Jump to content

Talk:Provinces of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listProvinces of the Philippines is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2005Featured list candidateNot promoted
March 16, 2006Featured list candidatePromoted
May 9, 2012Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Filipino words

[edit]

Per Wikipedia convention (more specifically the English Wikipedia), Filipino words should not be interspersed in the article except when absolutely necessary for explanation of specific issues. Wikipedia is not for language learning. Per that convention, Filipino words appended to English titles in the article are removed. --Gerald Farinas (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)magulo[reply]

Capitalization and hyphenation

[edit]
  1. Is it "A province is administered by a governor" or "A province is administered by a Governor"? I think that unless it is used as a title (i.e., Governor Juan de la Cruz), it should be in small letters.
  2. Also, the correct form is hyphenated for "vice-governor", right?

—seav 06:31 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  1. That's my understanding.
  2. The original form in England has been hyphenatd, but the American form -- considered very correct by Americans -- is not. I don't know the tradition of English in the Philippines, but if what you learned at school officially is more British-like, hyphenate it.
--Menchi 06:43 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
English in the Philippines is almost exclusively American in form (the Philippines having been under American rule for almost 50 years). That's why I find it strange since, personally, I consider the hyphenated form to be correct. Anyway, I've researched some more and I find out that the form used in the Local Government Code of the Philippines (1991), Book III is the hyphenated one. —seav 07:29 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Because "vice-governor" is not listed in most dictionaries, I compared "vice-president" of American and British dictionaries when I answered you. But now when I inspect more closely, the American dictionary (Merriam-Wesbter) also has some hyphenated words, usually more uncommon ones: vice-chancellor, vice-consul, vice-regent. And even have no space for one very anicent word, "viceroy". OED hyphens all, except the likes of "viceroy".
I googled some Filipino websites and found some newspapers don't hyphenates and some universities do. And a government webpage that doesn't. Since this particular spelling isn't formalized, I suppose you're free to choose your own!
And apparently, Canadian online newspaper, even within the large Globe and Mail, the use is erratic too, but usually hyphenated. --Menchi 08:31 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To do

[edit]

Some questions are unanswered:

  • What is the role of the provincial capital? There are some provinces where the seat of government is located somewhere other than the capital.
  • How does Metro Manila work if it's not divided into provinces and has no governor?
  • How about those chartered cities that act independently of provinces? The article doesn't mention them.
  • History of the provinces... When were they drawn up, and how did they get to their current status?
  • How is it determined what region they belong to? And what difference does it make?

TheCoffee 4 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Hmmm, though questions. For the fifth, the President under the 1987 constitution has general administration over the local government units. See the preamble of Arroyo's E.O. 36:
WHEREAS, Article X, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall exercise general supervision over local governments;
WHEREAS, the administrative regions were established to promote efficiency in the Government accelerate social and economic development and improve public services;
But regions, when they were first introduced (mid 1900s I think) were traditionally aligned to ethnolinguistic groups, 12 in all: I - Ilocano, IV -Tagalog, V - Bicolano, VI - Ilonggo, VII - Cebuano, VIII - Waray, etc. Then NCR was formed, then CAR and ARMM, etc.
--seav 4 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

FLCfailed

[edit]

Just a note to say that this article failed to make it as a featured list mostly for failing to show references under a clear reference section. Please see the link above to the discussion of its candidacy. Not too much work is needed to make this featured, jguk 09:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous Provincial Names

[edit]

Hi Filipinos and everybody else who is her

Move new provinces in Lead?

