This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Tambayan Philippines Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
Why? This runs counter to normal disambiguation practice (where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence) and similar examples in other countries ( Osaka, Limerick and so on). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
in the case of a province sharing the same name with a municipality) makes it clear that we aren't talking about cases where the COMMONNAMEs are already disambiguated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposing a change in the "historical figures" section, which currently says "names of historical figures (roughly those who were alive during Spanish rule) should generally follow Spanish conventions". I recommend creating a subsection "Spanish Colonial period" and rephrasing that "names of historical figures who lived during Spanish Colonial Period". Or maybe we could just rephrase it. The proposal of a new subsection makes room for a later subsection for historical figures who lived during the Philippine protohistoric period. - Alternativity ( talk)
We need to change this: "A municipality should be suffixed by the name of the province in which it's located." — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*My POV: Using comma convention and province name (or should I say, recognized administrative division name) has been the norm for articles of incorporated settlements in USA, Japan, and Australia. Nevertheless, in most other countries, articles of incorporated settlements with unique toponyms drop their comma convention, be it famous, noteworthy, or not. Using the current discussion (as of 03/21/2020) at
Talk:Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands, here are some examples: Canada's
Thorold and
Pitt Meadows (whose population is on par with most of our municipalities), Algeria's commune
Tindouf, France's commune
Casteljaloux, Italy's commune
Isernia, Greece's municipality
Ioannina, Poland's town
Pisz, South Korea's town
Pyeonghae, Thailand's thesaban's (municipalities)
Phetchaburi and
Loei, Zambia's city
Solwezi, Ireland's
Drogheda, Germany's
Lörrach, Spain's
Écija, et cetera.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
"the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name"although this is not mass-enforced but generally applies to new articles only. In short, basically it is only U.S. place names that have a really (fanatically) strong preference for the comma convention. I suggest we adopt what almost all other countries have adopted: no comma convention. — seav ( talk) 10:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*Just to add, while doing my hobby in reading maps I took note of Kelafo in Ethiopia. One on the
World Almanac's 2001 edition map courtesy of
MapQuest and the other on a Xerox-copy of a
Hammond Map, labelled "Callafo." On Wikipedia the article title for this town is just
Kelafo, not "Kelafo, Ethiopia," and not even "Kelafo, Somali Region." Neither do "Kelafo, Gode Zone, Somali Region" nor "Kelafo, Gode Zone."
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*@
Seav: @
RioHondo: before I retire tonight hehe :-) I would like to add a commune in France that is least populated - with only 1 people (?, or person) -
Rochefourchat. Yet it doesn't follow comma convention, despite the fact that France's recognized administrative divisions are département's. Using logic and reasoning, should we strictly follow comma principle as the
WP:CONSISTENCY states, then Rochefourchat should not be Rochefourchat but "Rochefourchat, Drôme" or "Rochefourchat, France," and a fellow commune in the same département,
Donzère must have been "Donzère, Drôme" or "Donzère, France." Comparing France and the United States, France has >35K such incorporated settlements, more than USA's approx. 30 K such types. (Ref's -
Communes in France and
Political divisions of the United States) Yet French communes enshrine <CITYNAME> only for its uniquely-named communes. One more example:
Bezonvaux. The depopulated but still official commune or town, it must have been entitled "Bezonvaux, Meuse," which is not in the current case and status.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:::@
SmokeyJoe: this is the reason why in my original point of view I approve <CITYNAME> format for ALL uniquely-named municipalities EXCEPT the likes of
San Marcelino, Zambales and
Santa Praxedes, Cagayan (and possibly
Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan and
Sultan Dumalondong, Lanao del Sur) before @
Seav: gave us examples of Spanish communes, which I believe are highly obscure and should be under comma format towns under <CITYNAME> only -
Santo Adriano,
San Sadurniño,
San Asensio,
San Torcuato and others. In fact, if I have
high boldness and courage I would request page moves for these Spanish towns to <CITYNAME, ADMIN NAME> or <CITYNAME, SPAIN> format since they are not really unique, exempli gratia:
San Asensio, La Rioja or
San Asensio, Spain. Nevertheless I don't know if Spain has their own MOS or do Europe or EU, and if I did try to argue there I might be reported which will result from me
being blocked.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 05:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
* With "boldness," my common denominator now as of March 31, 2020: Mostly support but with some exceptions. Cases are as follows:
Is this a unanimous decision? What are we waiting for? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
*Question to @
RioHondo: in this case, have we attained enough consensus to officially revise / update the MOS? I got caught on the hook regarding my requested move at
Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, because according to
P199 this MOSPHIL discussion is still considered ongoing and not done. Despite bold page moves done by both @
Seav: (exempli gratia:
Gigaquit amd
Kabacan) and @
Carl PH 1995: (exempli gratia:
Calubian and
Mapanas), P199 asserted that no new requested moves (and assuming the meaning of P199's 2nd reply, bold page moves) are to be made on all remaining uniquely-named municipalities.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 23:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@
RioHondo: I have changed my mind. After a semibreak during the
Lenten season, I have come up a opinion section that, I hope, will ease the senior users' decision making on consensus.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
* NOW: After pondering on what must be the most stable form of
article title for municipality with unqiue names, and obtaining POV of my parents and friends, real life and online alike (although this is not valid but somehow reflects to
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:Recognizability), I hereby change vote to: OPPOSE <citynam> only.
