "Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu".

Regarding Bothell, you are misinterpreting WP:PRECISE. Remember that the WP:AT policy specifies five criteria for a good article title, of which WP:PRECISE is one of the five:

Recognizability – 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.

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)

Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)

If we were to only follow the precision criteria, then Bothell should be the correct title since it is precise enough. But the U.S. Wikipedia community decided to put more weight on the naturalness and recognizability criteria instead of the precision and conciseness criteria and that is why the article is titled Bothell, Washington. As stated in WP:PRECISE: "... but we instead use Bothell, Washington, seeking a more natural and recognizable title" (emphasis mine). In the U.S., they have journalistic style guides that mandate the addition of the state name when referring to places (except for well-known cities like Los Angeles), and Americans are more accustomed to adding the state name. This is not the case in the Philippines. We call Baclaran as simply Baclaran. Using just Baclaran is recognizable and natural. And in addition, using just Baclaran is also precise enough, as well as concise. So if we are to follow policy, then the article should be at Baclaran and not Baclaran, Parañaque because "Baclaran" is already recognizable, it is natural, it's precise, and concise as well. —seav (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Bothell, Washington exception" only works for towns and cities. And even if it's not an "exception", it still works on every criteria at WP:NC. It doesn't work at all for barangays. –H T D 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely with @Briarfallen: here. I think the principal title of an article should be its full unambiguated name. If there is a need for other abbreviated redirects, then so be it. I think names like Fatima, Bohol or Juagdan are just absurd. The title should indicate <<barangay>>, <<municipality/city>>, <<province>> so Fatima, Ubay, Bohol or Fatima (Ubay, Bohol) and Juagdan, Ubay, Bohol or Juagdan (Ubay, Bohol). There must be a plethora of places called Fatima in Bohol alone, let alone rest of Phils. Using the three-name title instantly alerts the reader of the inconsequentiality of the subject.--10:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple places named Fatima, so disambiguation surely is needed. What if it isn't needed? This isn't like towns which are always disambiguated no matter what. There are a plethora of naming conventions for barangays, and the disambiguated convention is just but one, and isn't even predominantly used. –H T D 10:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"...a plethora of naming conventions..." just about sums it up. Each place could have its own convention (and probably does). I thought we were trying to reach a consensus view here, if possible.--Roger Camotes (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So why insist on using the "<<barangay>>, <<municipality/city>>, <<province>>" convention for barangays? Is barangay 666 in Manila really called "666, Manila" in real life? I always base naming conventions on places on how they're named in a normal conversation. For towns:

A: Where you're from?

B: Guiuan, Eastern Samar.

For barangays:

A: Where are you going?

B: To Zapote.

In normal conversation, barangays are almost never disambiguated. Well, it works that way because context is already clear, unlike towns. –H T D 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, wikidata has Fatima, Ubay, Bohol--Roger Camotes (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking normal conversation, where both parties share common knowledge. We're talking a world gazetteer, where we need precision unrelated to personal ideas ("real life"). And yes, I do think the article should be called Barangay 666, Manila. Where do I live? Now, Sabang; previously, Jimilian; before that Bantigue. I might move to Bolocboloc because I like the name!--Roger Camotes (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Parties share common knowledge precisely because barangays are notable only to those who know them. Naming it as "Barangay 666, Manila" (which is different from your naming convention that would be imposed on all articles) means it is called "Barangay 666, Manila" in real life (compare to "The eye will pass through Guiuan, Eastern Samar", where the town of Guiuan is always called as "Guiuan, Eastern Samar".). It isn't; most probably it's called simply as "Barangay 666". Or perhaps entirely different name, such as "Barangay Beatles". True story, there was a barangay in Sampaloc called "Barangay Bomber", from the barangay captain. I came back there, and it's not called that way anymore, probably because he's no longer the one in charge. –H T D 13:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Camotes:, your argument against the plain barangay name is essentially a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a good reason in discussions like these. To prove your case, you need to state how your proposed barangay article title convention follows the relevant Wikipedia policy, which is the article titles policy. As I argue above, using just Baclaran (by default), instead of Baclaran, Parañaque, better follows the said policy compared to alternate proposals like yours. —seav (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Seav: I agree that {{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] has come into play; I disagree that I'm the one going there. Perhaps you have lost sight of the target – I assume you do know what 'naming convention" actually means. It is a single naming policy regardless of personal knowledge, a single method which can be applied to all cases. Perhaps I should rephrase my idea to be

<<barangay name>> (<<disambiguation>>)

<<disambiguation>> can't be null. Even if there is only one Jagduan in the entire world, the mere fact of calling it Jagduan (Ubay, Bohol alerts a user on the other side of the world of its probable inconsequentiality. I don't see the point of using conversations with the person sitting next to you as some sort of evidence; and I certainly don't see the point either of talking about naming conventions in the plural. Do you mean one naming convention for places you know, and one for those you don't know. I know there are people in the world who would have difficulty even finding Philippines on the map, let alone a remote fly-speck. As far as I see, one thing is the conventional title of the page. Quite other things could be any number of pages with colloquial names which redirect to the conventional name.

If Barangay 666 is not its proper name, then what is?

Alternative, not alternate.

--Roger Camotes (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Camotes:, I am not the one arguing about what is or is not used in conversations. That is the argument of HTD. But his point is that what people use in conversations is evidence that these names meet the recognizability and naturalness criteria of the article titles policy.

Now you insist that “<<disambiguation>> can't be null”. I vehemently disagree. Wikipedia has the practice of not adding any disambiguation if this is not needed. Please look at my examples of villages in India and Indonesia above.

You also have the point about “probable inconsequentiality”. This is not supported by the article titles policy. Wikipedians do not add unnecessary "clues" to the article title especially if it would make the article title overly precise (which is against the precision criterion) and overly verbose (which is against the conciseness criterion).

Again, please try to state how your preferred naming convention meets the article titles policy. So far, I don't see any such evidence. —seav (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said above, the "automatic disambiguation" only works for towns and (less so) cities, as they're universally called as such. For barangays, there's no single method that predominates. –H T D 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

February arbitrary break

@Seav, only a few agree, most disagree with you and your explanation. We are talking about naming conventions for place names not general subjects. For literary subjects or films, titles are italicized (isn't that a clue?), for place names (for the ones not generally known) they are separated by comma (like Bothell), that is the recognizability. But you have your own perspective of viewing things, like recognizability or the precision, but we are talking about place names, not general subjects. I don't care about how other countries do their place name naming conventions, but for the Philippines IMO, the best way for barangays is not "disambiguation only when needed." Please think about the future, remember barangay articles were just recently started, but think about five, ten, twenty years from now. Some barangay names have similar names, some are similar to towns, some have popular saint names found in more than just community, some new ones will be created with the unstoppable population growth, etc... The longer name with <barangay>, <town or City>, <province>, which is the way we identify barangays, is the best naming convention, as it identifies its location, as well as disambiguating it from future articles with similar names. Your explanation that "Wikipedians do not add unnecessary "clues" to the article title" is only your opinion, not others. -- Briarfallen (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing is we don't look for the "best" naming convention but the most predominantly used one. There's no predominantly used naming convention for baragays. It could be "Barangay <barangay>", simply "<barangay>", or "<barangay>, <town/city> (with or without <province>". The danger with "<barangay>, <town/city>, <province>" is that it doesn't always appear as an address. It could appears as a serial list. If ever we're going with the address convention, I'd rather limit it to disambiguations, and without the province name (example: Dumbo, Brooklyn) unless it has to be further disambiguated, pending proof that such convention is indeed predominantly used. –H T D 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Briarfallen, you complain that we shouldn't use our personal opinions but your argument is actually full of your own personal opinions and preferences. My argument is policy-based (the policy being the article titles policy) and on looking on how other geographical articles in Wikipedia are titled, because consistency is one of the 5 criteria for good article titles. Now let me reply point-by-point to your latest response.

