Talk:Provinces of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provinces of the Philippines is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

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.
Also, the correct form is hyphenated for "vice-governor", right?

—seav 06:31 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's my understanding.
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)

1 To do
2 FLCfailed
3 Ambiguous Provincial Names
4 Historical Provinces of the Philippines
5 Note on Shariff Kabungsuan

[edit] To do

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)

[edit] FLCfailed

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)

[edit] Ambiguous Provincial Names

Hi Filipinos and everybody else who is here!

Some of you came to my user talk, I moved the whole discussion here, as i think this is the most apropriated place. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalinga and Apayao

Moved from User talk:Tobias Conradi.

Hi, you recently moved Kalinga and Apayao to the "X Province" form. I think they were just fine at their old article titles, since it seems to me that the words "Kalinga" and "Apayao" are most commonly used to refer to the provinces. Perhaps a better solution would have been to keep the articles at their original titles and simply make Kalinga (disambiguation) and Apayao (disambiguation). Coffee 18:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) having the articles at an unambigous name and making the ambigous name a dab help finding wrong links. E.g. there where links from Pakistan and India to Kalinga. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Eeks, same thing with Aklan (all these articles are on my watchlist). Ah, can you put a pause to moving these articles? There should be some discussion first... we don't move California to California State just because there's a California (song). Coffee 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Georgia, Aurora and La Union. And "X Province" / "X (province)" is used in lots of instances for other countries. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the naming issues on those articles... but at least in the cases of Apayao and Aklan it can be assumed most of the time that a person would be talking about the provinces. In those cases the only other links are named so because of their connection to the provinces. (I don't know anything about that Kalinga (India) though) Coffee 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

People concerned with linguistics may see Aklan as language. People involved with rivers see it as river. IMO it's the other way around, the provinces are named after one of the other things. Maybe after the people, maybe after the river. But I don't mind too much about the discussion what was first; (although it might be intersting ;-) . The what-was-first question is IMO not very relevant for dab. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why discuss with Ph community

Hi Tob, its just that we the Filipino community went into a lot more trouble, discussions, and disputes to make these articles better organized, encyclopedic, etc. We've been here a long time. Please work with us and work within a consensus. Thanks for listening.--Jondel 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was not my question. Me too I try to make things better organized. I don't think my dabs make the articles less encyclopedic. How? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When the people came to my talk, I did not refuse any discussion. And I halted further dabbing but collected suggestions for more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ambiguous PH province articles

Masbate - Masbate Province, Masbate Island, Masbatenyo (people + language)
- I think the province qualifies for primary disambiguation. Masbate Island is part of the province and Masbatenyos are the people of Masbate. --seav 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Quirino - Quirino Province, PH-cities, Teatro Quirino, president
- Quirino province is the primary meaning of the bare name. (We don't make Washington a dab page just because the state was named after the president) --seav 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Rizal - Rizal Province, municipalities, river: Rizal (disambiguation), named after José Rizal
- Same as Quirino
Biliran - Biliran Province, Biliran Island, volcano, municipality Biliran, Biliran
- All located in the province. --seav 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  - so what? that does not mean if one talks about Biliran that he refers to the province Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    - But so far as I can see, the base name Biliran refers overwhelmingly to the province. Outside the province only geologists would be really interested in Biliran Island aka Biliran Volcano. And Biliran, Biliran can be easily seen in the province article (you don't make Kansas a dab page just because it has Kansas City). So the appropriate solution to this DAB is to retain the status quo and have a top notice linking to Biliran Island and Biliran, Biliran. --seav 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      - not only geologists: tourists, geographers, linguists, seamen, historician ... they all might be interested in the Biliran Island, while not caring about the administrative unit. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Bataan - Bataan Province, USS Bataan, Bataan (movie) [1], ~~Bataan Island~~
- Various war-related Bataan topics were because of events that happened in the province. There is no such thing as Bataan Island; it's either the mistaken Bataan Peninsula or Batan Island in Batanes. --seav 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  - so what? you mean because the other stuff is named after the province, the province takes the pure name? On Quirino / Rizal / Quezon you were different Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Looking at the first several pages of Google, only the movie and the province are referred to using the base name (the ship is always "USS Bataan"; it's always "Bataan Death March"; etc.). Anyway, the movie owes its name to the province. It would be an entirely different matter if both the movie and the province were so named for different reasons (e.g., Georgia the U.S. state and Georgia the country), in which case it's a matter of whether one meaning is overwhelmingly used over the other (as in Paris, France vs. Paris the mythology hero). But in this case, not only will I argue that the province reference is overwhelmingly used over the movie reference, but the movie is named after the province and has its setting in the province. The proper thing to do is to place a notice on top linking to Bataan (disambiguation), which I did just now. --seav 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      - I am not a fan of what is named after what. This may be of minor importance to the reader when looking for an article. That's why I would not like some ancient man named Rizal having this page, nor give it to the ex-president or the province. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        "I want to look for the article on the U.S.' first president. Washington, isn't it? Hmmm... what was his first name? How do you spell it? Goerge? Georgie? Hmmm... let's just try Washington. Oh... the article is about the state, but look, there's a notice at the top linking to George Washington." While dab pages help in looking for the correct article, you need to balance it with the user's expectation of what article should have what name. If there is no overwhelming meaning for a bare term, then a dab page is alright. But if there is one (and I'd argue that Bataan, the province, is one) then that meaning deserves the bare term. --seav 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        it was you who presented the what-is-named-after-what argument, not me. Overwhelming meaning is another issue. And I doubt that the provice meaning is that oberwhelming. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        The what-is-named-after-what argument is just one of a few reasons why I am arguing that the province deserves the bare name. Just because you don't buy that argument doesn't mean that it's rubbish, but it's something to be taken into consideration. Also, it's not just you who gets to decide which argument is valid or not, it's the community, and since we're the only two arguing about it, the status quo option is usually followed until there's a consensus, or at least overwhelming majority of people interested in the topic.
        
