Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles

message: Why? This runs counter to normal disambiguation practice (where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence) and similar examples in other countries (Osaka, Limerick and so on). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: COMMONNAME is in this case just a way of determining the PRIMARYTOPIC. If the COMMONNAMEs of two topics are already disambiguated, then there is no need for disambiguation, and the previous clause () makes it clear that we aren't talking about cases where the COMMONNAMEs are already disambiguated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the name of the province generally takes precedence" 

message: Hope this section should aid for senior admins to decide on consensus. I based the idea on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive34, but I hope this centralized discussion will be final and not causing a 4th discussion in the near or known future.
Repinging those who replied here before -  - to air their thoughts on the opinion poll here. My user image is getting tarnished in the increasing manner, as days, weeks, and months pass by. I won't vote here from now on, and I'll involve on page move requests after a firm and true consensus has achieved. Thanks and sorry to everyone. 😞 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll or opinion per user/contributors

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

message: @ are you okay? What's with all this moving articles back and forth? The mere fact that i didnt do anything to resurrect those articles means i let it pass and thats water under the bridge now. And having seen for myself how lousy indeed some of those Navotas barangay articles are just now lol (sorry, if you only coursed them individually through the proper processes we could have discussed the merits of each one without having to upset each other) i now agree to settle. If a barangay article is no more than the basic stats (location/population/area/officeholders) and not more than three lines containing the above, you can redirect them to the City or Municipality article. PROVIDED that those are all that can be sourced after you've carried out your WP:BEFORE duties as a responsible editor of WPH community. However, I still wont agree to a blanket rule that all barangays are not notable and therefore need to be deleted. They are all still notable by default as per our N guideline. And as i said in that earlier discussion, we need to revisit this practice of creating these "List of barangays in LGU" articles because those can easily be added to every City or Municipality article (if they arent already). Like area, population, density and maybe names of officials, these could easily be placed in a table under the geography or administritative units subsection of each LGU article like how our province articles display these stats for each of their component LGUs. Articles like Quezon City also carry a few lines of description for their barangays or districts so if these are all that can be written in those barangay list articles, i suggest that they be added back to the main City/Municipality article. At least now you know these processes, it's okay to be WP:BOLD once in a while, but at least inform the community of what you plan to do, if not through AfD, at least in the talk page or the talk page of its main article that will be affected. Many of the articles ive written here are in this geography and politics department, so i was just trying to protect my babies LOL. Check out Don Bosco, Parañaque, Tambo, Parañaque and other barangay articles i created for Paranaque. Would you delete them too? LOL. I know you wont. Cheer up. :)--RioHondo (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  and also . I got pinged on Talk:Barangays of Navotas but I'll comment here instead just to centralize everything. I just got back on PC and was able to go through the discussion. The Barangays of Navotas article came about because of the article I started which was the Barangays of Cebu City which I brought up into the discussion above more than 2 months ago. JWilz12345 did informed me about this on my talk page and I replied favorably with respect to the article itself and he did mentioned that "selected important details of some barangays" were being moved to the said article. I was not able to followup if it also meant moving existing barangay articles to the said article but since that already happened, hopefully we can get a consensus on this one to guide those who may create the same articles as well in the future. I do subscribe to RioHondo's idea that separate brgy articles "maybe admitted on a case by case basis, after demonstration of their notability"  since I'm not inclined on having all barangays to have their own articles. I'm sorry if this has caused such trouble. — Emperork (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Let's talk about rules and procedures here since we are on the issue of a topic wide convention. And maybe this also extends to other similar PH geography-related articles. Many of these articles have been here probably before we even signed up in WP. So definitely they have met all the rules on notability already having been here long and i know there is wide support from the larger WP community based on previous AfDs for articles on even the smallest but verifiable populated place, because theyve built a ton of articles on their own hamlets and small villages themselves. But of course some will seem unworthy at their current state. What do we do? WP:BEFORE. Go through all those checklists first and see how they can be improved. If google does not yield any more info than what is already in there, start a discussion on their main city/municipality article to propose its merger if AfD is too cumbersome or too much hassle. At least get the word out to