(1) you said that "only a few agree, most disagree with you and your explanation". This is blatantly incorrect. Only six people have ever participated in this barangay naming discussion: you, me, HTD, RioHondo, Roger Camotes, and Sky Harbor. Only Roger Camotes completely agrees with you. I am actually agreeing with RioHondo who is the first person that explained the bare barangay name convention in this discussion. HTD is ambivalent and is actually leaning towards my side as can be seen in his response that he'd rather limit adding the town name to disambiguations. Finally, Sky Harbor has not actually given his preference (only chiming in on a separate topic).

(2) You said that "I don't care about how other countries do their place name naming conventions" but you stated before that that "for place names (for the ones not generally known) they are separated by comma (like Bothell)". You saying that you don't care about other countries' conventions is another opinion/preference, and you said that we shouldn't follow mere preferences. And it seems that the only reason you don't want to follow other countries' conventions is because they don't agree with your preference. But I bet that if other countries predominantly follow the comma convention, then you would not hesitate to mention them as part of your argument, just like the way you mention Bothell. And it is not true that most place names in Wikipedia are separated by a comma. I have previously given examples of villages and similar entities in India, Indonesia, and the Netherlands where the comma convention is not used. I will now give tons of other examples:

Country	Example villages, neighborhoods, communes, etc.
France	Lucelle, Saint-Aaron, Goust
Germany	Neidingen, Kleinbirkach, Arresting
Italy	Colla Micheri, Sestriere, San Pietro di Rovereto
Switzerland	Biberbrugg, Diesbach, Rabius
Malaysia	Sungai Bari, Kampung Kasipillay, Janda Baik
Indonesia	Kersik Tua, Rappang, Larike
Thailand	Ban Yaeng, Nong Phra, Hua Ro
Vietnam	Chợ Thủ, Cao Xá, Thổ Hà
China	Nanjie, Paibi, Wukan
India	Baliakheri, Kathiraon, Umaidpur
Mexico	Hidalgo Yalalag, El Rosarito, Ensenada Blanca
Brazil	Emboaca, Savassi, Brooklin Novo

While it's true that following other countries' conventions is my preference, just as you saying the opposite is your own preference, my preference is based on the consistency criterion of the article titles policy. Furthermore, other countries' place-name conventions better follow the article titles policy too (especially with respect to the concision and precision criteria) unlike the comma convention that you prefer. So while my preference is indeed a preference, it is a preference rooted in policy. Is your preference based on policy? I don't think so.

(3) You said that "Your explanation that "Wikipedians do not add unnecessary "clues" to the article title" is only your opinion, not others." This is not just my opinion. Others have stated substantially similar reasons elsewhere. Some examples:

"Use of disambiguation terms is for resolving actual disambiguation, not for providing helpful and useful content in the title. Wikipedia uses article titles simply to tell readers the name of the subject of the article, plus give any necessary disambiguation." —Mattinbgn at Talk:Light Square.
"We don't try to make our topics recognizable from the titles to anyone who is not already familiar with the topic." —Born2cycle at User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation
"The name of the town is "Welland." That one word conveys the name of the town succinctly and comprehensively. Adding ", Ontario" is extra information" —Dohn joe at Talk:Welland

(4) You said that we should "think about the future", but there is no policy on Wikipedia for the so-called "pre-emptive disambiguation", which is the idea that we disambiguate articles just in case future articles will be created. We Wikipedians generally disambiguate only as necessary (and this idea is found in many move request discussions), not because of some future possibility. —seav (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you've been harping about "consistency". Is it intra-country consistency or inter-country consistency? Shouldn't we be taking care of consistency issues amongst all Phiippine-based place articles first instead of aligning them to other countries? Take note that this isn't like... I dunno, stars or flora and fauna which have (mostly) undisputed names everywhere ("Sirius" is "Sirius" in English everywhere). Places from each country are named differently. I see place names as names of people. Spanish speakers elsewhere have accents, Filipinos who have Spanish names don't. Are we going to mass move Filipino names to accented ones? Of course not. That's not how they're spelled. –H T D 14:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If the class of articles in a country follow a naming convention, then they are internally consistent. If that naming convention is also consistent with other countries' naming conventions, then that is an even better state of consistency, don't you think? As for names of people, the general convention we use for biographical articles in any nationality is the WP:COMMONNAME (with some niche exceptions like peerage). So if Filipino names (even if the names are of Spanish language origin) are not commonly accented, then the convention is not to add accents. That's still consistent with Spanish names naming convention to add accents because we follow the same WP:COMMONNAME convention. —seav (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What if other countries' naming conventions are different? What if the naming convention allows for other countries to have their own naming convention? For me, internal consistency is paramount to "external" consistency, would could never be attained in some instances. This is of course, if there is a "consistent way" classes of things/people are named. Are barangays consistently named everywhere? Nope. Are towns and provinces consistently named with some naming convention? Yes. How about cities? Nope.

So yeah, those Spanish names for Filipino people? They're not consistent to Spanish names elsewhere. That's quite clear. –H T D 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

On the topic at hand, we do not have any present naming conventions for barangays, so just settling on a naming convention, whatever that is, would make barangay article titles consistent. Sure we can settle just for that. But I definitely think it would be even better if the naming convention for barangay articles would make them also consistent with other similar articles in other countries. While it's true that there is no universal naming convention for the article titles of villages, neighborhoods, communes, and similar articles, a casual survey of what other countries have done show that the comma convention is not the preferred naming convention for articles that are similar to barangay articles. So to be even more consistent, we should follow that consensus unless there's a compelling reason otherwise (and I haven't seen any).

Going back to people's names, you seem to think that because Spanish names of non-Filipinos are accented and Spanish names of Filipinos are not (usually) accented, then they are inconsistent. I agree that the difference in the application of accents means that there is a difference per se, but I disagree that these make the corresponding article titles inconsistent in the Wikipedia sense of "consistent". The consistency criterion simply states that article titles have to follow a "pattern" aka "convention". For biographical articles, this is WP:NCP. If article titles on Filipino and non-Filipino people follow WP:NCP, then they are, by Wikipedia definition, consistent. —seav (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no naming convention for barangays, because there is none in real life. It's that simple. TBH, any imposition of a "barangay naming convention" by anyone would receive opposition from me, as there is none to speak of. Now, whether that means we'd be sticking to plain old <barangayname> remains to be seen.