Consistency and
WP:Recognizability weighs above
Conciseness.
Article title, and consequently the links in ALL articles that would directly link to a particular article, should and must represent the actual content, and should speak of the subject automatically. I now regret of having made such requests as
Talk:Cagdianao and
Talk:Polomolok, without realizing the potential huge impact to the readers. And in practice we Filipinos always insert provincename, which is in favor of
WP:NATURAL. I might be familiar with
all of 1,634 incorporated settlement-type LGU's in our country, but how about other readers? <citynam> only violates
WP:Recognizability. There's no guarantee that anyone "should" click the link to know what
Nabunturan is, or hover over the link for a preview above this link -
Corcuera - to determine if it is a Philippine municipality or what. Using <cityname, division name> complies with
WP:COMMONNAME. Now I cancelled my request move for
Bocaue, Bulacan, but I regret having made
Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands and
Polomolok, South Cotabato moved to their inconsistent, not recognizable titles, and making untoward "
bold" moves for articles like
Tungawan and
Marilao 😞 Even I made a mess by conducting page moves at Tagalog Wikipedia 😭 It's my fault for performing copycat page moves in Tagalog Wikipedia in favor of unofficial format for uniquely-named municipalities' Wikipedia titles in English and Waray Wikipedias. Unofficial because these had no official backing.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The five golden rules are Recognizability, Precision, Conciseness, Naturalness,and Consistency. (ref. Wikipedia:Article titles)
This will be my final and eternal stand. And IMO, many of the uniquely-named incorporated settlements that I gave as examples last month violate
WP:Recognizability. I don't know what
Pitt Meadows is, nor do
Loei, which is better at "Loei, Thailand." I'll leave to other editors to make major modifications on placenames of other countries.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"(emphasis mine). To give an example, nobody who is not familiar with Star Wars will recognize what the article title Jakku is all about. Is it a place in India? Is it an animal? Is it a musical instrument? Who knows? We do not title the article as Jakku (fictional planet) or Jakku (Star Wars) or even just Jakku (planet), but simply as Jakku because no other subject has the same name. It is not the job of the article title to introduce the article subject; that job is the responsibility of the article's lead section (see MOS:LEAD) and the the article's short description (see WP:SHORTDESC). So, if you are a foreigner (or even a Filipino) who is not familiar with places in Romblon, you are not expected to recognize what Corcuera is about. However, people from Romblon or nearby provinces should recognize what Corcuera is about because they are familiar with it. This is the essence of the recognizability criterion of the article titles policy.
"...in the town of Polomolok, South Cotabato province..."but afterwards it only mentions just
"Polomolok"by itself in the rest of the article. Why? Because the context has already been established and therefore there is no longer any need to add the province name repeatedly. That is, once you have already established context, it is already generally "natural" to just mention the town's name by itself. In the second news article, the journalist doesn't even use the comma convention to establish context (
"...in Polomolok town of South Cotabato") and also just uses
"Polomolok"by itself in the rest of the article. To reiterate my argument in my previous paragraph in a different way, it is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description. — seav ( talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
"ILOILO"as the article's first word to establish context (and this is the standard format for news articles), all mentions of
"Igbaras"in the article (including the news article's title itself!) doesn't append the province name to the town name. — seav ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Seav: sorry Seav. I was losing my patience on waiting for a true and firm consensus to happen, most esp. that this discussion has started more than a month ago. I got caught up in Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, in which I decided to cancel page move request to <cityname> only. I have placed {{ Discouraged}} on my user page since I'm losing my enthusiasm. I might leave the decision on achieving consensus to you and others. I will only decide on page moves for other uniquely-named municipalities in enwiki if the consensus has been made (hopefully sooner than later) and Mosphil guideline has been revised. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hope this section should aid for senior admins to decide on consensus. I based the idea on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive34, but I hope this centralized discussion will be final and not causing a 4th discussion in the near or known future.
