Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU

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

Naming conventions[edit]

Re: Naming of cities, saints. We can follow the names used in PSGC as it is considered standard by the NSO. I would like to site examples from Laguna [1]: Calamba is named City of Calamba and Sta. Cruz is named Santa Cruz. Alternate forms can become redirects. - Bluemask 14:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: saints, I agree that Sta. and Sto. be Santa and Santo instead and I've done that for the lists of municipalities in the provincial articles. The problem lies with cities: Should we use the official name, the semi-official name or the popular name? To cite examples in Metro Manila:
 Official Name (PSGC)      Semi-official Name     Popular Name
 City of Manila            City of Manila         Manila
 Quezon City               Quezon City            Quezon City
 Pasay City                Pasay City             Pasay City
 Kalookan City             Caloocan City          Caloocan
 City of Makati            Makati City            Makati
 City of Malabon           Malabon City           Malabon
I tend to go with the semi-official choices. I pretty much don't think all articles should be titled with the official names of the article's subject (e.g., Philippines vs. Republic of the Philippines), but I find using Makati too colloquial, while City of Makati is too formal. Thus we have Makati City. --seav 14:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I vote for Popular Name then. And to include the formal name on the article perhaps? Bluemask 14:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

My personal opinion is to go with what broadsheet newspapers and traditional encyclopedias use. And I think we are doing that right now. (In terms of consistency, this method is not consistent, but I never place too much emphasis on consistency in naming articles.) --seav 21:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a followup, I prefer New York City to be under New York City (which it is as of February 3, 2005), instead of New York, New York (see all the relevant discussions at the talk page). --seav 21:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

City/Municipality template[edit]

How about a template for cities/municipalities? Should it follow the sectioning of the province template? I've been working on Valencia, Negros Oriental and followed the province template closely. TheCoffee 07:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's about time we create a wiki template for the infobox of cities and municipalities. This should of course be modeled after the province template: (Template:Infobox Philippine province and Template:Infobox Philippine province (with note)). --seav 13:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I found this site (in Chinese, for some reason) that has information apparently from the 2000 census. Perhaps I could make a program to parse this information and generate stub articles for all the cities/municipalities, as I made for the towns in Negros Oriental (see Amlan, Negros Oriental). The Philippines' own Rambot. :) TheCoffee 07:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Think you can do that? Hehehe. I think the information they have was taken from the National Statistical Coordination Board's Philippine Standard Geographic Code. I use that as my primary source for the information on the provinces. --seav 13:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked that site but it didn't seem to have any information about the populations of cities/municipalities. Though it does have their barangays, and that will be helpful... Anyway, I could generate pages for all the cities/municipalities, but I don't want to act until we have a standard format for them. I wouldn't want to have to go back and change everything after it's all been added. Here are a few questions that need to be answered...
  1. Should we have an infobox? And if so, what should be in it? The Rambot articles don't have any infobox. I'm not sure if it's necessary - or preferable - since we don't have all the information like population density, area, or city seals.
  2. Blank sections? The province articles have blank sections for culture, economy, history, etc. They encourage people to contribute, and help keep the articles consistent with future edits. But with all the small towns that we have, a vast majority of those sections are likely to stay placeholders for years. Or forever. :/
  3. Locator maps? I made a few very simple locator maps for the Negros Oriental towns, following this format, but the ones that you made look better. :)
I still haven't been able to find a good site with statistics like area, or other census information. With the standardized information that's available, I can just make a page that looks like this. TheCoffee 18:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think cities, at least, should have an infobox. Let's deal with municipalities later. About sectioning, I'm not sure we should standardize at the moment. I suggest we improve Manila, Makati City, Legazpi City, and Cebu City first (perhaps standardize the sections?) and use that as a guide in dealing with other cities. As for locator maps, I can probably do locator maps once a week. The only problem I have is getting a nice base graphic to base the internal borders from. I already have locator maps for Cavite, Rizal, Cebu, Albay, and Metro Manila. I can reformat Negros Oriental to follow the others, if you don't mind. :) I got the internal borders for Cavite and Rizal from their websites and Cebu from Mapcentral very painfully. --seav 22:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So that's how you made those maps... nice work. :) I definitely do not mind you reformatting the maps I made (and perhaps I could help with that if I can perfectly follow your style). As for the internal boarders, I don't know any easy solution aside from hoping to get lucky with Google Image search. :/ Anyway, do you think you can standardize a city/municipality format? I'm looking forward to generating 1000+ pages. :) TheCoffee 12:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we should build a consensus first. I don't know enough about cities to know which sections are common and which are not. That's why I suggested the cities above to serve as standard-forming guinea pigs (I think we should also include obscure cities like Isabela City to add variety). :) --seav 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a Template:Infobox_Philippine_city and deployed it in Cebu City and Marikina City. It's based on some of the templates (made by you, I think) that I saw on some cities. What say you? I'm not sure about including "Founded" and "Cityhood" in the infobox... perhaps not all cities have a date/year of foundation. TheCoffee 11:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Most places have a year of foundation. It should be part of that place's history. Nevertheless, we can always leave it blank and hopefully the MediaWiki template syntax can have if-empty-then fields or something. --seav 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tourist attractions[edit]

Is tourist attractions part of the province page format? A lot of the provinces don't seem to have that section. TheCoffee 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. But I guess a better section title would be Highlights. That way, we can place everything notable about the province that are not only tourist attractions and that don't fit in other sections (like People and Culture).
Yeah, "Highlights" would be a better title. How about I sweep through the province articles and add a "Highlights" placeholder section to them (and rename "Tourist attractions" if applicable)? TheCoffee 10:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation[edit]

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

Project directory[edit]

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

Bohol[edit]

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

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

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

Project banner[edit]

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

Military History task force[edit]

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

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

Department of Public Services[edit]

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

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

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

Or it could be the other way around. Articles on some municipalities and cities are first created here on WP than they had their own websites. --bluemask (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just some examples of municipalities in the Bukidnon province, where WP-articles or parts of them are identical to official LGU-webpages. In all cases the respective content of the municipality webpages is older than the articles in Wikipedia:

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

Incubator[edit]

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

Population of Local Government Units[edit]

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

Philippine LGU Project Reloaded[edit]

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

The project will involve two phases:

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

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

Philippine Municipalities Map by User:Ieph[edit]