As for names of people, well, at least we've settled on consistency as "pattern". At least we're getting honest with the definition of "pattern", as opposed to months ago when someone had a convoluted definition of that word. Now, going to WP:NCP, the only instance "consistent" (or "consistency") shows up is in [[WP:SPNC]: akin changing of a name to a new one. This is not consistency in terms of "patterns" but consistency in terms of "are we sure WP:RS will be consistently be referring him/her with that new name from now on?" It even appears that WP:NCP allows national variations: it's not always "<firstname> <surname>" first, otherwise we'd see monsters such as "Ming Yao" and "Min-ho Kim". So, it appears, after all, that such guidelines allow for national variations, and that whatever's done elsewhere doesn't have to be imposed on anyone else. –H T D 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia is free to have its own naming conventions independent of any real-life naming conventions, whether these real-life conventions exist or not. Case in point: the scientific name is an old and well-established real-life naming convention for organisms. Yet Wikipedia does not use the scientific name as the title for the articles of all organisms (like Philippine eagle). Therefore, even if there is no real-life naming convention for barangays (and I don't quite agree that there is none), Wikipedia can still have a barangay naming convention as long as it has been decided by consensus and follows the article titles policy as much as possible. Note that we are not deciding what the real-life names of the barangays ought to be, we are only deciding what the titles of the Wikipedia articles on those barangays should be. There's a clear difference between these two concepts.

(2) To repeat, Wikipedia's exact definition of consistency is the following:

The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

If we are to carefully analyze the above quoted definition, it says that article titles are consistent if they follow a pattern. Furthermore it says that these patterns are the various naming conventions listed in the stated box on the policy page ("…patterns are listed in the box…"). By logical deduction: (a) consistency = following a pattern; (b) pattern = naming convention; therefore: (c) consistency = following a naming convention. It's that simple.

(3) You seem to think that I have a convoluted definition of "pattern". But my definition is that "pattern" is just another term for "naming convention", as I logically explain in point (2) above. This has been my definition of pattern all along. During the previous 2013—2014 discussion, the first time I ever mentioned "pattern" was to mention it in relation to naming conventions. The second time I mentioned "pattern" was to say, "By definition, making use of a pattern (aka, naming convention) is consistent." And I have used that same definition above: "The consistency criterion simply states that article titles have to follow a "pattern" aka "convention".".

In the previous discussion, you said that your definition of pattern is "it's a strictly defined sequence of things." While that indeed one of the English definitions of the word "pattern", Merriam-Webster provides for other English definitions for "pattern":

a form or model proposed for imitation
something designed or used as a model for making things
a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts

The Wikipedia definition of "pattern" = "naming convention" fits the English definition of "pattern" as quoted above, especially the third one. Naming conventions are systems, are supposed to be discernible and coherent, and explain the relationships of the component parts of an article title. Examples of such relationships is (a) adding disambiguation when necessary, or (b) using "<family name> <given name>".

(4) You do not need to search for the word "consistency" or "consistent" in WP:NCP. As I said in point (2) above, the Wikipedia sense of consistency (as applied to article titles) is that they follow a naming convention. Therefore, as long as the titles of articles on people follow WP:NCP, that is by Wikipedia definition already consistent. —seav (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions are derived from real life naming conventions. You're scientific name example is true: it is used by scientists, and here on Wikipedia by species which don't have common names yet (see 3/4 of the articles in the Cebuano Wikipedia). Of course, it is superseded by common names on species that have one.

Seav, you've already been called out by SmokeyJoe on your (previous?) definition of "pattern" that "defies logic, is plain wrong". "A strictly defined sequence of things" falls under "a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts". If one (okay, "several") article deviate from the pattern for no good reason, it fails the consistency criterion.

Consistency in WP:NCP looks like to be a different thing, because people have different naming customs that won't be consistent at any point in time. We can't use the consistency criterion for names of all persons in the world because they'd never be consistent. We could always try to be consistent per country though, which is how it is being done. –H T D 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Good that you acknowledge that a "discernible coherent system" can be a "pattern". I am not disputing that your "sequence of things" is a "discernible coherent system", but I am arguing that a naming convention is a "discernible coherent system" as well. You and SmokeyJoe say that my definition of "pattern" to mean a naming convention is wrong, but neither of you has logically stated why it is wrong. I have already provided a logical deduction (point (2) above) for my definition based on the Wikipedia definition of consistency as stated in the article titles policy. Neither you nor SmokeyJoe has provided any logical refutation.

Now let's see how this logical definition of "pattern" plays out in other parts of Wikipedia (let's leave aside barangays and people for the moment). Let's take songs by U2 as an example. Looking at Category:U2 songs, we see article titles like Angel of Harlem, Acrobat (song), and Another Day (U2 song). Sure, at first glance these titles do not seem to be consistent because some additionally have "(song)" while others have "(U2 song)". But it just means that you have not yet discerned the actual pattern. The actual pattern in this case is WP:SONGDAB. Let's assume that U2 released a song named "Copernicus". I could create an article titled Copernicus (U2). After all, this title is natural, recognizable, concise, and precise. But it is not consistent with how other U2 song articles are titled. The better title would be Copernicus (song) because that now meets the consistency criterion (while still being natural, recognizable, etc.).

Let's take movies as another example. If someone were to produce a film about Ptolemy named Ptolemy, I could create an article titled Ptolemy (movie). After all, this title is natural, recognizable, concise, and precise. But, again, it is not consistent. The better title would be Ptolemy (film) because that fits the pattern of how movie articles are titled, which is WP:NCFILM. —seav (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Discernible coherent system" is what I've been arguing all along. If the pattern is "ABCABC" (which is "discernible and coherent), then it should "ABCABC" for everyone unless there's some really good for the deviation (such as disambiguation). I dunno how your refutation adds up, TBH. There's almost always going to be an element from a set that would have to be disambiguated. In fact, only disamiguation is the "very good reason" to deviate from the consistency. In other words, there's still an "easily discernible and coherent pattern" only that some others are disambiguated. In your U2 example, it fails the consistency criterion if the titles are "Beautiful Day" and "Track 2 from The Joshua Tree" (assuming "Track 2 from The Joshua Tree" isn't actually called that way).

As for movies. I'd assume there would be people who would want The Simpsons Movie to be named The Simpsons, but since it is almost always automatically disambiguated, it stays there.

Reading your argument on patterns, you said "Puerto Galera" and "San Miguel, Bulacan" form a "pattern". That is preposterous. "Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro" (AB) and "San Miguel, Bulacan" (AB) do have a pattern. "Puerto Galera" (A) and "San Miguel, Bulacan" (AB) do not. This is different to your U2 examples as when you're talking about a hypothetical U2 album called "Copernicus", you'd still call it as "Copernicus", unless a discussion about astronomy crept up. "San Miguel, Bulacan" is equivalent to "The Simpsons Movie" as it is always disambiguated.