as many editors and not just a few PMs to close associates, and most importantly, to its article creator/s. Thats how you avoid being accused of bad behavior. In the same way, you want none of the articles you created (your road stubs, haunted lists or House committee articles) to suddenly vanish into thin air leaving you helpless and very upset. But if you think any of our articles need to be merged for any reason, you are free to do so so long as you again notify and discuss with the community first. This case by case basis you are referring to can only be determined by a proper discussion. At a public forum(AfD/Tambay) or article talkpage with other editors. As for barangays of City/Municipality lists, again these need to be reviewed, cos they may be redundant with our city and municipality articles. Im good with regional or provincial listings of barangays, but barangay list for every city or municipality is like creating a municipality and city listing for every province, which we dont have and which we dont need IMO. Is there anything in those city/municipality barangay lists that cant be included in their geography or barangay sections already?--RioHondo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, prior to this discussion and aside from Barangays of Cebu City, I also started the Barangays of Tagbilaran and Barangays of Toledo, Cebu articles. These were originally based from the Barangays of Quezon City existing since 2006 which was started by  who was an active contributor to these Phil geography articles way back when we started with the Task force LGU. Also, the barangay list articles I started was based from the List of barangays in Zamboanga City article. Currently, there are also other barangay lists articles of cities: Barangays of Pasay, Barangays of Pasay, List of barangays in Valenzuela, List of barangays in Cabuyao and List of barangays in Sorsogon City. The Barangays of Caloocan was redirected in 2017. What prompted me to create a list as well for Cebu City (aside from living in Cebu City) is to include information about the its LNB officials, the changes of barangays and its leadership. Should there be additional resources on how the old barangays were broken down into several barangays (like the original Barangay Pardo being broken into Barangays Poblacion Pardo, Kinasang-an Pardo, Cogon Pardo, Bulacao (Pardo), Basak Pardo, Toong (Pardo), etc.), I'll be including it their as well and maybe a separate barangay article itself. — Emperork (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. There will be no mass deletions of this entire category of barangay lists per LGU either. I only brought it up because i think there was a plan to come up with lists for every city or municipality which i think will only add to the problem. Cos when i looked at some of them, like List of barangays in Valenzuela, its table there is like copied off from the main Valenzuela article, the only difference is it has a gallery of pictures, lots of pictures. This Districts of Davao City article does not look like it shouldn't be placed in the main article as it is too short. So this type of lists shouldnt be replicated for all municipalities and cities as far as the issue of WP running out of paper is concerned, not my issue but for some apparently yea lol. Id rather have a standalone article on this former Augustinian friar land in the northeastern outskirts of Cebu City which turned into a US military outpost and air base and now a bustling commerical hub than a list that talks about their officials and stats and nothing more. But that's just me. ;) Or this barangay that used to be a horse race track where shacks now occupy this oval enclosure. There's so much history and heritage in those barangays of Cebu worth telling TBH if only we arent chained to an imaginary rule governing these topics.--RioHondo (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with the majority of users above that we should not have articles on most barangays. It doesn't matter what WP:GEOLAND guideline says if the articles can't meet WP:V, which is a core policy. Even if they can meet WP:V enough to have a few sentences, I don't see how the existence of an article so small it wouldn't merit a subsection on a larger article would help readers. The Barangays of X format makes sense to me as a default. Even if we keep just to municipal/city level articles/lists, that would already be 1,634 articles, which is not a small number. No-one is arguing that if a Barangay is significantly notable it shouldn't have its own article, but those will be very few and very far between. Knowledge of Barangays is so low that earlier this month PSA updated its information\ on the names of two Barangays, which had been outdated since 1990 and 1982. CMD (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If youve just tuned in and unfamiliar with this old debate on barangay notability, there have actually been a move to delete these barangays on the basis of the inherent lack of notability of all barangays. These aren't the first time mass deletions occurred here, we have been dealing with this for quite some time in older discussions. When people delete articles en masse, they dont choose which articles are going, like what transpired here earlier on two instances by two different editors was full on discrimination by class regardless of individual contents affecting one set of barangay articles to the next. And that is what we are trying to sort out here. At least now, noone is arguing that mass deletions are the way to go, and not just in writing.--RioHondo (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the older debates. The rest of your reply does not seem to relate to my comment, but certainly if the articles fail WP:V they should be deleted. CMD (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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