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

Nicely done! Finally we have a very detailed comprehensive Philippine map! -- Felipe Aira 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect for the 2010 general election, especially for the presidency. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
w00t. --Howard the Duck 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some errors that should be fixed such as municipal and regional boundaries. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that's true there are many errors, especially the boundaries. Notice how Novaleta, Cavite is not shown in the map, and also 4 municipalities in Abra appear as one! That is why I am to focus the next days starting now on making a new municipality map of the PH from scratch, wish me luck! -- Felipe Aira 10:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, Don't forget the many new municipalities in the ARMM Region and the Sulu Islands. Magalhães (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with Abra. I guess this will take me a month to make. -- Felipe Aira 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if it is one click (flood) per municipality. Here are some errors: Connecting lines Camarines Sur- connect Garchitorena and Quinalasag Island (closest); Caramoan and Lahuy Island (closest), Albay - disconnect San Miguel Island (northest) from the island group and connect it to Tabaco City; disconnect Cagraray Island (second) from Batan and Rapu-Rapu islands; Missing municipalities Camarines Sur - Canaman, Camaligan, and Milaor; Albay - Polangui, Ligao, and Guinobatan, Boundaries - not quite accurate (e.g. Daraga-Legazpi City, etc.) --Filipinayzd (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Love it. --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case new maps will be published, please upload it in Wikimedia Commons and give the best license on it. --Exec8 (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Filipinayzd, response on your question that you left at my tl talk page: Yes I am using a special software, it's Inkscape. It's pretty much a free (although less powerful) version of the ever popular Photoshop. -- Felipe Aira 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nice and excellent map but I have noticed some errors, you include Palawan into Region IV-B that supposedly Palawan must be included in Region VI.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Palawan is currently in limbo between Regions IV-B and VI. EO429 moved it from region IV-B to region VI, but AO129 directed that the implementation of EO429 be held in abeyance. See info and supporting cites in the Palawan article for details. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Maps needed[edit]

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

Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan municipal maps need to be redrawn.

New Municipalities in the ARMM Region include:

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

Revised map should be created for:

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

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

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

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

I believe scorpion_prinz have access to the new towns in ARMM. --Exec8 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you can keep the resolution as high as possible, then just upload a smaller file for people with slower connections (and people that just don't need that much detail). By they way you're doing incredible work, keep it up. :) TheCoffee (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the highest resolution possible is around 300dpi. The MediaWiki cannot create any thumbnail for anything higher than 12,500,000 px which around 300 until 305 dpi. -- Felipe Aira 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's an inland body of water between Ifugao and Isabela. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Magat Dam reservoir. --seav (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it should be included? It wasn't since the locator maps (my bases) didn't. Perhaps it isn't big enough? -- Felipe Aira 10:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, it's significant enough in this map, which I'm aware was derived from Google maps.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to include those bodies of water, and perhaps other significant bodies of waters too, in my next upload. I'll use the idea of yours, which is Google Maps. -- Felipe Aira 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't worry about scaling; I had that problem when working on the Batanes Islands. I am using another Philippine Map as a cross reference. The Map is on the background, almost transparent, as a cross reference, of my Inkscape file whenever I am/will be working with Island groups. -- Felipe Aira 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Also, are you making sure that all municipality/city shapes are closed paths and that all of their individual bits (e.g., islands of Itbayat, Batanes) are together? (In the SVG file, each city/municipality should have only one <path/> element.) --seav (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed paths in a way that "there are no spaces between paths"? If that is, then yes all are closed paths. And also the bodies of water to be included in the map are Magat Lake/Dam, Pantabangan Lake (a lake around 3/4 of Magat; near Baler), Cagayan River, two rivers/lakes near Cagayan, minor lakes in Pangasinan (I am doing Pangasinan now). I'll upload a new one 2 days from now. -- Felipe Aira 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed paths as in closed curves (like 'O') and not open (like 'U'). Also, associate separate pieces (like islands) of cities/municipalities together so that each one can be selected by just a single click. --seav (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep they are closed. You mean I should group them? Yes, I am grouping them. For what purposes then? Do wish you me to upload its SVG too? Are you planning to edit it in the future? -- Felipe Aira 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Errors in the Ph locator maps[edit]

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

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

Guides to help you correct.

  1. Google Earth - use it to see the exact location. Copy the coordinates.
  2. learn how to obtain geographic coordinates.
  3. Use this GeoLocator
    (project page)
Well, Pampanga's coastline is a pure delta of the Pampanga River. So, the coastline can be the farthest extent of the delta or the most inland submersion of the Manila Bay. --seav (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe google map can help you delineate it. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it is decided that the maps will be redoed. Well then I'll just upload new PH Locator maps of my own version after I finish the whole map. -- Felipe Aira 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting for Geographical maps[edit]

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

How about just crop the Philippines from existing satellite images. They are in the public domain aren't they? Then just overlay political boundaries over them. Just like how the map of Algeria on the right was cropped. -- Felipe Aira 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Not all satellite images are public domain. LANDSAT images are public domain but practically every hi-res satellite images you see in Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps, and MSN Live Maps are copyrighted. --seav (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may wanna try, Demis Gallery[8], not exactly as sophisticated as this topographical map, but you can manipulate the map, to show rivers, streams..etc. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Scarborough Shoal[edit]

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

Will include those. Also I will include the Spratly islands, but only the islands occupied by the Philippines; that is based on this map: Image:Spratly with flags.jpg. -- Felipe Aira 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its not too much, maybe just dot them around regardless if we occupy them or not, so as not to appear that there's no land feature in the area, just have them grayed out maybe. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that only those occupied by the Philippine government should be included in the Philippine map since it wouldn't be right if I did otherwise. Just as how this (Image:Deutschland Bundeslaender 1957.png) only shows Germany even though Germany has a lot of neighbours. -- Felipe Aira 10:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated[edit]

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

Why? It's part of the geography. -- Felipe Aira 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It fully covered by land now. =)--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's so then I'll remove them. PS Google Maps say otherwise. -- Felipe Aira 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, don't rely on Google Maps alone. The shore outline in the "Map" tab of Google Maps uses outdated shorelines (e.g., no reclaimed areas). Also, if you switch to the "Satellite" tab, you'll see that indeed there is no lake there. --seav (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manila's boundary should also reflect this Image:Ph_map_manila.svg. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this (Image:Metro manila map.png) is the one I used as a reference for Metro Manilas shoreline. It just happens that Google said that there was a lake in that area so I included it. Don't worry; it will be gone in the next update. -- Felipe Aira 09:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also check out..[9] it has a reclaimed land along the Manila Bay coast. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uggh. Kabeet.com is often added as a spam external link to Wikipedia articles... --seav (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm maybe it's you alone tagging it as spam and not everybody else. I find this website very useful... --None 10:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And whether a website is useful or not has no bearing whether it is considered spam in Wikipedia or not. Please see the Wikipedia spam guidelines, Mr. Anonymous. --seav (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Felipe, I hope that you can finish the map in 3 months. Thanks for adding Cavite, Laguna & batangas to the map. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general)[edit]