Repinging those who replied here before - @ Seav, RioHondo, Born2cycle, HueMan1, P199, Emperork, Crouch, Swale, and SmokeyJoe: - to air their thoughts on the opinion poll here. My user image is getting tarnished in the increasing manner, as days, weeks, and months pass by. I won't vote here from now on, and I'll involve on page move requests after a firm and true consensus has achieved. Thanks and sorry to everyone. 😞 JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Seav,
RioHondo,
P199, and
HueMan1: another evidence of the community's support - at least gradually - to the usage of <cityname> only for uniquely-named municipalities. Through my casual visiting of
Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU, and for some reason (maybe pure coincidence or having a deep meaning?) I chose to go to section #22 - "Article names for Philippine cities: <cityname> <city>" and at subsection "Request for page moves," I visited
Talk:Bacolod#Requested_move (I removed "City" for convenience should all visit this link for reference). I immediately saw the basis of @
JinJian: for their proposal to move Bacolod City to
Bacolod, which was accepted and the city's article moved accordingly. To quote the highlighted part (CTTO: JinJian) _ "Capital cities/municipalities with the same name with that of another local non-capital city/municipality. The capital city or municipality need not have the provincial name attached to it since it is the preferred primary topic; while the non-capital municipality/city should include the provincial name." It might signify that "only capital municipalities" can be moved to <cityname> omitting provincial disambiguation, but this is one early instance of the community's acceptance to the <cityname> convention for
municipalities with unique names, albeit gradually (in cases of capital municipalities). This was in 2010. And the evidence of the community's gradual support for non-capital municipalities with unique names: successful pagemove requests for
Dingalan,
Vintar, and recently,
Cagdianao. Plus also unchallenged, bold page moves like
Dasol by @
Exec8: and
Barotac Nuevo by @
Hariboneagle927: _
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC) -- changed my stand _
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I started this subsection of the discussion @ HueMan1: started more or less three months ago, because the above parent section has been marred by my reckless flip-flops. From using globally-recognized de facto form ("cityname" only) to strict comma convention then back to the de facto norm with reservations. Coupled with the fiasco at barangay article issue, I then decided (without thinking twice) to go on a "semi-retirement," although after encouragements from some other users (you can see those in my talk page), I chose to not retire. And after a long break and restoration of some energy, I am now ready to reiterate my original stand, suggestions, and some reservations.
First of all, I strongly support the use of <cityname> on all municipalities with totally unique names, but use comma convention for those not unique and those causing ambiguity to readers. (I will elaborate my suggestions relevant to this part below) Reasons include:
In addition, I will quote sir @ Seav:'s position on the true essense of article titles: "It is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description." The title, according to him, gives emphasis to what the article is all about.
Through this position and Seav's POV on our fondness to add province name on municipalities including unique ones, "As I argue many times over the past decade, the practice of adding the province name is a result of writing mailing addresses and also because it is a quick way to give context to readers where the town is especially if the reader is outside or far from the province," I reinstate my full support on using cityname only for all uniquely-named municipalities.
Again, using selected settlement-type LGU's of other countries as global examples and models:
Even though there's a de facto (or apparent consensus) based on the discussion, it is still not yet closed, technically. This contrasts greatly to
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?. Here, the consensus stating the removal of prefecture names for uniquely-named Japanese cities and towns is sealed with finality. This finality and closure is indicated by the purple blue box enclosing the entire thread with small grey box on top-right, which I presume is a "final and official judgment by a senior Wikipedian."
There is no such boxes enclosing this thread that indicates the recognition of senior Wikipedian/s to the revised convention for municipalities.
I was warned by @ P199: before at Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, to not initiate move requests for uniquely-named municipalities (or even conduct bold moves) while this discussion is still open. Saw also P199's warning at Talk:Sagada and Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar.
A notice box at the top of MOSPHIL indicates "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Maybe exceptions may apply, but that's for cases like Manila vs. Zamboanga City and Davao City (I just read Talk:Zamboanga City#Requested move and Talk:Davao City/Archive 1#Requested move last night (PST). Unlike the municipalities section, which obliges (using should wording) Wikipedians to format titles of all municipalities' articles under <cityname>, <provincename> format.
These suggestions come from my interaction with User:Seav. I felt it's more appropriate to divulge these here:
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
Where disambiguation is required:
- Bulakan, Bulacan (municipalities having same or similar-sounding names to other toponyms in the Philippines)
- Pateros, Metro Manila (municipalities having the same toponyms as those in the other countries)
- San Policarpo, Eastern Samar (municipalities bearing ambiguous toponyms)
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Arteche; Pasuquin - municipalities having unique toponyms.
- Doña Remedios Trinidad - municipalities named after people whose articles (or future articles) are not expected to be titled as such.
- Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak - municipalities named after non-notable people.
Where disambiguation is required:
- Claveria, Masbate; Pateros, Metro Manila - municipalities having the same toponyms as those in the Philippines and in the other countries)
- Bulakan, Bulacan; Romblon, Romblon - municipalities having same spelling or similar-sounding names to other toponyms in the Philippines.
- Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte; San Policarpo, Eastern Samar - municipalities titled after the saints.