        if you are consequent some rivers get the first thing than, and not the provinces. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        Overwhelming meaning is another argument for the province to deserve the bare term. You doubt that the province has the overwhelming meaning. But have you given examples/points to support your opinion? --seav 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  - why is Bataan Peninsula mistaken ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    - I meant that when you see the term "Bataan Island" (e.g., "The Japanese landed on Bataan Island in 1941"), it's a mistake and it's supposed to be either Batan Island in Batanes, or the Bataan Peninsula/Bataan province. --seav 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Quezon - Quezon Province, Quezon (disambiguation), named after president
- Same as Quirino
Ifugao - Ifugao Province, river, people, language
- Should be treated the same as Kalinga and Apayao (these are all tribe-provinces). --seav 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  - and the tribe meaning is less important than the lately created province meaning? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    - I'll be willing to concede the tribe-provinces. I'll probably try to consult anthropologists since they would be the best ones to judge whether there would be sufficient ambiguity when simply mentioning Ifugao, Kalinga, and Apayao. --seav 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Batangas (native term batanga for logs) - Batangas Province, Batangas City, Batangas Bay, Batangas River
- confusion on the province page
  1. Batangas was founded in 1581. Originally, it was composed of the present provinces of Batangas, Mindoro, Marinduque, -> Batangas refers to the Province, becaus a town is unlikly to be composed of three provinces
  2. In 1534, Batangas became the first practically organized province in Luzon.
Pampanga - Pampanga Province Pampanga River less: Pampangan (language+people).

[edit] Other discussion

I'm interested to know, are you also planning to move New York to New York State and make the former into a disambiguation page? Coffee 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently no plans. All states beside Georgia are at "X". But as far as i remember there was discussion for Washington and New York. For the Philippnes some provinces allready use an identifier and they are much smaller with respect to population and area. So the use is less clear then it is with the US states. Furthermore "X State" would refer to a university in AE english, e.g. Kansas State. So it would have to be "X (U.S. state)". I think adding the identifier avoids future article conflicts and dab work. Currently africa is weak in internet but what do you know whether the 5 to 8 letter words for provinces are used for other stuff in the world - e.g. in africa. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Africa. There is no need to be proactive about it. --seav 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, from what I have seen so far, you seem to think that provinces are not that important (e.g., on Biliran you said "they all might be interested in the Biliran Island, while not caring about the administrative unit"). I strongly disagree. If a person is Filipino or at all interested in the Philippines, then the person cannot avoid knowing about the provinces. The stature given by Americans to their states is quite similar to the stature given by Filipinos to their provinces. If you ask expatriate Filipinos where in the Philippines they come from, they would most likely mention a province or a province group (e.g., Ilocos), if they're not from major cities.