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

I think I agree. I'm no longer comfortable with the "<cityname> City" format we're using. TheCoffee (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no for Metro Manila cities, and all of them should rename as "<name> City". Why should QC be exempt? --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the current naming guideline causing problems? At a minimum, all independent and highly-urbanized cities should not require the province name except for disambiguation purposes. Even then, if the name is unique, why append the province name at all? I don't think the province name is part of the city name. --Polaron | Talk 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The rationale for using the <cityname>, <provincename> convention is that using <cityname> City imply that said city is not a part of any province; hence for ICCs and HUCs I'd agree using <cityname> City or even <cityname>.
The reason for the exception for Quezon City is that nobody appends ", Metro Manila" anymore when it is referred to (maybe as a way of disambiguating it with Quezon Province). The rest are still appended with ", Metro Manila". And the horrors for San Juan City: how about San Juan, Puerto Rico? That's why I dislike <cityname> City" without any appending term unless as a way of disambiguating it with another name.
In defense of the AP Stylebook, I should had also thought of removing the state name if the cities are prominent; however in our case, only "Manila" can stand on its own, while the other big cities such as Quezon City, Cebu City and Davao City ned the "city" term since Quezon Province, Cebu and three provinces named "Davao" and a region named Davao exist. I even say to ditch the "City" word when an HUC/ICC doesn't need to be disambiguated, like moving Cagayan de Oro City to Cagayan de Oro (I think I was the one who even moved it to <cityname> City).
I'd also disagree that the "<cityname> City" convention is more widespread than say the "<cityname>" convention. See the buses for example, do you see labels such as "Cabanatuan City" or "Pasay City? No, only "Cabanatuan" and "Pasay". I'd even say "<cityname> City" is formal. Like in conversation:
A: Saan ka galing?
B: Sa Makati.
Compare with:
A: Saan ka galing?
B: Sa Quezon City.
If B said "Quezon", A would assume he came from Quezon Province or he'd ask a question of clarification.
I hope everyone knows where I'm coming from. –Howard the Duck 12:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fundamental requirement for the title of an encyclopedia article to provide context except for the purposed of disambiguation. As long as the name is sufficiently distinct, it should even be able to stand on its own without appending "City" nor appending the province name. Appending "City" is useful for cases where there are non-city entities that are in conlict with the plain name. Appending the province name is useful if there are places in other countries that have the same name. But otherwise, the plain name should be sufficient in most cases. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought off using the plain name per se but I have 2 problems with it:
Filipinos often use the <place name>, <province name> (but not as much as the Americans, they don't have HUC/ICCs anyway).
There is a small set of place names vs. the total number of places. It's like the Springfield.
I'm in favor of a simple plain name for HUC/ICCs outside Metro Manila except QC; I still think appending "Metro Manila" is beneficial to the reader as seen in the San Juan City example. "San Juan, Metro Manila" and "Pasig, Metro Manila" are still used anyway. –Howard the Duck 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a sample of how they'd be named, see Cities of the Philippines#Largest cities. (incidentally since the top 10 largest cities are independent from any province, there is no example of the <cityname>, <provincename> convention.) –Howard the Duck 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2009 discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2009 discussion[edit]

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

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

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

I originally preferred that but there'll be too many dabbed article names it would be difficult to have consistency. –Howard the Duck 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But consistency for consistency's sake is not a guideline of Wikipedia. I say we drop the province name altogether unless it's needed for disambiguation purposes. --seav (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is less emphasis on subdivisions outside the U.S. and Canada than within it, and normally, that's one of the reasons why the state name (or province name) has stuck: in that there is a strong association between city and state. The same goes for Japan: all articles pertaining to cities and towns in Japan retain the prefecture name, even in cities whose name is the same as that of the prefecture (see Saitama, Saitama), and only major cities retaining the exception. This is an issue over postal conventions, where in Europe, Africa and Asia, very few countries require the writing of first- or second-level administrative divisions, whereas it's the case for a bunch of others, us included. Common use here is very hard to define, in that we cannot just use spoken conventions (Howard's main contention for overhauling the system), but written ones as well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor either, actually. The question is how articles will be dabbed for articles like Bulacan, Bulacan, for example. In print encyclopedias, Bulacan, Bulacan is dabbed this way: "Bulacan (city)" if the LGU is a subunit within a larger LGU. If they are in different provinces, a fictional Luzonland would've been Luzonland (Isabela) and Luzonland (Sorsogon). Can anyone have more concrete examples? Would this remove the word "City" on article titles that don't need the word city for disambiguation (like Makati City would be moved to Makati, with Quezon City staying where it is)? –Howard the Duck 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comma convention does a fairly good job of disambiguating places in different provinces. In addition, the comma convention adds a level of disambiguation in itself: people will readily know that it is a third-level sub-unit of a second-level LGU. Abolishing the comma convention removes that level of disambiguation and can possibly even add to the confusion of readers. We have to consider here that the average Wikipedia reader is ignorant of the LGUs around him/her, save for the town and the province, and even more so for non-Filipino readers. For all I care, a Fil-Am who has never been to the Philippines and is reading about it for the first time can readily believe Poona Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, when abolishing the comma convention, is a province when it is not. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing the function of the article title, which is to succintly identify the subject of the article. The title is not there to indicate or imply that a place is a municipality, a province, or whatever; that's what the lead section is for. Take note that there is no Wikipedia-wide guideline that says that we should cram information into the article title, but in contrast, the Use common names guideline actually says to simplify the article title as much as possible and only add more characters for disambiguation purposes only if necessary. Since the use common names guideline is an established convention, we use Manila instead of City of Manila or even Manila, Philippines (this example also demonstrates the primary topic disambiguation guideline), and it implies that we should have Puerto Galera instead of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. --seav (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reindent: I like the no-comma version. If implemented would it look like this:
  • Barangay articles: <Barangay name>.
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Barangayname> (<Municipalityname>)
  • Municipality articles: <Municipality name>. Example: Angono, Rizal will be moved to Angono
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Municipalityname> (<Provincename>)
  • HUCs/ICCs with unique names: <City name>. Example: Cagayan de Oro City will be moved to Cagayan de Oro.
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> (<Philippines>)
  • HUCs/ICCs with names that are named identically with LGUs: <Cityname> City. Example: Cebu City.
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> City (<Philippines>)
  • Component cities: <City name> Example: San Jose del Monte City will be moved to San Jose del Monte.
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Cityname> (<Provincename>)
  • Provinces with unique name: <Provincename>. Example: Albay.
    • If it needs to be disambiguated, it can be <Provincename> (<Philippines>)
  • Provinces with names that are named identically with LGUs: <Provincename>. Example: Cebu.
  • Provinces with names that are named identically with names from other countries: <Provincename> (Philippines). Example: Laguna (Philippines).