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Case/Group 1: Arteche; Mambajao; Pasuquin
- Case/Group 2: Doña Remedios Trinidad; Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak
Where disambiguation is required:
- Case/Group 1: Claveria, Masbate; Pateros, Metro Manila; Tuburan, Basilan
- Case/Group 2: Bulakan, Bulacan; Leyte, Leyte; Romblon, Romblon
- Case/Group 3: Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte; San Policarpo, Eastern Samar; Santa Monica, Surigao del Norte
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Case/Group 1: Arteche; Mambajao; Pasuquin
- Case/Group 2: Doña Remedios Trinidad; Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak
Where disambiguation is required:
- Case/Group 1: Mabini, Davao de Oro; Pateros, Metro Manila; San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur
- Case/Group 2: Bulakan, Bulacan; Leyte, Leyte; Romblon, Romblon
My principal reasons for the case of Bulakan, Bulacan not meeting this cityname only convention:
To add the ambiguity, our very own COVID-19 tracker uses "Bulacan" instead of "Bulakan" as the municipality's name, despite the fact that it is jointly managed by the Bulacan Provincial Health Office and the Bulacan State University! This means the ordinance is not obligatory. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipality-name]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. In that case, article titles follow the [[Municipality-name, Province]] format.
Speaking of "revisiting," since most of us are trapped inside our homes due to the threat of COVID-19, I think we should discuss the notability of barangays (again...😅😂) and add some guidelines about it here. Stay safe everyone. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I am the deletionist. Screw me. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that I'm being quoted here (2x now already), I will go on record that I still agree with my standpoint of 2014. If there is nothing significant about a barangay, it doesn't need an article. And even if there is a little bit of significant info, why not just merge it into the municipality article? To created 42k stub articles for each barangay just because they exist isn't helpful to WP. But I will not actively seek to get them deleted (even though I'm a deletionist too) because of WP:NGEO. I would suggest to just be bold and up-merge ones that are meaningless stubs. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@ JWilz12345 are you okay? What's with all this moving articles back and forth? The mere fact that i didnt do anything to resurrect those articles means i let it pass and thats water under the bridge now. And having seen for myself how lousy indeed some of those Navotas barangay articles are just now lol (sorry, if you only coursed them individually through the proper processes we could have discussed the merits of each one without having to upset each other) i now agree to settle. If a barangay article is no more than the basic stats (location/population/area/officeholders) and not more than three lines containing the above, you can redirect them to the City or Municipality article. PROVIDED that those are all that can be sourced after you've carried out your WP:BEFORE duties as a responsible editor of WPH community. However, I still wont agree to a blanket rule that all barangays are not notable and therefore need to be deleted. They are all still notable by default as per our N guideline. And as i said in that earlier discussion, we need to revisit this practice of creating these "List of barangays in LGU" articles because those can easily be added to every City or Municipality article (if they arent already). Like area, population, density and maybe names of officials, these could easily be placed in a table under the geography or administritative units subsection of each LGU article like how our province articles display these stats for each of their component LGUs. Articles like Quezon City also carry a few lines of description for their barangays or districts so if these are all that can be written in those barangay list articles, i suggest that they be added back to the main City/Municipality article. At least now you know these processes, it's okay to be WP:BOLD once in a while, but at least inform the community of what you plan to do, if not through AfD, at least in the talk page or the talk page of its main article that will be affected. Many of the articles ive written here are in this geography and politics department, so i was just trying to protect my babies LOL. Check out Don Bosco, Parañaque, Tambo, Parañaque and other barangay articles i created for Paranaque. Would you delete them too? LOL. I know you wont. Cheer up. :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@
RioHondo: I'm sorry. I always made numerous mistakes here, to the point that I'd wish to retire, but I decided not to with the help of encouragements from some other users (at may talkpage). I will let the deletion discussion
Talk:Barangays of Navotas push through naturally. I will also let other editors think of notability of barangays. I just got carried by habitual tags at the top of the articles of Navotas barangay, claiming that these do not meet notability, and a PROD deletion made to the articles of Bagumbayan North and South and Bangculasi. Nevertheless I will let other editors decide on the matter of barangays' notability. Again, I apologize and hope we will get in good terms from this point on.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
On inclusion of barangays, I'm leaning towards half-support if they are newsworthy. Now I feel that
South Triangle, Quezon City deserves an article due to recent issues lately. On
Taliptip, Bulakan, this is due to the controversial
New Manila International Airport. Any barangays that come into news lately might warrant notability. On title formats, I oppose <placename> only, rather with comma and settlement name. For example: "
Taliptip, Bulakan" or "
Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna"
Canlubang, Calamba (since there is no Canlubang in Calamba of Misamis Occidental) But I will respect the eventual verdict by other editors.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Tambayan Philippines Project‑class | |||||||
|
|
Why? This runs counter to normal disambiguation practice (where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence) and similar examples in other countries ( Osaka, Limerick and so on). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