Finally, the page you're citing about patterns? It precisely allows topic-specific conventions for article titles. WikiProjects can make their own rules mirroring real life usage. Well of course if there's no clear-cut convention, what should we do? I'm more into applying that in a case by case basis. –H T D 04:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. You still seem hung up on insisting that a "pattern" or a "discernible coherent system" only means a sequence such as "ABCABC". But a naming convention, in and of itself, is still a "discernible coherent system" aka "pattern". "Pattern" does not only mean a sequence. "Pattern" can also be a system where the individual items do not have the same format but the items form a discernible and coherent system.

Let's take the serial killings depicted in the Seven film starring Brad Pitt. The individual murders are not at all the same. One man was force-fed to death, while another man was strapped to a bed and left to die. But there still is a "pattern" aka "discernible coherent system": the murders are taken after the 7 deadly sins (gluttony and sloth for the 2 example murders).

The murders are different, just as "Puerto Galera" and "San Miguel, Bulacan" are different. But they are both consistent with their patterns. The pattern being murders taken after the 7 deadly sins and "<placename>"; or "<placename>, <provincename>" only if disambiguation is required. It's as simple as that.

Again, please try to tell me why a naming convention cannot be a "discernible coherent system". —seav (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A naming convention isn't a pattern, a naming convention may consist of a pattern. "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" means that you'd look for the pattern amongst a set, then make it consistent as far as possible with that set. If the set is "Government of Foo", you're not naming it "Fooian government". A naming convention may not even consider patterns if there are nothing to begin with (such as the different elements for example). To say that "the names of the elements form a pattern, as they are... uhhhh, names of elements!" is stretching it. Well, of course they're names of elements! If element article names are not names of elements, then something's wrong. Now if we're talking about compounds, patterns exist for those, at least for those that don't have common names.

As for your example, the only pattern you'd argue that's the same with the serial killings "murders taken after the 7 deadly sins", is that both articles are "named after places". That's it. Saying that there is a pattern of <placename> (or "<placename>, <provincename>") "only if disambiguation is required" (what if disambiguation is always used?) is not what Wikipedia says. Otherwise, we wouldn't call WP:AT as that but as "WP:PATTERN". –H T D 05:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A naming convention is a pattern. It's a discernible coherent system on how to title a set of articles on Wikipedia. Let's try another example. There are many software design patterns. Examples of such patterns are the abstract factory pattern or the iterator pattern. For the iterator pattern, the C++ language uses memory-based pointers, while the PHP language provides an interface with the foreach operator. These are two different implementations (just like "Puerto Galera" is a different format from "San Miguel, Bulacan"), but the C++ and PHP implementations fall under the same iterator pattern aka "discernible coherent system" (just like "Puerto Galera" and "San Miguel, Bulacan" fall under the same system of "<placename>"; or "<placename>, <provincename>" only if disambiguation is required).

To repeat, "pattern" is not only something like "ABCABC". It can also be a discernible coherent system of applying something over a set of items. A naming convention is obviously a system, and it should be discernible and coherent (or else it is a bad naming convention). Therefore, a (good) naming convention is a pattern. A naming convention is a systematic way of titling a set of articles, just like an iterator pattern is a systematic way of iterating over an array or a collection of items in represented in software.

Again, I am not at all convinced by your arguments that a naming convention cannot itself be a pattern. It's like you saying that the iterator pattern (or any of the other software design patterns) is not pattern. —seav (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To respond to your last point, you said "Otherwise, we wouldn't call WP:AT as that but as WP:PATTERN". Of course this is silly. The article titles policy has 4 other criteria: naturalness, recognizability, conciseness, and precision. Calling WP:AT as WP:PATTERN is silly because it emphasizes the consistency criterion and excludes the other criteria. Therefore WP:AT will never be called WP:PATTERN. —seav (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A pattern isn't intrinsic with an element of a set; it has to be viewed with the rest of the other members of the set it belongs. In other words, "a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts". I'm not well versed on software, so I won't be able to comment if what you're even saying makes any sense. "ABCABC" is discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts, something over a set of items, because A relates to B and to C, B to A and C, and C to A and B. What's not making sense from you deliberately missed out "based on the intended interrelationship of component parts". If one is missing when everyone has one, it's not a pattern. If the pattern is "<Placename> "<Nickname>", the name should be "Los Angeles Lakers", not "Lakers (NBA basketball team)".

As for WP:PATTERN, you said that "pattern" is "naming convention". Ergo, naming convention should be renamed as "pattern", as not that only describes what it is, but it pithy as well. Well of course, as you said, this isn't the case. Becasue it isn't. –H T D 06:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You think that if there is one element missing, then there is no longer a pattern. I disagree. There can still be a pattern as long as there is a discernible and coherent system among the parts even if some parts are missing in some items.

The idea of naming conventions being patterns is also additionally supported by other English definitions of "pattern" such as "a form or model proposed for imitation" or "something designed or used as a model for making things". Naming conventions provide such a model for which titles for a set of articles are to be determined. So naming conventions are patterns. I don't have time to explain software design concepts but software design patterns are frameworks (systems, models, or whatever you want to call them) for applying a conceptual abstract process into concrete software code. In the same way, naming conventions are frameworks for applying rules into actual article titles. So a naming convention like If there is no ambiguity, use ‘<placename>’, otherwise use ‘<placename>, <provincename>’" is a pattern just like the software design iterator pattern is a pattern.

If Wikipedia did not intend naming conventions to be equated to patterns, then it would have said in the definition of the consistency criterion something like "Many of these patterns are described in various naming conventions listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles". But what it actually stated is "Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles". The definition says that there are patterns listed in the box. What is listed in the box? Naming conventions. Ergo, naming conventions are the patterns to which article titles must be consistent with. —seav (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well of course if one element is missing, there is no longer a pattern. I can't believe, can't believe we're debating about this. Of course the pattern no longer exists.

As for your other definitions, this further reinforces my point. If there's a deviation from a model, is it "patterned" from the model? No. You could say it was "modeled", but "patterned"? Nope. I don't have time to take a look if what you're saying about software is true; so I won't comment on those.

Naming conventions are not restricted to patterns. There are naming conventions that don't involve patterns. Such as songs. If they're called "Track <number> Album Released on <Year>" then perhaps we can settle in on a pattern. With that said, those in the list does include patterns. It's just not there are naming conventions that aren't patterns. –H T D 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve this debate. Let's just agree to disagree. I think of naming conventions (which should really be called "article titling conventions") as patterns akin to software design patterns. These are patterns that are not of the "ABCABC" type. Please try to be more open to the idea that patterns can be more than a strict defined sequence of objects. Patterns can also be a loosely-defined sequence with elements that may be missing from some items. For example, in software programming (and some find-and-replace features in various text-editing software) we use regular expressions for pattern matching. A single regular expression is often called a pattern. (One Wiktionary definition for regular expression is "any pattern for text matching or searching […]"). If I have the regular expression .*(?: \((?:U2 )?song\))?, this can be used to match the following strings: "Angel of Harlem", "Acrobat (song)", and "Another Day (U2 song)". In other words, the three article titles on U2 songs all match the pattern that I specified in the above regular expression. They form a pattern. —seav (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also just to address a tangential point you raised earlier (not related to the "pattern" debate). You said that the difference between "Puerto Galera" and "San Miguel, Bulacan" is different from the difference between the U2 song article titles. As I said earlier with regards to barangay names, what we are discussing is not what the names of the barangays are, but rather what the titles of the articles on the barangays should be. Yes, the hypothetical U2 song is named "Copernicus" but the article is titled "Copernicus (song)". We are not discussing what the song is called, but rather what the article title should be. Usually these two match, but many times they do not match because disambiguation is needed, or because the topic has no name at all, as is the case with descriptive titles like Ebola virus cases in the United States. What we are talking about is whether the titles are consistent or not. Titles like Angel of Harlem, Acrobat (song), and Another Day (U2 song) do not have the same sequence (A vs. AC vs. ABC) but they are consistent with a pattern, namely WP:SONGDAB. —seav (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Parenthetical clauses are considered not a part of the title. Independent clauses enclosed (or preceded) by a comma are a part of the title, because that means how they're actually named. "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" is called "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" IRL (also as "Prince William"). "Another Day (U2 song)" isn't called "Another Day [U2] song" but as "Another Day". There's a fundamental difference between the two. There could be a separate "pattern" for the parenthetical clause from the undisambiguated title. Descriptive titles are more affected by consistency because uh, they're descriptive.