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

Whether we use parenthetical or comma notation for disambiguation is another discussion. Right now, I am inclined to use the comma notation. But if we agree to use the parenthetical notation, the term that goes into the parenthesis should answer "what?" first before "where?". So it should be Laguna (province) then Laguna (Philippine province) if needed instead of Laguna (Philippines). For example, look at the dab page I Love You. We have I Love You (1979 film) instead of I Love You (1979), and I Love You (Donna Summer song) instead of I Love You (Donna Summer). Parenthetical dabbing answers "what?" first before "who?", "which?", "when?", or "where?" --seav (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor comma notation on component cities and municipalities. On HUCs/ICCs, I'd prefer the specs at the top.
As for parenthetical disambiguation, I copied what was done in print encyclopedias. For example, Nassau can mean different places. For the capital of the Bahamas, it goes as Nassau (Bahamas), for the German region, it's Nassau (Germany) (In Wikipedia, it's currently at Nassau (state).
I'd actually accept any proposal as long as ditches the word "city" on component cities that do not need to distinguished with other places of the same name. As for the special case of San Juan City, I'd prefer it to be moved at San Juan (Philippine city). –Howard the Duck 04:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles give first impressions of articles. People uninterested in reading the article refer to infoboxes. Regardless, the comma convention still makes things much clearer than disregarding it altogether. We cannot always rely on the lead to disambiguate articles from each other. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a comma disambiguator by default even when it's not needed only solves a "first impression" problem that is not really even a problem. Even then, it doesn't solve all such problems until we do so for all articles and not just municipalities. Do we then move Sultan Kudarat to Sultan Kudarat, Philippines because the article on the province might be confused for a biography, especially by a non-Filipino (or a Fil-am that is not familiar with the Philippines)? As I said, the lead section (especially the very first sentence) takes care of such mis-impressions. --seav (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comma disambiguation impression works only when you apply comma disambiguation selectively (such as applying it on municipalities but not on component cities); it disappears when all articles don't have comma disambiguation already. –Howard the Duck 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suggest on you giving us examples on how this will be implemented. –Howard the Duck 12:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we all agree that removing the province name when it is not needed for disambiguation purposes, then:
  1. Draw up a worklist listing all municipalities (not cities yet), per province. Something like List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines.
  2. Note in the worklist which ones need no disambiguation like Puerto Galera and Angono. A sure criteria is a redirect from the bare title.
  3. For those which need disambiguation, decide whether the municipality meets the primary topic disambiguation and note it in the worklist.
  4. Move those articles identified in step 2 and 3 to the bare name. If needed, ask the assistance of admins for those that can't be moved by non-admins. Place a note in the talk page pointing to the worklist.
  5. Create disambiguation pages if needed (these should also be noted in the worklist).
  6. For those that need disambiguation, discuss whether we stick to the comma convention or adopt the parenthetical convention.
  7. If we decide to use the parenthetical convention, we do another round of moving articles.
  8. Clean up links and navigational templates.
  9. Next we discuss and tackle cities.

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

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

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

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

Agree on steps 1-5 but I prefer doing it cities first since there so many municipalities. Strip all municipalities and cities of the province's name from the article title. If it needs disambiguation, decide if it's the primary topic, if it's not, I prefer adding (<Municipality>) name for barangays and (<Provincename>) for municipalities and component cities. For provinces that need disambiguation which are not primary topics, I still prefer adding {Philippines), and for HUCs/ICCs adding (Philippine city). I prefer Aurora (Philippines) than Aurora (province), since for example, if you live at Liechtenstein, you won't really care about the levels of political subdivisions in the Philippines, just the name of the place.
If the article's name needs disambiguation, is not a primary topic, and there are similar names within the Philippines, then I prefer using (city), (municipality) or (barangay) unless it it has the same name with a place from another country, which I'd prefer using (Philippine city), (Philippine municipality) and (barangay) of which the best example is San Juan City which should really be moved to [[San Juan (Philippine city) right now. –Howard the Duck 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for Basilan[edit]

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


Support, anyone?[edit]

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

Barangay kapasigan council pasig city[edit]

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

Would some of you Contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia?[edit]

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

The Philippine LGU WikiProject at the NSCB National Convention on Statistics[edit]

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

Article names for Philippine cities: <cityname> <city>[edit]

I am for simplification of the article names for Philippine cities and municipalities. I suggest that instead of being the rule, adding the words “cities” for Philippine cities and “provincial names” after Philippine towns, should only be used for disambiguation and for other very compelling reasons only.

Adding the word “city” is like adding academic title/s to a person’s name, which sometimes, I find rather distracting. Let me give a little bit of exaggerated example: Instead of using Juan de la Cruz, DHSc, PhD, DPS, EdD, DEng, EngD, PDEng as the article name, a simple Juan de la Cruz will do just as fine or even better. In addition, the provincial name after the settlement name (e.g. <municipalityname>, <provincename>) should not appear that it is only intended for “towns” not for "cities".

I believe that there are already clamors for the elimination of the word “city” from the article names of Philippines cities and I hope this time there will be some actions in response toward them. I suggest we focus first on the issues for cities, then probably discuss the issues for municipalities later. As for those needing disambiguation, we have to collaborate to find the most appropriate article names for them.

I am suggesting the following: (See WP:NCGN#Disambiguation as my basis for most of my suggestions)

1. As general rule -> eliminate the word “city” from the name of the Philippine cities except those needing disambiguation

2. For those having special title aside from the word “city”

3. Cities with the same name with a province or region (the word “city” should be retained)

4. Cities/Municipalities with the same name as other local cities/municipalities (regardless if it is highly urbanized, independent or component city)

Additional


5. 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.

6. Local city name is the same with that of other foreign municipality but no other local city/municipal with the same name (Version 1)

For this group, I suggest using <cityname>, <provincename>. If it is not a part of the province, use <cityname> (Philippine city). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as we want to use the <cityname> only, we may not do it for this group since other non-Philippine cities may also be entitled to the same article name. The option of using <cityname>, <provincename> is very much valid since the format is consistent with how other cities are being presented and disambiguated in this proposal. However considering worldwide views, I prefer using the <cityname>, <countryname> format since it is generally more recognizable and relevant than the <cityname>, <provincename> format. Please take a second look at WP:NCGN#Disambiguation. For me, <cityname>, <provincename> should only be used to disambiguate further the <cityname>, <countryname> (e.g. if there are two or more cities/municipalities with the same name). As for "<cityname> (Philippine city)", I think "<cityname>, Philippines" format is simpler and will do the same job. What is your opinion on this matter?--JinJian (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally follow how the locals call it. After all, majority of our sources will come from "local" sources. At the main page some were confused/pissed to see "Charlotte, United States" when they were expecting "Charlotte, North Carolina," w/c follows that we should at the very most, follow local naming procedures unless foreign sources are more prevalent (hence the Kyiv/Kiev debate). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Local city name is the same with that of another foreign municipality; and name is also the same with at least one Philippine municipality or city