[edit]

I think we should move the "On xxx, yyy was declared a province by..." to a "Recent changes/additions" section instead of having them in the lead section of the list. Shrumster 09:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal laguna.png

[edit]

Image:Ph seal laguna.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal rizal.png

[edit]

Image:Ph seal rizal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal cavite.png

[edit]

Image:Ph seal cavite.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal cebu.png

[edit]

Image:Ph seal cebu.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph seal romblon.png

[edit]

Image:Ph seal romblon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bukidnon del Sur

[edit]

The then 3rd District Representative (now Senator) Juan Miguel Zubiri proposed the creation of Bukidnon del Sur from the present province of Bukidnon through House Bill 3312 (An Act Creating the Proposed Province of Bukidnon del Sur). I think it should be included in the Formally proposed provinces section of this article. Kleomarlo (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinagat Islands

[edit]

Can someone re-add the province to the map? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible peso symbol

[edit]

In my browser, I am seeing a box instead of a symbol.
The article could use an older symbol; otherwise it should show one of the language notice templates that tells you how to fix the box problem.
Varlaam (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the peso itself has the same issue, namely a box symbol and no notice telling you what to do about it. Varlaam (talk)

Most of the history section is a laundry list

[edit]

I deleted most of the history section because it is just a long list of relatively minor adjustments to Philippine law that are not notable in my opinion (See Wikipedia:Notability). For instance, this his article does not need 29+ mentions that the "Provisions of the Provincial Government Act extended to..." the various provinces. In what way are all these acts and dates notable? The data might be used in individual province's articles but not here. User:P199 reverted my changes because "concise history is useful and much of this info is not elsewhere". However, "useful" is not 'notable". Most importantly this is not a concise history. It is neither a history suitable for an encyclopedia (written in prose with suitable third-party sources with appropriate explanation of the meaning and significance of each notable event) nor is it concise (much is repeated with only a chance of the province}. Further, the fact that this information is not elsewhere does not argue in favor of it being here. Why is it notable enough for this specific article? The information should rather be in an article about the Provincial Government Act or about the individual provinces. In short, I think that this section violates WP:Laundry_list. Quote

For example, in a crime article about a theft from an art gallery, there is no need to itemize every painting or item missing, with size, color and provenance background, even if posted on a crime-events website which repeated details from police reports or an art-gallery press release. Instead, the information should be summarized, by type, counts, artists, and value (etc.)... In general, facts within an article should cross-connect to notable aspects of the topic, rather than be presented as a "laundry list" of items with little specific impact on the overall topic.

The history section should be a discussion and not a laundry list of dates and minor events. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you in principle and I certainly favor a good rewrite. But in an article on the provinces of the Philippines, the dates of creation and major adjustments is pertinent (notability applies to topics, not content; furthermore WP:Laundry_list is an opinion, not WP policy). I also agree that this info should also be at the individual province's articles, but in many cases it is not. So instead of just removing everything and not adding it to the individual articles, it is better to first add the info to individual articles and then rewrite this one. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The laundry list is of poor quality, I prefer a laundry list to nothing. The current list isn't very descriptive (For an example from the beginning What is the "The Provincial Government Act"? What does it mean to extend its provisions somewhere?), however it does have pertinent info. The creation of new provinces, for example, is, I feel, 'notable'.
Given that we all agree it should be summarised, would it be worth splitting that list off into a subarticle, say History of the Philippine Provinces/History of the Provinces of the Philippines/Timeline of the Philippine provinces, and replacing it with a much more concise overview here? (If anyone wants to take on such a task.) CMD (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Provinces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Provinces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed provinces

[edit]

New provinces are proposed all the time in Congress. What's our standard for inclusion? Howard the Duck (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


WRONG

[edit]

Cities and municipalities Main articles: Cities of the Philippines and Municipalities of the Philippines Those classified as either "highly urbanized" or "independent component" cities are independent from the province, as provided for in Section 29 of the Local Government Code of 1991.[2] Although such a city is a self-governing second-level entity, in many cases it is often presented as part of the province in which it is geographically located, or in the case of Zamboanga City, the province it last formed part the congressional representation of.


Zamboanga City never became part of Zamboanga del Sur. The Whole of Zamboanga was once the City of Zamboanga but later on, the De Facto Zaaaamboanga City were only the Terriories of the 7 Pueblos namely: Pueblo de Zamboanga, Pueblo de Tetuan, Pueblo de las Mercedes, Pueblo de Manicahan, Pueblo de Sta. Maria, Pueblo de Vitali, and Pueblo de Ayala, and other Minor Pueblos hat formed the present-day Zamboanga City that became the Capital of Zaamboanga Province.