you may have seen this, but your seeing may be wrong. I never said they are unimportant. But they may be unimportant depending on context. You can talk about Biliran Island in year 1000 - no province there. If one is interested in landscapes - what the heck has this to do with admin units. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By this reasoning you're all for disambiguating Taiwan, the province/country, from Taiwan Island (which currently redirects to Taiwan), right? (It was only in 1887 that Taiwan became a singular administrative unit.) I'm don't think you can prove your case there. And absent other predominant meanings of Biliran outside the Philippine setting, the province of Biliran, like Taiwan, should get primary meaning.--seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Provinces are not just simply administrative units, its the whole place/people/culture. There's a certain pride thing for Filipinos when you talk about provinces. So if a term is used by a province and other local objects related to the province (e.g., Batangas [province, city, bay, river, blade/knife, etc.]), then among those local meanings, the province has the overwhelming meaning by default.

and "the whole place/people/culture" changes from one day to the other if a province is split or renamed? i doubt this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If a new province is split off, it's almost always because it's reflecting long-standing anthopological changes. Almost all provinces, generally reflect individual subcultures in the Philippines. I'll give two examples: Kalinga-Apayao province was split into Kalinga and Apayao because they are the two dominant tribes of the previous province; the new provinces now reflect the long-standing tribal makeup of the place. Another example is Negros Oriental and Negros Occidental. Despite sharing the same island, these two provinces were created to reflect the fact that people in western Negros speak a different language and have an Ilonggo culture than the Cebuano-influenced language and culture of the eastern Negrenses. So a province splitting off does not mean that people will now change their culture, but rather it's the other way around.

And renaming the province does not change the province nor its people, so this has nothing to do with whether provinces are much more than administrative units. --seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to specifics, I said that only geologists would be interested in Biliran as an island (the whole island is a inactive compound volcano). You then said that tourists, geographers, linguists, seamen, historicians would also be interested. Then you're implying that Biliran Island is not just a geological formation but also a place with people and culture, right? Then you might as well be talking about the province itself. Biliran province is composed of two major islands, Biliran Island and Maripipi Island; and Biliran takes up about 85% of the provinces' land area. If you want to talk about Biliran Island as a place, then the appropriate location is the province article.

to your last sentence - why? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because Biliran Island and Biliran province are practically coterminous. You can't create an article about the Island of Biliran as a place filled with people, history, and culture, without mentioning the province. And if you're going to be mentioning the province, then why have a separate article about the island? Again, a province is not simply viewed as an administrative unit, in the same way that a U.S. state is not some homogenous subdivision of the United States.--seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for other island provinces: Batanes province vs. Batanes Islands, Catanduanes province vs. Catanduanes Island, Palawan province vs. Palawan Island, Cebu province vs. Cebu Island, Bohol, Basilan, Marinduque, Siquijor, and Camiguin. (There, more "ambiguous" province names for you.) For these, there is no need for the island article, the province article is enough (and there's always the physical geography section on the province article if you want to talk about the island as a geological feature).

when Magellan was in Cebu there was no province at all. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that Taiwan Island needs to be a separate article since there was no Taiwan before 1887? (Note that the island as a geological feature is discussed in Geography of Taiwan.) --seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan Province has it's separate article. AFAIK Taiwan (the island) existed before 1887. Maybe for some 100000 years? The province is a quite recent feature. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, Bataan province is coterminous with Bataan Peninsula. There's no need to talk about Bataan Peninsula by itself; you can talk about it in the geography section of Bataan province, and as a part of the Zambales Mountains article. --seav 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

you can talk about this in the geo section - or you can outsource it to another article. Maybe all provinces are resolved one day - the geographic features will stay. (at least the liklihood is bigger) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "all provinces are resolved one day" --seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant "dissolved", sorry for my english. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've defended my position that provinces are much more important than what you think of them and so deserve their primary disambiguation position by citing examples, comparing with other places in the world, and showing arguments and supporting details. You have done little of that sort. What you've done so far is to say that "province X and island X have the same name; so we should make X a dab page", and to simply nitpick my arguments. So, please, show me why you think provinces, in general, do not deserve their primary disambiguation status other than the fact that they share the same names as other related topics. Don't argue your position by just stating your opinion on my arguments. --seav 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

nitpick your arguments? I think you brought in some good arguments and some that were IMO contradictory. I don't want to defend 'my' position or attack yours. Can we maybe summarize some of our talk and put it in an article. Naming of Philippine provinces - or add a section in the province article. I think this is more productive. best regards to whereever you are Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Provinces of the Philippines

It would be interesting to see an article and maps on the historical provinces of the Philippines. Boreanesia 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Shariff Kabungsuan

Shariff Kabungsuan is not yet a province - it has to be approved by the people in the affected areas in a plebiscite in order to become a province. --Howard the Duck 08:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProvinces_of_the_Philippines_e3e2.html"

Categories: Wikipedia featured lists | Wikipedia featured geography lists