8. More than two provincial capitals with the same name

I hope that we can reach consensus regarding this matter. --JinJian (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything except the ones pointed out by HTD: I prefer the province name instead of "Philippines". --seav (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the point in advocating for change, and I see the functionality for the "lguname, provincename" format, which is stable for when municipalities become component cities. But I will generally have to disagree because the "cityname City" format serves just as well, probably better. First, the format is stable for when component cities are elevated into highly urbanized or independent component cities, at which point province names are going to be misleading. In addition, before 1980 chartered cities were considered first-order political divisions that were only geographically "part of" provinces, so there is a history of autonomy attached to the "city" status. Second, if there is ever need for disambiguation the current format seems to work better than others: Pasig City vs. Pasig, Metro Manila or Urdaneta City vs. Urdaneta, Pangasinan/Urdaneta, Philippines. Third, the non-consistent use of whatever is supposed to come after the city name (or doesn't) becomes a potentially more contentious issue concerning arbitrary assignment. I personally would only very much like for non-standard superfluous titles such as "Island Garden City of Samal", "Science City of Muñoz", "City of San Jose del Monte" or "City of San Fernando" be re-converted to the current prevailing format of "city name City(, provincename for disambiguation)". Other than that I think what we have now suit the article titles just fine. isagani (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept the <cityname>, <provincename> format instead of <cityname>, Philippines for local cities with the same name with as that of other foreign municipalities but none with locals. However, I have some concerns with the highly-urbanized and independent cities on using the <cityname> City or <cityname> (Philippine city) format. What if San Fernando, Pampanga; San Fernando, La Union; San Fernando, Cebu; San Fernando, Masbate; San Fernando, Romblon all become highly urbanized cities? How will the article titles be presented? I think the great compromise will still be <cityname>, <provincename> for independent or highly urbanized city. What do you think? -JinJian (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For independent cities, I'm in favor of moving it to <cityname>; if it needs to be disambiguated, append "(Philippine city)". There haven't been independent cities with the exact same name, so we'd cross the bridge when we get there. For non-independent cities, use <cityname>, <provincename> like San Fernando, La Union. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have to agree with HTD to cross the bridge when we get there. Some people already have trouble accepting the <cityname>, <province name> format even for component cities.

Although Lapu-Lapu in Cebu has no same name with another foreign or local municipality; it has the same name with a very known personality Lapu-Lapu. The later can also be considered as the primary topic. It is better for Lapu-Lapu City to be in this category since according to current guidelines, 'Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient.

  • Lapu-Lapu City -> Lapu-Lapu, Philippines --JinJian (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep at Lapu-Lapu City. Unlike most cities, Lapu-Lapu City had a different name prior cityhood and only got the name "Lapu-Lapu" when it became a city, hence we can't use the premise that it was previously known as such w/out the word "city" at the end. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the requested moves, we generally would like to eliminate the word "city" from the city names and we only provided exception for group 3, Cities with the same name with a province or region (the word “city” should be retained). The simultaneous renaming and achieving of city status does not entitle Lapu-Lapu to circumvent the guidelines. However, I am more concerned with it being disambiguated with a well-known person unlike others which are being disambiguated with place names. It made me think twice whether the word "city" would be more suitable as disambiguator. Although in the end, I would still choose <Cityname, Countryname> (if not sufficient then <Cityname, Provincename>) over <Cityname City>. I do not wish to go back to <Cityname City> former convention wherever possible.--JinJian (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unlike most cities which had the same name before and after cityhood, Lapu-Lapu City had a different name before and after it became a city. Hence we can't argue that "Lapu-Lapu" (w/out the word "City") was the most used name before and after cityhood. This is like Quezon City which was created a city from a merge of the different towns (aside from the fact that there is a Quezon province). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--JinJian (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do have an issue on Valenzuela and San Juan City -- both are in Metro Manila (region), and it'll make sense if we'd add "Metro Manila" but how about the other Metro Manila cities? I do believe <cityname>, Metro Manila has fallen out of favor but it won't make sense if we'd only add "Metro Manila" only to Valenzuela and San Juan. (Note: Independent municipality/town Pateros, Metro Manila is located there.)
For San Juan City, since there are other municipalities in the Philippines and foreign cities with the same name , I suggest that we use San Juan, Metro Manila. On the other hand, for Valenzuela City, I suggest we use Valenzuela (Philippine city), the same as how it should be applied to other highly urbanized city with unique municipality/city name in the Philippines but not with foreign cities. If we will use Valenzuela, Metro Manila; it is like using <huc-name>, <provincename>. In here, we considered Metro Manila and provincename not as political units, which may imply that the local government units are under these jurisdictions, but as geographical units describing the general areas. But again, since we may find it difficult for some people to accept the <huc-name>, <provincename> format for the time being, I suggest that we just use the <huc-name> (Philippine city) format, including for Valenzuela City. --JinJian (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another solution would be to append the province name to the current naming scheme, since at least it does bring the benefits of both naming schemes together. Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, following Dakilang Isagani's point of view, would probably work better for disambiguation than Urdaneta, Pangasinan, by which people might mistake it to be a municipality. As much as I want to be all-trusting of the Wikipedia reader base, not all of them will read the text to presume that Urdaneta is a city. At least the title does the work in this case, saving time and effort. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding reading of the article text, should we then rename Sultan Kudarat so that users who don't read the text not presume that the article is about a person? --seav (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you're look into everyday occurrences, almost all of the time, the word "city" is omitted. Examples are on buses, ("Urdaneta," "Santiago," etc.), everyday speech (Q: Where are you from? A: San Carlos, Pangasinan), etc. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question was actually rhetorical. I don't agree with Sky Harbor that the article title should indicate whether the subject is a city or a municipality. That is not the job of the article title. --seav (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My comment wasn't really a reply to anybody, just another reason why the word "city" must be removed. I can think of a few instances here the word "city" is used frequently: in beauty pageants. ("I'm Marian Rivera coming from Dasmarinas/Pasay/Angeles City!!!") –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drop "City" wherever possible. Common name argument is fine although even avoiding the constructs simply to stop feeding this fad is a good enough reason for me. Lambanog (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Alaminos: There is an Alaminos, Laguna, so Alaminos City's "grouping" is incorrect. --seav (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability of article titles[edit]