in the case of a province sharing the same name with a municipality) makes it clear that we aren't talking about cases where the COMMONNAMEs are already disambiguated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposing a change in the "historical figures" section, which currently says "names of historical figures (roughly those who were alive during Spanish rule) should generally follow Spanish conventions". I recommend creating a subsection "Spanish Colonial period" and rephrasing that "names of historical figures who lived during Spanish Colonial Period". Or maybe we could just rephrase it. The proposal of a new subsection makes room for a later subsection for historical figures who lived during the Philippine protohistoric period. - Alternativity ( talk)
We need to change this: "A municipality should be suffixed by the name of the province in which it's located." — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 07:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*My POV: Using comma convention and province name (or should I say, recognized administrative division name) has been the norm for articles of incorporated settlements in USA, Japan, and Australia. Nevertheless, in most other countries, articles of incorporated settlements with unique toponyms drop their comma convention, be it famous, noteworthy, or not. Using the current discussion (as of 03/21/2020) at
Talk:Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands, here are some examples: Canada's
Thorold and
Pitt Meadows (whose population is on par with most of our municipalities), Algeria's commune
Tindouf, France's commune
Casteljaloux, Italy's commune
Isernia, Greece's municipality
Ioannina, Poland's town
Pisz, South Korea's town
Pyeonghae, Thailand's thesaban's (municipalities)
Phetchaburi and
Loei, Zambia's city
Solwezi, Ireland's
Drogheda, Germany's
Lörrach, Spain's
Écija, et cetera.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
"the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name"although this is not mass-enforced but generally applies to new articles only. In short, basically it is only U.S. place names that have a really (fanatically) strong preference for the comma convention. I suggest we adopt what almost all other countries have adopted: no comma convention. — seav ( talk) 10:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*Just to add, while doing my hobby in reading maps I took note of Kelafo in Ethiopia. One on the
World Almanac's 2001 edition map courtesy of
MapQuest and the other on a Xerox-copy of a
Hammond Map, labelled "Callafo." On Wikipedia the article title for this town is just
Kelafo, not "Kelafo, Ethiopia," and not even "Kelafo, Somali Region." Neither do "Kelafo, Gode Zone, Somali Region" nor "Kelafo, Gode Zone."
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
*@
Seav: @
RioHondo: before I retire tonight hehe :-) I would like to add a commune in France that is least populated - with only 1 people (?, or person) -
Rochefourchat. Yet it doesn't follow comma convention, despite the fact that France's recognized administrative divisions are département's. Using logic and reasoning, should we strictly follow comma principle as the
WP:CONSISTENCY states, then Rochefourchat should not be Rochefourchat but "Rochefourchat, Drôme" or "Rochefourchat, France," and a fellow commune in the same département,
Donzère must have been "Donzère, Drôme" or "Donzère, France." Comparing France and the United States, France has >35K such incorporated settlements, more than USA's approx. 30 K such types. (Ref's -
Communes in France and
Political divisions of the United States) Yet French communes enshrine <CITYNAME> only for its uniquely-named communes. One more example:
Bezonvaux. The depopulated but still official commune or town, it must have been entitled "Bezonvaux, Meuse," which is not in the current case and status.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:::@
SmokeyJoe: this is the reason why in my original point of view I approve <CITYNAME> format for ALL uniquely-named municipalities EXCEPT the likes of
San Marcelino, Zambales and
Santa Praxedes, Cagayan (and possibly
Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan and
Sultan Dumalondong, Lanao del Sur) before @
Seav: gave us examples of Spanish communes, which I believe are highly obscure and should be under comma format towns under <CITYNAME> only -
Santo Adriano,
San Sadurniño,
San Asensio,
San Torcuato and others. In fact, if I have
high boldness and courage I would request page moves for these Spanish towns to <CITYNAME, ADMIN NAME> or <CITYNAME, SPAIN> format since they are not really unique, exempli gratia:
San Asensio, La Rioja or
San Asensio, Spain. Nevertheless I don't know if Spain has their own MOS or do Europe or EU, and if I did try to argue there I might be reported which will result from me
being blocked.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 05:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
* With "boldness," my common denominator now as of March 31, 2020: Mostly support but with some exceptions. Cases are as follows:
Is this a unanimous decision? What are we waiting for? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
*Question to @
RioHondo: in this case, have we attained enough consensus to officially revise / update the MOS? I got caught on the hook regarding my requested move at
Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, because according to
P199 this MOSPHIL discussion is still considered ongoing and not done. Despite bold page moves done by both @
Seav: (exempli gratia:
Gigaquit amd
Kabacan) and @
Carl PH 1995: (exempli gratia:
Calubian and
Mapanas), P199 asserted that no new requested moves (and assuming the meaning of P199's 2nd reply, bold page moves) are to be made on all remaining uniquely-named municipalities.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 23:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@
RioHondo: I have changed my mind. After a semibreak during the
Lenten season, I have come up a opinion section that, I hope, will ease the senior users' decision making on consensus.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
* NOW: After pondering on what must be the most stable form of
article title for municipality with unqiue names, and obtaining POV of my parents and friends, real life and online alike (although this is not valid but somehow reflects to
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:Recognizability), I hereby change vote to: OPPOSE <citynam> only.