When Zamboanga City became an Independent City, it became independent from the MOTTHER Zamboannga Province. Later on, Zamboanga Province was divided into two Provinces. In other words, Zamboanga City existence predates the existence of Zamboanga del Norte & Zamboanga del Sur, including the newly created Province of Zamboanga Sibugay.

Anyhow, looking back history, the actual TERRITORY of the former KINGDOM OF NAUAN, were only the today's political Entities: Zamboanga City, Zamboanga Sibugay until the so called "PUNTA FLECHA" and "PUNTA GORDA". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.131.50.252 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension: Zamboanga City, before it got its own district in Congress, was included in Zamboanga del Sur's lone district until 1972. It doesn't mean Zamboanga City was a part of Zamboanga del Sur. Congressional representation =/ being a part of an LGU politically. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About indicating its Largest City/Municipality/LGU in every province.

[edit]

In the article "Provinces of the Philippines", aside from its provincial capital, its largest LGU like largest city/municipality/LGU must be indicated to determine what is the province's larget city or municipality. For example, For example: In Davao del Sur, its provincial capital is Digos City while its largest city is Davao City. 49.146.25.25 (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it? It doesn't say much about the provinces. Digos and Davao for example are part of the same metropolitan area, showing them as separate with no context would be somewhat misleading to the casual reader. CMD (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about Bukidnon? Its capital is Malaybalay City while its largest city is Valencia City. And also Cebu, its capital and largest city is Cebu City. 49.146.25.25 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is so arbitrary. Could you please give a more valid reason as to why we should add these? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at any articles for the Provinces of the Philippines like Bukidnon, Sarangani, etc. As you could see, there is its capital and its largest city so that you can know it. 49.146.25.25 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and then? Why should we add it to the table? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To show it and identify its largest city. 49.146.25.25 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could put a lot of things into the table, so we need to be selective. A column which often partially duplicates an existing column is a big ask on this limited space. CMD (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why limited space? There's still enough space for that. 49.146.25.25 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Screen width? Even with infinite space, every item you put on a list pulls attention away from other items, so the longer the list the less impactful its contents are. CMD (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About indicating its Largest City/Municipality/LGU in every Provinces of the Philippines.

[edit]

User talk:HueMan1, in the article Provinces of the Philippines, why do you revert all of my edits? There is nothing wrong with it. I just identify the largest city in every province. For example, in Davao del Sur, Digos is the capital and the largest city is Davao City and also in Bukidnon, Malaybalay is the capital while Valencia is the largest city. I hope you understand that one. Thank you! 🙂. 180.194.54.28 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above section. CMD (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About indicating its largest city/municipality in every Philippine province which is similar to List of states and territories of the United States.

[edit]

Why do you always revert my edits about adding largest city/municipality in every Philippine province? There's nothing wrong with it. I just do this so that it would be similar to List of states and territories of the United States, which also has capital and largest city in every state list. 49.146.22.36 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating new sections for the same topic. CMD (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd prefer showing the largest LGU, than a total number of LGUs. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By population or by area? As an aside, the table exceeds V2022's width, so something should be removed. I'd suggest density, as it's entirely redundant to the two preceding columns. CMD (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the rest of the world, "largest city" means "largest city by population", but this is the Philippines and we see things such as "Davao City is the largest city" although it isn't in the general definition.... so yes, it's by population. The table has too many columns which are irrelevant, IMO. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly make the table at Province of the Philippines#List scrollable horizontally ASAP because I'm going to add largest settlements per province.

[edit]

May I request to let the table scrollable ASAP? Because I'm going to add the largest settlements per province. I hope you do it at the soonest time. Thank you! CryingSulfur (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of adding a separate column for largest settlements, but seriously, CryingSulfur, if it was you on the last four preceding sections, I know there's an educational crisis and people are failing in reading comprehension, but you won't convince people to do what you want by steamrolling through and acting as if you didn't not read the arguments above. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provinces_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1242290661"