This means you could make up patterns for articles with independent clauses enclosed by a comma (or by any other method), as there'd be always two clauses (elements) of the title. You could still do that for parenthetical clauses assuming the actual name is composed of two elements as well. –H T D 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Parenthetical clauses (which are called "parenthetical disambiguators") are considered part of the title, just as natural disambiguators, and comma-separated disambiguators are both considered part of their article titles (or otherwise, these three types of in-title disambiguators wouldn't be specified in the article titles policy but on a separate policy instead). Again, we are not debating on what the song "Another Day" is called, we are debating on what the title of the article on the song should be. Since "Another Day" is ambiguous and there are many songs with that same name, we use "Another Day (U2 song)" as the title of the article on the U2 song. To repeat the difference: the name of the U2 song is "Another Day", while the title of the article on the U2 song is "Another Day (U2 song)" (including the parenthetical disambiguator). Again, while the title format is not the same for the following article titles—Angel of Harlem, Acrobat (song), Another Day (U2 song)—there is still a pattern (aka system of titling the articles), and this pattern is embodied by WP:SONGDAB. —seav (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tambayan PH Article Assessment

Is the article assessment for Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines still active? I'm seeing a lot of un-assessed articles and it seems foreign assessors are also touching the assessment meant for us when it has both un-assessed tags for a different Wikiproject and of ours. Schadow1 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I assess ANY article when I'm bored so I guess it's still semi-active. I don't understand your last statement. Articles may be assessed by different wikiprojects/regional boards. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As an example, an article has been tagged for assessment for both Wikimedia Tambayan Philippines and Wikiproject Mountains. A non-Filipino assesses this article for Wikiproject Mountains but also placed an equal assessment in Wikimedia Tambayan Philippines tag. Is this ok? Schadow1 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that only WikiProject members can assess their respective project articles. Wikipedia: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that Filipinos are the last people you'd want to assess a Filipino article, as they get too subjective. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 12:34, wikitime= 04:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors. Besides, let's see it in an opposite perspective: Should I be banned from editing/assessing non-Philippine articles on the count that I'm Filipino?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just some reminders, there are 2 orthogonal assessments done per WikiProject. First is the importance rating (from Top importance to Low importance). This rating should ideally only be filled in by someone familiar with the WikiProject's assessment guidelines. Second is the class rating (e.g., FA-class). This should be the same across all WikiProjects. A featured article is still a featured article no matter which WikiProject the article falls under. So the answer to the OP is either that's OK or maybe not OK depending on which rating you are talking about. —seav (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And where might these "WikiProject's assessment guidelines" be found, apart from inside someone's head? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 07:33, wikitime= 23:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

here--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Anyone, or were they self-nominated? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 14:46, wikitime= 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(reset indent)Lolz, as if there's power to be had. If adminship isn't a big deal then how much more is editing a talk page? As far as I remember it's a voluntary work to see if anybody wants to work on the assessment drive. There was no nomination process since it's merely clerical work. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I dug this from the archives pertaining to the start of the assessment drive five years ago. Man I feel old. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Goodphil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goodphil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodphil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Barangays – geography

I started this conversation on P199's talk page, but he said to bring it here.

{conversation begin}
== Barangays ==

As a result of @BhlJRama: adding barangay maps to various (Bohol) municipalities, I have started looking at the barangays. So far, I have only looked at Ubay and its barangays (44 of them). My first puzzle is the coordinates on the article pages. It is not at all clear where these came from, but basically they have been there ab initio. The problem is that they do not at all concord with the maps published by NAMRIA. For instance Bongbong has 9°58′32″N 124°27′59″E, but my calculation from the map is 9°56'28"N, 124°27'15"E. It is pointless to try to verify with Google maps, wikimapia, etc., because they basically form a circular reference. My inclination is that in the absence of any other document, to use the values calculated from the NAMRIA maps. Incidentally these are readily available via Topographic Index Map 1:50,000. Unfortunately Ubay is spread over four sheets: 3820-I Alicia, 3821-II Talibon, 3921-III Lapinig Island and 3920-IV Mabini.

My second problem is with the maps themselves produced by BhlJRama. I think their colouring is not at all helpful, and to a large extent, with the lettering on top, contravene WP:CONTRAST. I am also uncertain of any reference points for these maps. I think they would be better as grey-shades or unshaded, with no lettering. Additions can generally be made at rendering stage. It would be relatively easy to develop a set of "location within" maps that way. I have tried contacting the user (3 times) with no response.

I know in the scale of things this is all basically trivial. However my feelings are that if anything is done, it should be done well, with reasonably true output.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 16:31, wikitime= 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: You are raising some valid concerns, and I agree that the accuracy may be questionable. And interestingly, the maps at NAMRIA are also hopelessly outdated! They are based on "aerial photographs taken in 1947-1953 and 1979". Quite frankly, I don't see any purpose for the maps because they add no value or significant info to the article. But I respect the editor's contributions. On the other hand, it may be better to bring this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, because we can try to reach a consensus there whether or not the maps should remain, or what format it should have. BTW, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure before moving sections around. Regards, P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

{conversation end}

Examples: Danao, Bohol
Sikatuna, Bohol

Even though the maps are hopelessly out of date in terms of the built environment, the physical geography hasn't changed – the coastline hasn't noticeably changed in half a century, the settlement is in the same place, albeit bigger. So as a reference datum they serve their purpose.
Regarding the maps themselves, I do share P199's feelings somewhat – the maps don't particularly add to the article; in fact their lurid colours tend to subtract. Nor am I entirely sure of their veracity, in terms of orientation, scale and content. Question is, are they a useful addition, or could they be? My feeling here too is that most barangays are completely lacking notability, and are for the most part too inconsequential even to merit a page of their own. What say you? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 22:05, wikitime= 14:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of all the points raised, the most serious is the veracity of the maps. It is very hard to find reliable and authoritative maps of barangays on-line, so where did this info come from? The NAMRIA maps do not show barangay boundaries, so is this WP:OR? If the accuracy and reliability is questionable or cannot be proven with authoritative sources, the maps should be removed as per WP:VERIFY. And like I already said, they add no value or significant info to the article, and often it just clutters the page. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur. The second point regards the barangay pages themselves – it's not at all clear where their coords came from, since they've been there since pages were created five or more years ago, and the problem nowadays is that Google Maps, Bing Maps, wikimapia, geohack etc. etc. all get their info from each other. Short of visiting each place with a GPS (or is that WP:OR?) the options are either to go back to the physical NAMRIA maps and re-calculate (I wrote myself a helper template for that), or just to ignore. The barangays themselves have zero notability for the most part, and a lot of the content is incorrect or out of date. So a proposal to delete them would get my vote. (Or just merge to e.g. Barangays of Ubay.)
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 17:22, wikitime= 09:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Spot the difference! Or rather, spot the points of similarity!