Consistency and
WP:Recognizability weighs above
Conciseness.
Article title, and consequently the links in ALL articles that would directly link to a particular article, should and must represent the actual content, and should speak of the subject automatically. I now regret of having made such requests as
Talk:Cagdianao and
Talk:Polomolok, without realizing the potential huge impact to the readers. And in practice we Filipinos always insert provincename, which is in favor of
WP:NATURAL. I might be familiar with
all of 1,634 incorporated settlement-type LGU's in our country, but how about other readers? <citynam> only violates
WP:Recognizability. There's no guarantee that anyone "should" click the link to know what
Nabunturan is, or hover over the link for a preview above this link -
Corcuera - to determine if it is a Philippine municipality or what. Using <cityname, division name> complies with
WP:COMMONNAME. Now I cancelled my request move for
Bocaue, Bulacan, but I regret having made
Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands and
Polomolok, South Cotabato moved to their inconsistent, not recognizable titles, and making untoward "
bold" moves for articles like
Tungawan and
Marilao 😞 Even I made a mess by conducting page moves at Tagalog Wikipedia 😭 It's my fault for performing copycat page moves in Tagalog Wikipedia in favor of unofficial format for uniquely-named municipalities' Wikipedia titles in English and Waray Wikipedias. Unofficial because these had no official backing.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The five golden rules are Recognizability, Precision, Conciseness, Naturalness,and Consistency. (ref. Wikipedia:Article titles)
This will be my final and eternal stand. And IMO, many of the uniquely-named incorporated settlements that I gave as examples last month violate
WP:Recognizability. I don't know what
Pitt Meadows is, nor do
Loei, which is better at "Loei, Thailand." I'll leave to other editors to make major modifications on placenames of other countries.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"(emphasis mine). To give an example, nobody who is not familiar with Star Wars will recognize what the article title Jakku is all about. Is it a place in India? Is it an animal? Is it a musical instrument? Who knows? We do not title the article as Jakku (fictional planet) or Jakku (Star Wars) or even just Jakku (planet), but simply as Jakku because no other subject has the same name. It is not the job of the article title to introduce the article subject; that job is the responsibility of the article's lead section (see MOS:LEAD) and the the article's short description (see WP:SHORTDESC). So, if you are a foreigner (or even a Filipino) who is not familiar with places in Romblon, you are not expected to recognize what Corcuera is about. However, people from Romblon or nearby provinces should recognize what Corcuera is about because they are familiar with it. This is the essence of the recognizability criterion of the article titles policy.
"...in the town of Polomolok, South Cotabato province..."but afterwards it only mentions just
"Polomolok"by itself in the rest of the article. Why? Because the context has already been established and therefore there is no longer any need to add the province name repeatedly. That is, once you have already established context, it is already generally "natural" to just mention the town's name by itself. In the second news article, the journalist doesn't even use the comma convention to establish context (
"...in Polomolok town of South Cotabato") and also just uses
"Polomolok"by itself in the rest of the article. To reiterate my argument in my previous paragraph in a different way, it is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description. — seav ( talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
"ILOILO"as the article's first word to establish context (and this is the standard format for news articles), all mentions of
"Igbaras"in the article (including the news article's title itself!) doesn't append the province name to the town name. — seav ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Seav: sorry Seav. I was losing my patience on waiting for a true and firm consensus to happen, most esp. that this discussion has started more than a month ago. I got caught up in Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, in which I decided to cancel page move request to <cityname> only. I have placed {{ Discouraged}} on my user page since I'm losing my enthusiasm. I might leave the decision on achieving consensus to you and others. I will only decide on page moves for other uniquely-named municipalities in enwiki if the consensus has been made (hopefully sooner than later) and Mosphil guideline has been revised. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hope this section should aid for senior admins to decide on consensus. I based the idea on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive34, but I hope this centralized discussion will be final and not causing a 4th discussion in the near or known future.