Here's another point. HTD advocates for removing the "City" so that there won't be any need for renaming when the status of the LGU changes. While I agree that "City" is unnecessary, it's not because I buy into the stability argument. Please take note that there is no naming guideline that says that we consider stability of the article title. But there is a guideline that says we should use the common name for the subject, and only disambiguating as necessary. --seav (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "xxxx City" is not a common name? WP:UCN allows for flexibility with respect to common names, so the only thing it asks us to do is to determine which iteration of the common name is the one which is most appropriate. I think we can still compromise on this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While <Cityname> <City> format may not be totally uncommon, I doubt that it is more prominent than the <cityname>. --JinJian (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think in normal conversation, the word "City" is dropped except when you have to distinguish it with a place that has a similar name. For example:
A: Tol, saan ka pupunta?
Dude, where are you going?
B: Sa San Juan.
To San Juan.
–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor for the renaming. Note that the <Cityname> <City> has a legal and political basis. HUCs for example are at the same level and separate from provinces. The current naming of our cities here lent an air of political correctness and gives an air of formality. Differentiating a city from a municipality will be fuzzy and may become misleading for our readers. Almost all activities of the LGU concerned use the <Cityname> <City> format; using the <Cityname> only in casual conversations and in print media is done for brevity. Jordz (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the addition of the word city has bastardized the entire concept it's now informal. It's like "ZOMG we're now a city, let's add "City" to our name! Like "Los Angeles City'." Differentiation between a city and a municipality shouldn't be the main purpose of an article title. Note that in the current proposal, the province name will not be added to the article title for a city (in case of disambiguation, we'd use "(Philippine city)" except for the two San Fernandos. Hence it'll appear that "Cagayan de Oro" and "Misamis Oriental" do have the same level and are separate from each other as compared to "Cagayan de Oro City" which implies that it should be inside Misamis Oriental"
The addition of the word "city" may even imply that it should belong to a certain province, when some don't. (Hence, I originally favored appending the province name to the article name of a component city, but I dropped the issue as a compromise so as not to stall this any further.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If ever, despite the moves already being done, adding the province name to all component cities (regular and component) may be more desirable, given that they are still considered part of their mother provinces anyway, as well as cities which play the role of a province's capital city (Tacloban, Lucena, General Santos, Cagayan de Oro), since they are seen to be part of those provinces. The province should only be dropped and the old system retained for notable cities (Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao), while everyone else migrates to the new system. If ever, the new system, at least for old-timers, is now more confusing than the old system, now that we have to deal with massive amounts of rewriting to prevent redirects. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree on the component cities part, but I can live to see plain old "San Jose del Monte" rather to see the word "city" at the end. Don't agree with the capitals though. Either they're a part or not. If they're not a part,, the province name shouldn't be there. It's like saying "Pasig, Rizal."
As for redirects, I think there's like a policy that who shouldn't waste time fixing redirects unless it's misleading or is a double redirect. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like i do not agree on removing the "City" on titles of Philippine cities. It becomes confusing because some might mistake them as a municipality. Acquiring a cityhood status has a legal bases, and is on the law that a city name should still bear the suffix CITY wherever it may be posted. So i guess, it applies on the Wikipedia articles, that they should retain the City on their article names. jmarkfrancia (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page moves[edit]

Requests for page moves have already been made. See

  1. Talk:Baguio_City#Requested_move
  2. Talk:Tacloban_City#Requested_move
  3. Talk:Kabankalan_City#Requested_move
  4. Talk:Tagbilaran_City#Requested_move
  5. Talk:Science City of Muñoz#Requested_move
  6. Talk:Naga City#Requested_move
  7. Talk:Bacolod City#Requested_move
  8. Talk:Valencia City, Bukidnon#Requested_move
  9. Talk:San Fernando City, Pampanga#Requested_move
  10. Talk:Lucena City#Requested_move
  11. Talk:Alaminos City#Requested_move --JinJian (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Talk:Calamba City#Requested_move --JinJian (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the move[edit]

After the move, then there's a need to update templates (I mean all of them) that are affected by this event.--JL 09 q?c 06:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

provincial templates updated.JinJian (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manukan, Zambo del Norte missing templates[edit]

Can anyone add the templates (the ones that appear on the right side) for the Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte page? Sorry, I'm new to this. --Ed558 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its called infobox. Yea I done your request. I keep the watch the page too. See it now. [[Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte]

Bonvallite (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Help[edit]

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

I use the infobox code below 

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

As for population 

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


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

Isabela province mapping[edit]