I also have a big problem with land areas, both on Ubay page itself and on its barangays. Land area on Ubay page says "• Total

335.06 km2 (129.37 sq mi)" but on [Official Bohol website] it says "Total Municipal Land Area : 20,755.00 hectares" (i.e. 207.55 km2).
On San Vicente it claims area is "4,965.8237 hectares, largest barangay in terms of land area in the municipality" which is clearly wrong (apart from the claimed precision of 1 square cm), since visual inspection of a map shows it only half the size of neighbouring Imelda or Biabas. Numbers seem to be based on a 2007 document which in turn relies on a 2002 cadastral survey document issued by DENR, but not online.
I've only looked at this one municipality, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see others with the same sort of gross error. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 21:45, wikitime= 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The area of 335.06 km2 is taken from PSGC/NSCB. When I updated the infoboxes of all LGU's in PH, I used the PSGC/NSCB as primary source. But I did notice that there were issues with some values (see Talk:Lanao del Sur#Area, same issues for Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi) and I noticed that often the relative sizes shown on locator maps don't correspond to the values at PSGC. But in the absence of any other authoritative sources, it will be hard to change this. So yes, it may be best to remove the barangay maps because there is no way to verify its accuracy. As for scrapping barangay articles itself, that is a different discussion and harder to justify. That would be similar to scrapping boroughs of New York for example. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I contacted Efren Saz, the originator of the oft-quoted report, to see if he could shed any light. This is his response

I remember i cited three numbers because this is a common problem of LGUs depending on the source. There is a tendency for LGUs to increase the area because of the internal revenue allocation (IRA) share which is partly based on area.I have no way of veryfying these data. I just cited them from some documents i got from the LGU. The problem is there is no way to verify data such as land area of municipalities because there is no actual measurement but estimates. Given the latest tools available using mapping technologies I think such data can already be computed. Should Ubay engage in land use planning using GIS, I think the chance of getting more accurate data is greater. for now, we have to be content with secondary sources and having no way to select which is more accurate I decided to cite the other available stats. To be strict about it, NAMRIA's is the official one. I am sorry you are not able to access the source mentioned but with more diligence maybe you can dig it out from some corner of the municipio. I don't recall exactly where i got this document.
— Efren B. Saz, Visayas State University

I don't think a barangay with a population less than 1000 really equates to a borough of New York, which probably has more residents than that in a single building.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 18:53, wikitime= 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Anybody would like to promote Hinatuan Enchanted River for DYK?

Anybody would like to promote Hinatuan Enchanted River for DYK? Please do so here Template:Did you know nominations/Hinatuan Enchanted River Schadow1 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Art project

I have detected this student project. Please encourage them to announce themselves properly. The information already on the page may even provide a clue to their identity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

From the list, I incidentally just figured out that the Philippines is the only English-speaking country that were not a former British colony (except for for a brief military occupation 1762-64). This criterion is a fact but no one has ever came up with it before, so it might be considered as original research. If if it's not, think we can add it somewhere? ༆ (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What about other former Territories of the United States like Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or Palau? Or Liberia? Eritrea? Then there are parts of India that were never governed by the British. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The recent bubble tea scandal.

Already added some fluff about it on the List of food contamination incidents article, but is anyone up to writing up an article about it? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, just did this stub as an initial contribution; I'm sure someone would be willing to add some more info and whatnot. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble but I think this article may not pass WP:NOTNEWS--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like I jumped the gun then. If this remains to be another one of those run of the mill news stories I might as well just redirect it to the contamination incidents article. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines article

Two issues over at the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines article. Some additional editors' comments would be helpful. See Talk:Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines for details. In brief, first, I have had to remove for the third time copyrighted material that User:Raabbustamante has inserted. I am aware the three is the magic number of WP:Edit War. However, I do not know what else to do. Can I just leave the material there? Second, should the article's controversy section contain only controversies involving the Conference? There have been controversies involving some Philippine Catholic bishops but not the institution of Conference. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the only time they did this. See the history section of Korina Sanchez. I've reverted the mass deletion and focus on a Controversy section on that page pending an explanation on their part. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone report for 3RR violation please? I don't think we're having a good conversation here if all the editor does is revert.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Or better yet have it locked down for a while so we can come up with a better consensus. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Before locking down, the page should be reverted to the January 20, 2015‎ version[1], before the copyrighted material was added by User:Raabbustamante. It was the removal of that copyrighted material which began the nearly week-long reverts by Raabbustamante against any and all edits, regardless of what the edits were. (Raabbustamante has even reverted simple moves of information from one section to the other.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You can tell the implementing admin for that.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations are a whole different matter. If there's a section that is entirely copy-pasted from another website, use {{copypaste | url=insert URL here, if known}}. –H T D 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Are citations to other wikis considered inappropriate in Wikipedia even if it is a reliable wiki?

I have been trying to place information regarding Digital Humanitarian in Typhoon Hagupit (2014) which is the same as in Typhoon Haiyan but is being constantly deleted. The information came from Openstreetmap Wiki which by the way, wikipedia is using on most of its coordinates linking but is still claiming they are not reliable. Is this the case? Isn't WP:PSTS using WP:Common already sufficient? Philippine Adventurer (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This Leonard Co article also has the same issue. But this one is using citations from Schadow1's mapping resource site and is being removed eventhough the information is obviously factual. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't use other Wikis as citations. –H T D 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Other wikis are not reliable sources, see WP:RS and WP:QS. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HTD and P199. Would an Openstreetmap Wiki be reliable as it is being backed by email correspondence and media and other reliable sources? An example would be the humanitarian activation in Typhoon Ruby? Philippine Adventurer (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Using other Wikis is like using Wikipedia itself. It's not allowed because editorial control is too loose (anybody can edit/approve edits). You can try other sources if you have those. –H T D 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable wiki. User-generated content is automatically considered unreliable per WP:RS, regardless of its source. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

From WP:UGC in WP:IRS: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Allied Freedom Fighters

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Allied Freedom Fighters. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism notice

FYI, I reverted vandalism by an IP editor at the article History of the Philippines (1965–86). Other edits might be made to insert the attempted breakaway unrecognized nation of Bangsamoro Republik elsewhere into Philippine related articles. Please keep your eyes open.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Archaeology-related articles (possible school project)

Could someone please take a look at this and see if it is viable? Many thanks.

User:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site (now at Draft:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article. Just make sure there's no overlap between that and Prehistory of Laguna (province) which was initially created under Archaeology of Pila, Laguna. If it's possible to merge the two to make it more comprehensive, please do so. Btw, i notice a sudden proliferation of topics related to archaeology and prehistories of places in the Philippines. I wonder if this is the work of the same group or some wikiproject?--RioHondo (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I will stay out of this. I just posted here to let you all know. Please take any action you wish. All the best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User pages are not allowed to look like articles, see WP:FAKEARTICLE. Moreover, there is also Archaeology of Pinagbayanan, which seems to be very similar. Someone is really pushing to get this info on WP. All 3 articles are created within days of each other by all new users. Sock puppets? This is a mess that requires cleaning up, preferably by TNT. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm seeing potential overlaps and redundancies too between Archaeology of Pampanga and Archaeology of Porac, Pampanga. Appreciate if someone with knowledge on the topic can help us eliminate those duplicates.--RioHondo (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith here. Before suggesting that the accounts are socks, we ought to consider that they may be students working on assignments together.

Also, User:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site could be considered a draft, and not a fake article. I will tag it or maybe move it to AFC.

I will write to the users and ask what is going on.

Here is a list of known articles and drafts:

Here is a list of related users:

Dcurios (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
TwanoRai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sang basilio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Archaeo2group5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Group4 Archaeo 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DiscoveringArchaeology (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ricardopablo.deleon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Feel free to add to the lists above.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Update

I just moved User:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site to Draft:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site.

I just posted at the 5 users' talk pages inviting them to join this discussion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. They may be a group of students working on assignments on the same subject. I just hope they work together and collaborate so they don't end up creating identical articles. We need someone who can consolidate those related articles, preferrably having only one prehistory/archaeology topic per province (i.e, there's no need for separate articles on the province (Laguna), the municipality (Pila, Laguna), and the village in that municipality (Pinagbayanan).--RioHondo (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably students because User:DiscoveringArchaeology's userpage says "We are: Group No. 5, Archaeo 2, THY - 1, AY 2014-2015". Well, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines' has a link with "PUPians Primed for AY 2014-2015" and when I search "Group4 Archaeo 2" at Wikipedia, I get this user, who worked on Philippines articles in 2014. I do not consider this outing because the userpage actually says "We are...." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The need and appropriateness of this thread

Is listing the articles useful? I was trying to be helpful, but they do not communicate with us. I'm starting to think that listing the users here is inappropriate? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please vote in this year's WMF Board election!

Hi everybody. You are all encouraged to vote in this year's Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, where three seats are up for election. The Foundation is hoping to see increased turnout from the developing world, so hopefully Filipino Wikipedians will go out and vote. You should see banners around Wikipedia encouraging you to vote—if you haven't yet, please do so! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(P.S.: I am running in the election, but please vote with your conscience as to who you think is worthy of your vote.)

Done. Congrats for making the cut in this board election, eventhough I hardly know what wikimedia does or what it's for. You deserved it though. Good luck from SSC Samahan.--RioHondo (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No celebrating yet until I actually win a seat—until then, let's hope for the best and I hope you'll help get other Filipino Wikipedians to vote! ;) (Also, crash course: the Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit that runs Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done voting. Good luck to all the candidates, especially to Sky Harbor :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations in advance for winning at the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. --Filipinayzd (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Valeriano Weyler, 1st Duke of Rubí listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Valeriano Weyler, 1st Duke of Rubí to be moved to Valeriano Weyler. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fernando Primo de Rivera, 1st Marquis of Estella listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fernando Primo de Rivera, 1st Marquis of Estella to be moved to Fernando Primo de Rivera. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Trap (2015 film) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Trap (2015 film) to be moved to Taklub. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to comment on Draft:Shell tools in the Philippines, Draft:Philippine prehistoric beads and Draft:Philippine Jade Artifacts? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

National Museum of the Philippines Fixing it

Noting that the National Museum is considered as the most recognized cultural institution and repository of fine arts in the Philippines, I wish that the article be fixed by the community accordingly following the example of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the National Museum of Singapore as an example. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Dementia_(2014_film)#Cast

Can we please fill in the red links? Bearian (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Althea Vega was deleted a couple of weeks ago. Bing Loyzaga and Yul Servo are almost certainly notable though. –H T D 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mega Manila and Greater Manila Area

Has anyone seen the recent urban planning documents published by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in collaboration with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)? This 2014 transport document discusses the expanding metropolitan area surrounding Metro Manila and coins two new terms for them:

1. Mega Manila — composed of Metro Manila and surrounding provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Cavite.

2. Greater Capital Region (Philippines) — composed of Metro Manila and surrounding regions of Central Luzon (Region III) and Calabarzon (Region IV-A).

As these are official government documents, I believe we have to base our articles on them. It's time we update the Mega Manila and Greater Manila Area articles and get rid of those loose and ambiguous definitions from old PIA and unreliable media sources that had included even remote Mindoro, Marinduque and Romblon as part of it which is just impossible based on the definition of a metropolitan area alone.--RioHondo (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mega Manila" could mean differently to whoever is defining it. The smallest definition of Mega Manila, which is Metro Manila+provinces that border it has been used by TV ratings agencies for the longest time. PIA has its own definition. NEDA has its own. I suppose other agencies such as the DPWH and BIR have their other definitions as well. I suppose the best definition would be the one given by Congress but I don't know of any law that defines it.

Also, I found it cute you pipelinked to "Greater Capital Region (Philippines)" to "Greater Manila Area", a term which I can't find a real definition from anyone for the longest time. –H T D 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I just linked "Greater Capital Region (Philippines)" to "Greater Manila Area" as I thought that is a close match to the NEDA definition and that it could be a common name for it. But anyway, would you agree that the NEDA definitions are the most reliable among all of those and that those are the ones that we should use in those articles as NEDA is primarily the agency responsible for defining all the other metropolitan area plans there are in the Philippines? Regarding the "Mega Manila" media market, shouldn't this be discussed in the Media of the Philippines article instead, so that we can focus on the metropolitan areas per se in the two articles? Btw, we can place the GCR article under its own title, and Greater Manila Area can just redirect to it. Or we can forget about Greater Manila Area and create a "Greater Manila" article instead, discussing the city created by President Quezon during World War II. (That is so far the only legit definition of Greater Manila I found). Appreciate your inputs though. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no "most reliable" definition, exepct, as I had said above, a definition of Congress. For example, I suppose most of us knows what "Region IX" is: Zamboanga Peninsula. However, if you ask judges, "Region IX" or the "Ninth Judicial Region" is different: it consists of the Zamboanga provinces, plus Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Who are we to say that the Supreme Court is unreliable (well, except maybe if a case didn't go your way).

For the longest time, the term Mega Manila (and its various definitions) has been used for matters about the media: TV, radio, even newspapers. If the term "Mega Manila" would be used on a sphere other than media, I guess it's safe to add it to that article. It's the equivalent of the "Lingayen-Lucena corridor" for elections (only a matter of time before someone uses that term on a totally unrelated field).