Repinging those who replied here before - @ Seav, RioHondo, Born2cycle, HueMan1, P199, Emperork, Crouch, Swale, and SmokeyJoe: - to air their thoughts on the opinion poll here. My user image is getting tarnished in the increasing manner, as days, weeks, and months pass by. I won't vote here from now on, and I'll involve on page move requests after a firm and true consensus has achieved. Thanks and sorry to everyone. 😞 JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Seav,
RioHondo,
P199, and
HueMan1: another evidence of the community's support - at least gradually - to the usage of <cityname> only for uniquely-named municipalities. Through my casual visiting of
Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU, and for some reason (maybe pure coincidence or having a deep meaning?) I chose to go to section #22 - "Article names for Philippine cities: <cityname> <city>" and at subsection "Request for page moves," I visited
Talk:Bacolod#Requested_move (I removed "City" for convenience should all visit this link for reference). I immediately saw the basis of @
JinJian: for their proposal to move Bacolod City to
Bacolod, which was accepted and the city's article moved accordingly. To quote the highlighted part (CTTO: JinJian) _ "Capital cities/municipalities with the same name with that of another local non-capital city/municipality. The capital city or municipality need not have the provincial name attached to it since it is the preferred primary topic; while the non-capital municipality/city should include the provincial name." It might signify that "only capital municipalities" can be moved to <cityname> omitting provincial disambiguation, but this is one early instance of the community's acceptance to the <cityname> convention for
municipalities with unique names, albeit gradually (in cases of capital municipalities). This was in 2010. And the evidence of the community's gradual support for non-capital municipalities with unique names: successful pagemove requests for
Dingalan,
Vintar, and recently,
Cagdianao. Plus also unchallenged, bold page moves like
Dasol by @
Exec8: and
Barotac Nuevo by @
Hariboneagle927: _
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC) -- changed my stand _
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I started this subsection of the discussion @ HueMan1: started more or less three months ago, because the above parent section has been marred by my reckless flip-flops. From using globally-recognized de facto form ("cityname" only) to strict comma convention then back to the de facto norm with reservations. Coupled with the fiasco at barangay article issue, I then decided (without thinking twice) to go on a "semi-retirement," although after encouragements from some other users (you can see those in my talk page), I chose to not retire. And after a long break and restoration of some energy, I am now ready to reiterate my original stand, suggestions, and some reservations.
First of all, I strongly support the use of <cityname> on all municipalities with totally unique names, but use comma convention for those not unique and those causing ambiguity to readers. (I will elaborate my suggestions relevant to this part below) Reasons include:
In addition, I will quote sir @ Seav:'s position on the true essense of article titles: "It is not the responsibility of article's title to give context; that job is the responsibility of the lead section and the short description." The title, according to him, gives emphasis to what the article is all about.
Through this position and Seav's POV on our fondness to add province name on municipalities including unique ones, "As I argue many times over the past decade, the practice of adding the province name is a result of writing mailing addresses and also because it is a quick way to give context to readers where the town is especially if the reader is outside or far from the province," I reinstate my full support on using cityname only for all uniquely-named municipalities.
Again, using selected settlement-type LGU's of other countries as global examples and models:
Even though there's a de facto (or apparent consensus) based on the discussion, it is still not yet closed, technically. This contrasts greatly to
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?. Here, the consensus stating the removal of prefecture names for uniquely-named Japanese cities and towns is sealed with finality. This finality and closure is indicated by the purple blue box enclosing the entire thread with small grey box on top-right, which I presume is a "final and official judgment by a senior Wikipedian."
There is no such boxes enclosing this thread that indicates the recognition of senior Wikipedian/s to the revised convention for municipalities.
I was warned by @ P199: before at Talk:Bocaue, Bulacan, to not initiate move requests for uniquely-named municipalities (or even conduct bold moves) while this discussion is still open. Saw also P199's warning at Talk:Sagada and Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar.
A notice box at the top of MOSPHIL indicates "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Maybe exceptions may apply, but that's for cases like Manila vs. Zamboanga City and Davao City (I just read Talk:Zamboanga City#Requested move and Talk:Davao City/Archive 1#Requested move last night (PST). Unlike the municipalities section, which obliges (using should wording) Wikipedians to format titles of all municipalities' articles under <cityname>, <provincename> format.
These suggestions come from my interaction with User:Seav. I felt it's more appropriate to divulge these here:
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
Where disambiguation is required:
- Bulakan, Bulacan (municipalities having same or similar-sounding names to other toponyms in the Philippines)
- Pateros, Metro Manila (municipalities having the same toponyms as those in the other countries)
- San Policarpo, Eastern Samar (municipalities bearing ambiguous toponyms)
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Arteche; Pasuquin - municipalities having unique toponyms.
- Doña Remedios Trinidad - municipalities named after people whose articles (or future articles) are not expected to be titled as such.
- Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak - municipalities named after non-notable people.
Where disambiguation is required:
- Claveria, Masbate; Pateros, Metro Manila - municipalities having the same toponyms as those in the Philippines and in the other countries)
- Bulakan, Bulacan; Romblon, Romblon - municipalities having same spelling or similar-sounding names to other toponyms in the Philippines.
- Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte; San Policarpo, Eastern Samar - municipalities titled after the saints.