I just noticed an inconsitency in the map of Isabela, especially on municipality-locators map on Wikipeida articles of its municipalities. It is really different from that map in the official website of Isabela province. Take a look at this photos, and see the difference between two maps. jmarkfrancia (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map presented on articles of different municipalities
Map presented on the official website of Isabela province
FWIW, the Wikimapia boundaries look more like the Wikipedia map than the government one. Wikipedia and Wikimapia both have Ilagan and San Mariano going all the way to the sea while the government's say they're landlocked. –HTD 10:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those who have GIS software, data is available for Isabela from the PhilGIS website [10]. Hopefully, we can clarify the correct boundaries using that data. --Bluemask (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Wikimapia you presented, i see another inconsistency in the map. The shape(map) of Roxas, Isabela is different than what is presented on their municipal hall (as of June 2012 because i've been there). I hope the boundaries will be corrected soon. jmarkfrancia (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Placed all of the maps to the right since it's screws up the flow of the discussion.)
There isn't that much inconsistency in the Wikimapia one other than it looks more detailed: Both (Wikimapia and Wikimedia) versions both depict Roxas as a flying saucer shape, while the government one more looks like stubbier Louisiana. –HTD 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way on how to confirm which of the two is more accurate? Because if i am going to choose, i'd rather pick the government's map because they are the ones who know the respective boundaries of their jurisdiction. And is there a way to recreate the map of Isabela, which will resemble that pic on the upper part? jmarkfrancia (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be references (such as the town/city charters) that delimits their boundaries. If that's found, that's the authoritative source. I'm not buying the government is the best source as government has even worse standards than the private sector, moreso on local government. If there's government agency that should have really reliable info on this, they are DPWH and DILG.
Snooping around the interwebs, I found a few more maps: This is almost similar to the Wikimedia and Wikimapia map, only that some patches of land are depicted not to belong to any LGU. This one confirms San Mariano's coastline that's not on the local government map.
This PAG-ASA map basically confirms the other maps that are not the local government's, confirming Ilagan's and San Mariano's coastlines. This one's different too: as this says there is a quadripoint shared by San Guillermo, Echague, Dinapigue and San Mariano. –HTD 09:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, saw the maps. Then that means there is really some confusion on the map. But i have a question, is the local government site not a reliable source? I am thinking that it is probably the result of the Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges crossing the coast of Isabela making the other side of it inaccesible by land. It is probably the reason for this confusion because only few have reached the coastal part. hehe. Anyways,thanks for the help. I am just concerned with this one because in my high school days in the province, they told us there are only 4 municipalities in the coastal area (Maconacon, Divilacan, Palanan and Dinapigue). I'll try my best to find some sources to justify which is more accurate jmarkfrancia (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On local government, it depends: if there's a preponderance of evidence saying otherwise, I'd suggest to use the current one then snoop around some more. I know for a fact that Palanan is a coastal-centric town; dunno about the three others but it may be possible that they're coastal centric too. As for the other LGUs with coasts, they may not be coastal-centric: for example, Ilagan's town center is at the Cagayan River and its supposed coast is separated by the Sierra Madre. –HTD 12:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative is to cross-reference the barangays and check out if they have a coast. –HTD 12:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political map of Isabela
I am somehow enlightened on this one, especially when you mentioned that it only has 4 coastal towns which is verified here. Though it has been time immemorial that they have been projecting Ilagan's and San Mariano's borders to the coast like in this Isabela map from the 1959 Philippine Atlas, though overall that atlas was criticized for its poor cartography. Also this image can give you an impression that Ilagan and San Mariano have coastlines.
I am inclined to believe that there are a lot of inconsistencies on the map of Isabela that we have been accustomed to, especially when I encountered Santiago City's map. I would be making the necessary changes as soon as better corrected maps are made available, this 3D map is just not a good basis to redraw the boundaries yet. If you can obtain an large format image we can trace and redraw the boundaries that would be great. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. -- Namayan (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the article, Isabela has only 4 coastal towns. You can also confirm it here -> [11] and [12]. I hope this would be resolved soon. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another map has coasts for Ilagan and San Mariano; this map is sorta important as I use that to create legislative district maps. Another map also has the coasts for the two LGUs.
Perhaps these references are taken out of context. For example, Malolos has a coast, but no one describes it as a "coastal town".–HTD 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only solution is to find out if there are any coastal barangays from Ilagan and San Mariano. If there are, then they have coasts.
I may beg to disagree that it's the only solution, primary sources would play a great role here so there may be a need is to obtain local sources directly from the provincial/municipal governments. Certain maps that have been created have been inaccurate, similar to Quezon City's border barangays, if one would do research certain subdivisions were excluded from Quezon City. The maps used for legislative districts is also based on maps that have proliferated, in which Antipolo's border alone is not presented properly, finding this out after seeing the official map at the Antipolo City hall, it shouldn't reach Quezon's borders, and Antipolo and Baras have boundary disputes, however common maps show they don't share any border. -- Namayan (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in finding out if barangays do have coasts, the local government comes into the picture; this has nothing to do anymore with maps. This has to be corroborated by another source, such as DPWH (as they used to have markers on municipal boundaries) and the like.
I'd also like to use Wikimapia, although it's a Wiki and can be bad, but it confirms your statement on Antipolo not sharing a border with Quezon. –HTD 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Local knowledge and official website information will help a lot, if there are any. Even in Wikimapia, you'll see that certain barangays in what is supposedly Santiago City actually is actually identified with Ramon and Cordon, Isabela. Looking at how they were projected in the 3D map from the provincial government I find some validity in that. Palanan's official website indicates it is bounded by on the N – Divilacan, E – Pacific Ocean, S – Dinapigue, W – San Mariano, though it's ironic they used Wikipedia's locator map which doesn't represent that (without attribution). I am willing to make the necessary changes to the map I created for Isabela once a good map can be made available to trace. -- Namayan (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm into cross-referencing barangays as that's the easiest way.
IMHO, the best resource, at least if we're trusting local governments, is their post office. There should be a map there that should be better than publicly-displayed maps elsewhere. Those might be old but the boundaries should be right. –HTD 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't get barangays in the Sierra Madre. -- Namayan (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said to cross-reference them with something else. If there is a list of barangays with coasts (there should be -- some years ago there's a conference amongst coastal barangays. It should've been all barangays but they've ran out of money), that can be used. We don't have to hike up the mountains; you can get creative with sources even from the likes of the COMELEC and NSO.
Also, as per the post office, the town hall has one. I don't think many barangays have their own post offices. I dunno if other post offices have maps, though, as it is useful on their work. –HTD 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to visit the Isabela provincial Capitol someday, i'm sure they have the correct map for Isabela. But if ever i get some information there, how will it be referenced? jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the provincial post office as that's the best reference you can get (for a more specific map, go to the municipal post office); I saw a really old municipal map in a post office a few months ago and it was really accurate, and this was before they can confirm it with Google Earth. Your next alternative should be the DPWH office. Otherwise if we'd use a map you saw just outside the building, or at the Governor's office, it's not that accurate compared to a postal map and we're taking their word for it, and I dunno if that's good enough. Let's face it, if the mailmen or if the DPWH guys are wrong, they'd always be lost. –HTD 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ill try to go to the post office and get a more accurate map for this. Regarding the DPWH, do you think they have a map on the coastal part? Because, the local people say there is no highway connecting the coastal to maniland Isabela. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno but the DPWH does maintain markers of municipal boundaries during Gloria's time. If you're lucky they can still be spotted in situ, but since we can't go there, the best bet is by their office if they do have maps. –HTD 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sent a message to DPWH regarding our concern. I hope they provide us the information we need. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another law that describes Ilagan's location, this time vis-a-vis the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park: Republic Act No. 9125 or the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (NSMNP) Act of 2001. This act 'contradicts' R.A. 8474 by stating that Ilagan, along with San Mariano, Tumauini, Cabagan and San Pablo form its western limits, while Maconacon, Divilacan, Palanan and Dinapigue are its only coastal or eastern municipalities. I also tried to identify the locations covered by the wiki location map for Ilagan along with its google map counterpart and came to the following discoveries: 1) That the Aubarede Peninsula or Aubarede Point jutting out in the Pacific is actually part of Barangay Bicobian of Divilacan where Port Bicobian is also situated; and 2) That Estagno Island supposedly part of Ilagan and found just north of the Aubarede Point actually belongs to Barangay Dimasalansan again of Divilacan. I also discovered that at present, there are no existing roads that link the Pacific coast to Ilagan until the Ilagan – Divilacan road is completed, and it starts from the mountain village of Sindon Bayabo (possibly Ilagan's easternmost barangay in the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park along with Villa Imelda [where the Abuan Hydroplant is located], Paliueg and Sindon Maride.) This means that the Ilagan map may not be accurate afterall, and that the existing map of Isabela on many sites is unaccurate at all particularly the coastal part. jmarkfrancia (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Now we have two laws contradicting each other. RA 8474 does say Ilagan's western side lies Divilacan and the Pacific. –HTD 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that leads to a confusing information. Ive been searching for the Republic Act 10169, signed by President Benigno Aquino which declares Ilagan as a new city of Isabela, thinking that the boundaries of the city are indicated there. But it wasn't there. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think roads are to be considered, though. For example, in San Jose del Monte, the only way to go (public transport) to other parts of Bulacan, at least on a week I stayed there, is via Quezon City.
AFAIK the organic law for a town to be a city doesn't include boundaries as it'll just inherit the old charter, if there's any. It seems that Ilagan does have boundary disputes with its neighboring towns, so it'll really depends on whom you ask on which part of land belongs to what town. –HTD 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i think so. And i am also trying to find the law that creates the municipality of San Mariano, which claims that it has a coastal area too. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source which states that Isabela has 4 coastal areas only - Maconacon, Divilacan, Dinapigue and Palanan. --> Divilacan. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a more reliable map of Ilagan showing its boundary with Divilacan here. Figure 1-2 of this Abuan Watershed Report prepared by World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)-Philippines shows the location of the 637.9 sq. km. Abuan River Basin within the Ilagan portion of the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park that serves as the border between Ilagan and Divilacan. WWF-Philippines heads the Ilagan Watershed Conservation Project in partnership with the local government of Ilagan and Coca-Cola. It also helps to promote the Abuan River as an ecotourism destination and organizes whitewater rafting activities in this area. According to this and other reports from WWF, the Abuan Watershed extends to some 5 barangays in Ilagan, namely: Rang-ayan (Bintacan), Villa Imelda, Cabeseria 27 (Abuan), Cabeseria 10 (Lupigui) and Cabeseria 22 (Sablang). Immediately south of the watershed lies Barangay Sindon where the Ilagan road ends. Table 2-2 of the same report also identifies Mount Cresta as a geologic formation within the watershed area, however Divilacan Peak located further east as seen on this map is not included. Therefore, the maps floating around here in WP and other sites such as google maps are highly inaccurate and must be redrawn. Ilagan does not have a coastline. Aubarede Point, Estagno Island, Salolwan Spring, Dimapnat (Demacnat Point) and Port Bicobian do not belong to Ilagan but to the coastal municipality of Divilacan as also evidenced in their tourism website. The 3D map found in the Isabela website is correct afterall. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite apparent that the boundary dispute found from the 1st(?) cityhood law of Ilagan refers to its coastline with the Pacific with Divilacan. It's fair to say we should take Divilacan-centric sources as, well, Divilacan-centric.
The WWF maps are of no use as they don't indicate municipal boundaries; it only denotes where the town centers are. The red line denotes the boundaries of the Pinacanauan river basin, while the the green-shaded area is the Abuan river basin.
Roads are of no use as what I've said earlier.
Ergo, we back to square 1. –HTD 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm looking for sources on what barangay Estagno/Estagmo Island is a part of. You've said it's at Divilacan as per Wikimapia(?) and Google Maps but both websites say they're within Ilagan; actually Wikimapia spells it as Estagmo while Google Maps say it's Estagno. :::::I'm also looking if Palanan and Divilacan share a boundary. –HTD 14:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just read this on Talk:Ilagan -- they only patterned the map from the ones available like google maps and then it just spread like wildfire. RA 8474 however, was a law that was rejected in 1998 during the first Ilagan cityhood plebiscite so that could no longer be binding. RA 9125 on the other hand, still is. We are then left with these references and the official map found in the official provincial website of Isabela to tell us that the province indeed only has 4 coastal municipalities and that Ilagan is not one of them. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to believe the accuracy of the Isabela map of the provincial government, we just need to have a good map to trace, which I would oblige myself to do.-- Namayan (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more evidence that Ilagan does not have a coastline:
1. In the paper entitled "Community-based fisheries management within the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, Isabela, Philippines" by A. Aranda da Silva, University of Southampton. -- Figure 1 shows the location of Isabela municipalities within the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park including their boundaries. This map is consistent with the 3D map found in the official Isabela website.
2. In the book, "The Agta of the Northern Sierra Madre. Livelihood strategies and resilience among Philippine hunters-gatherers" by Tessa Minter, Leiden University. -- Map 2.2 on page 46-47 "Distribution of Agta settlements in and around the NSMNP (2000-2005)", the coastal barangays are identified including a Divilacan-Palanan boundary between barangays Dimapnat (Divilacan) and Culasi (Palanan).
3. In the book, "Comanagement in Practice: The Challenges and Complexities of Implementation in the Northern Sierra Madre Mountain Region by Denyse J. Snelder, Eileen C. Bernardo, Ateneo de Manila University Press. -- Map 9.1 on page 228, "Agta groups in the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park", a Divilacan-Palanan boundary is shown again with clear lines separating the coastal municipalities.jmarkfrancia (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (From Talk:Ilagan)[reply]
The U of Southampton map isn't exactly consistent with the Isabela government map as the U of S map depicts San Mariano to have a coastline. Your second source doesn't have a "Map 2.2" on pp. 46-47, and source #3 doesn't have a "Map 9.1". –HTD 15:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i saw it. Regarding Source #3, it says Map 9.1 is not available for preview. Anyways, i found this [13] sign board of the Sierra Madre Natural Park. The map of Isabela's coast is present there with only Palanan, Divilacan, Dinapigue and Maconacon on the particular area. You can't see it in one glance because the board is already fading, a magnifying mirror will do. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really going to aceept "Yes I saw it" here? God help us.
The map on the sign doesn't prove anything. That means Bulacan doesn't have coastal towns since in a Bulacan map, if you disregard the boundaries no town name is near the coast. Even Obando looks like to be beside a coast but isn't as it is surrounded by all sides by CAMANAVA and Bulakan (the town).
All of the sources you've presented to us either didn't exist, is WP:OR, only you have seen it, or is unreliable. Ironically, only the Isabela provincial map is. –HTD 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If that's so, then we just let the readers follow what a wrong map is. I just thought that, if you find the Isabela provincial map in its official website as not accurate, then does it imply that you believe more on MapCentral/Google Maps than the local government? jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability. I did not say the provincial government as "not accurate"; in fact I said it's the only one we got on my very last edit. What I said is that we should look for more reliable sources. –HTD 02:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? See if you can load the coverage area map of ISELCO II(Isabela Electric Company) from ERC found here. The map says the same thing. You can also check out the NEDA's Cagayan Valley Regional Development Plan 2011-2016 where you have Figure 8.1 Flood and Landslide Susceptibility Map of Region 2 that confirms the 3d map's accuracy. Now you have both the provincial and regional government. jmarkfrancia (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I wish the maps were much larger to trace them and generate the needed map. I'll try after Wiki Loves Monuments PH concludes. Maybe you can communicate with them about it? :) -- Namayan (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if I can trust Meralco if they create maps on their own without using other sources, and AFAIK, Cgayan Valley doesn't have regional government; that's NEDA's map, and it has to be the most convincing of the lot. –HTD 06:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, a better map is found at Figure 8.1. –HTD 06:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'd like to point out a few things. The GIS-ready maps from PhilGIS (based on GADM) are known to be inaccurate, but they're free and are reused in a lot of places. Also, practically all of our LGU maps are sorta traced from the maps available from mapcentral.ph, which may also be inaccurate. I actually have a suspicion that mapcentral.ph uses the same sources as GADM. My experience is that we really need to do extensive research to determine the real boundaries of cities and municipalities. I'm betting that Isabela is not the only province with an inaccurate map. --seav (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. -- Namayan (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The farther away you are from the metro, the more inaccurate it gets. –HTD 02:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Task_force_LGU&oldid=1136056405"