The PDF file you linked to didn't classify Mega Manila and the GCR as "metropolitan areas", but as "study areas". Now, I dunno if whether this definition would be used by NEDA only for this "study" or for anything else that they'll conduct in the future, but I'll caution on labeling Mega Manila and the GCR as anything else other than "study areas for this specific study". I also liked the fact on how the map merged Rizal and Laguna, and Quezon was renamed into Laguna.

Either way, the definitions of NEDA aren't exactly new. As I mentioned earlier, the GCR is the PIA-defined Mega Manila minus MIMAROPA, Mega Manila is the media-defined Mega Manila, and Metro Manila is Metro Manila as defined by Marcos. They probably just came up with new names. –H T D 17:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Now as for "Greater Manila Area" or GMA, I suppose that term must be quite well known by people, unlike, say just "Greater Manila". "Greater Manila" maybe defined by Quezon, but I don't think it's the same as GMA. –H T D 17:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HTD that the "Mega Manila" or the "Greater Capital Region" in the paper is not meant to officially define these terms but are just convenience terms used for the purposes the NEDA-JICA study. And I don't think GCR is necessarily equivalent to GMA.

Anyway, I like that the paper used TheCoffee's PNR map and attributed it to Wikimedia Commons. I also think that this paper can be used as a source for a lot of our articles. It's full of data! —seav (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, we need pushpin maps for Metro Manila+bordering provinces definition of Mega Manila as transportation would disperse population in a few decades. Our current Metro Manila pushpin map is deficient as it is too zoomed in. –H T D 01:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

UST Wikipedia project on PH fine artists

Heads up on another education Wikipedia project that I think comes from UST that seems to be having some trouble. See the project page for a list of participating user accounts and articles. I will try to find and contact the instructor because it seems the students have not been properly briefed about Wikipedia policies. Maybe Wikimedia Philippines can provide offline guidance. —seav (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be wise to send e-mails (using Special:EmailUser) to some of the students? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help with a persistent anon user

This anonymous user (using 2 IP addresses so far for the past day) keeps insisting that cities like Ozamiz are Independent Component Cities when they are not. Please see Special:Contributions/49.147.188.77 and Special:Contributions/49.146.211.255. I have already left messages on the IP's talk page and I don't want to have to violate WP:3RR even though there may be a possible case that I'm reverting vandalism, which is a 3RR exception. —seav (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I noticed too. I'm already keeping an eye out for it. And yes, I would argue that inserting factually wrong info is vandalism, especially after a warning. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Moro Crater massacre merger discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo#Merge proposal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Negros Island Region

I feel bad for this generation of students, how many regions and provinces they have to memorize for their Hekasi classes. Just today, a new region has been announced.1 Anyway, that gives us more work too. I think we have to completely redraw the regional maps, update the labels for Negros Island Region and Panay Island Region, and rewrite many of our articles pertaining to Western Visayas. Malacañang just doesn't quit, eh? And we haven't even completely recovered from Davao Occidental. And then we draw and rewrite again for Nueva Camarines and Bangsamoro Region the following year. #FunPH never ends. :/--RioHondo (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a fundamental question first: Do we merge the articles on the island and the region? If we are to go by the logic I expressed in my essay, the answer is yes. —seav (talk)

Oooh! I hadn't thought about that. But you're right, the region proclaimed through the executive order is almost coterminous with the island itself. My only worry is, if in the future, Siquijor decides to join that region, being closer geographically, economically and historically to Negros and Negros Oriental in particular. But what matters is the present so you have my support on the merge. The only question is under what AT shall we merge them to? Negros (island), Negros Island Region or Negros (island region). Cos at present, WP:MOSPHIL doesn't say anything about island-regions. Shall we go with the official name? Or the common name of simply Negros(add disambiguator here). Cos that works for the NCR you know, the only exception to the official naming of regions.--RioHondo (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Negros (island region) quite appealing. But looking at Negros, I think there's a case into making the island-region the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —seav (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good. Will count on you to request the necessary changes. Let's keep this region short just like Caraga. You have my support.--RioHondo (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the proper course is to first merge the two articles (both repeat the same history text, too!). Afterwards, we can discuss the renaming of articles. I'll start a merge discussion on Talk:Negros (island). —seav (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

What happens if either of these happen: NIR is dissolved, NIR is renamed or provinces are added making it no longer coextensive with the island? –H T D 04:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple: We update/split to reflect the new reality. —seav (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So, if I'm getting things right, Negros would be moved to NIR, then would be reverted back if it's renamed? Or NIR remains to be a separate article? –H T D 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

shouldnt it be NIR instead of Negros island, if siquijor joins? Raabbustamante (talk)

Anything about the region should be NIR even if Siquijor doesn't sign up; everything about the island, including the region, should be on Negros. I believe natural landforms that are "roughly" coextensive with a manmade unit should only be on one article if the manmade unit is has a full government: having executive and legislative branches (judiciary is treated differently in local governments). If this was an autonomous region with a regional governor and assembly perhaps I could consider.

One more factor is that regions are much more liquid, or are easier to modify, than LGUs, so we'd be updating, merging and de-merging masses of articles on every change. –H T D 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers of Philippines articles could benefit from geocoding

The category Category:Philippines articles missing geocoordinate data now contains over 2000 articles that appear to be eligible for geotagging, but have not been geotagged. I'd greatly appreciate any help that members of this project could give to adding these coordinates. For help in how the geotagging system works, please see Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geographical coordinates. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Moro related articles

Has anyone noticed current editing regarding Moro related articles recently?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Page suggestion to the article about Philippines (link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines)

11:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Imperator Livius Ceasar (talk)Dear Editors of Tambayan Philippines ,

Greetings

Can I suggest in your excellent page to add additional info about our country about the Spanish name of the Philippines , La Republica de Filipinas or Filipinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines . Due to the reason that Philippines is a hispanic country like Mexico,Argentina,Chile,Cuba it's once called as the Spanish East Indies and we cannot deny the fact that a very big part of our history cannot stand without Spainish legacy . Thank You

TBH I don't really see the benefit of adding non-English official names since it won't help the English speaker. I could probably make an exception on "official languages", of which Spanish isn't.... –H T D 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PhilWiki Community User Group

May we invite you to join the Community. Please sign up if you would like to be part of this new User Group. Thank you. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Barangay Ginebra reference at the Ipomoea aquatica article

Hi. Just want to get your opinion about this, especially to those who are following the Philippine Basketball Association. A user added the "kangkong" reference at the Ipomoea aquatica article, which is a bit "offensive" to Ginebra fans. There's already an incident that one editor tried to remove it but was blocked due to edit-warring. We all know how PBA fans, Ginebra fans in particular are very passionate with their teams and any derogatory terms against them will be removed whatever it takes. Do you think that Barangay Ginebra reference should stay there? -WayKurat (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's from a legit source then why not. We shouldn't censor if it offends other people... –H T D 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the entry. Sourced data is sourced data and Wikipedia isn't censored. I assume good faith that this entry is simply demonstrating a use for the term. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)