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Case/Group 1: Arteche; Mambajao; Pasuquin
- Case/Group 2: Doña Remedios Trinidad; Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak
Where disambiguation is required:
- Case/Group 1: Claveria, Masbate; Pateros, Metro Manila; Tuburan, Basilan
- Case/Group 2: Bulakan, Bulacan; Leyte, Leyte; Romblon, Romblon
- Case/Group 3: Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte; San Policarpo, Eastern Samar; Santa Monica, Surigao del Norte
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipalityname]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. Examples:
- Case/Group 1: Arteche; Mambajao; Pasuquin
- Case/Group 2: Doña Remedios Trinidad; Hadji Panglima Tahil; Shariff Aguak
Where disambiguation is required:
- Case/Group 1: Mabini, Davao de Oro; Pateros, Metro Manila; San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur
- Case/Group 2: Bulakan, Bulacan; Leyte, Leyte; Romblon, Romblon
My principal reasons for the case of Bulakan, Bulacan not meeting this cityname only convention:
To add the ambiguity, our very own COVID-19 tracker uses "Bulacan" instead of "Bulakan" as the municipality's name, despite the fact that it is jointly managed by the Bulacan Provincial Health Office and the Bulacan State University! This means the ordinance is not obligatory. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As a general rule, article titles of municipalities follow the [[Municipality-name]] format, without the name of the province, unless a disambiguation is needed or is necessary. In that case, article titles follow the [[Municipality-name, Province]] format.
Speaking of "revisiting," since most of us are trapped inside our homes due to the threat of COVID-19, I think we should discuss the notability of barangays (again...😅😂) and add some guidelines about it here. Stay safe everyone. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I am the deletionist. Screw me. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that I'm being quoted here (2x now already), I will go on record that I still agree with my standpoint of 2014. If there is nothing significant about a barangay, it doesn't need an article. And even if there is a little bit of significant info, why not just merge it into the municipality article? To created 42k stub articles for each barangay just because they exist isn't helpful to WP. But I will not actively seek to get them deleted (even though I'm a deletionist too) because of WP:NGEO. I would suggest to just be bold and up-merge ones that are meaningless stubs. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@ JWilz12345 are you okay? What's with all this moving articles back and forth? The mere fact that i didnt do anything to resurrect those articles means i let it pass and thats water under the bridge now. And having seen for myself how lousy indeed some of those Navotas barangay articles are just now lol (sorry, if you only coursed them individually through the proper processes we could have discussed the merits of each one without having to upset each other) i now agree to settle. If a barangay article is no more than the basic stats (location/population/area/officeholders) and not more than three lines containing the above, you can redirect them to the City or Municipality article. PROVIDED that those are all that can be sourced after you've carried out your WP:BEFORE duties as a responsible editor of WPH community. However, I still wont agree to a blanket rule that all barangays are not notable and therefore need to be deleted. They are all still notable by default as per our N guideline. And as i said in that earlier discussion, we need to revisit this practice of creating these "List of barangays in LGU" articles because those can easily be added to every City or Municipality article (if they arent already). Like area, population, density and maybe names of officials, these could easily be placed in a table under the geography or administritative units subsection of each LGU article like how our province articles display these stats for each of their component LGUs. Articles like Quezon City also carry a few lines of description for their barangays or districts so if these are all that can be written in those barangay list articles, i suggest that they be added back to the main City/Municipality article. At least now you know these processes, it's okay to be WP:BOLD once in a while, but at least inform the community of what you plan to do, if not through AfD, at least in the talk page or the talk page of its main article that will be affected. Many of the articles ive written here are in this geography and politics department, so i was just trying to protect my babies LOL. Check out Don Bosco, Parañaque, Tambo, Parañaque and other barangay articles i created for Paranaque. Would you delete them too? LOL. I know you wont. Cheer up. :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 17:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@
RioHondo: I'm sorry. I always made numerous mistakes here, to the point that I'd wish to retire, but I decided not to with the help of encouragements from some other users (at may talkpage). I will let the deletion discussion
Talk:Barangays of Navotas push through naturally. I will also let other editors think of notability of barangays. I just got carried by habitual tags at the top of the articles of Navotas barangay, claiming that these do not meet notability, and a PROD deletion made to the articles of Bagumbayan North and South and Bangculasi. Nevertheless I will let other editors decide on the matter of barangays' notability. Again, I apologize and hope we will get in good terms from this point on.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
On inclusion of barangays, I'm leaning towards half-support if they are newsworthy. Now I feel that
South Triangle, Quezon City deserves an article due to recent issues lately. On
Taliptip, Bulakan, this is due to the controversial
New Manila International Airport. Any barangays that come into news lately might warrant notability. On title formats, I oppose <placename> only, rather with comma and settlement name. For example: "
Taliptip, Bulakan" or "
Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna"
Canlubang, Calamba (since there is no Canlubang in Calamba of Misamis Occidental) But I will respect the eventual verdict by other editors.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 08:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)