Talk:Zamboanga City/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"... In the 1990s, Zamboanga was notorious as the site of repeated kidnappings and attempted kidnappings and extortion of Westerners by fundamentalist Moro Muslim separatists known as the Abu Sayyaf."

                                                      - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i disagree with the above statement. indeed in 1990s incidents about the kidnappings of westerners by the abu sayyaf were rampant but those didn't happen right in the city. the other islands which are also part of the zamboanga peninsula and have been the abusayaf's haven are separated from the city proper of zamboanga by sea. zamboanga city has remained peaceful to these days. muslims and christians managed to live peacefully for years. i have known the city all throughout my life.

the abu sayaf are in basilan not in zamboanga city.....dont ruin the reputation of zamboanga city, since its peacefull.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.126.6.76 (talk • contribs) [1]

I have a question. Under the demographics, does 'Spanish-Filipino' and 'Chinese-Filipino' refer to mestizos? M P M 01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Infobox map

As continued from User talk:Howard the Duck#Map of Zamboanga City on the City's infobox

Ok. Lets settle what map we should put in the infobox.

First, let us see the Manila page. On the infobox, we see a locator map. The local map doesn't appear after the first two-thirds of the article.

Now let see the Seville, Spain page. Again on the infobox, we see a locator map. There isn't even a local map on the page.

On the Bangkok page, again on the infobox appears a locator map.

I am a strong supporter of infoboxes, and how they should be used correctly. Infoboxes should give a summary of information. Lazy users won't read the article, they'll rather look at the infobox.

Now about the residents of Zamboanga City POV. Unfortunately, that is against WP:NPOV. On the infobox it says province, and although Zamboanga City residents may find that insulting, it still worth mentioning on the infobox that Zamboanga City was a part of Zamboanga del Sur.

I saw the Manila page. Manila is "not traced" to any line from any province. Look at your map. Zamboanga is traced to a line from del sur province. Now, is that neutral point of view? The issue is not about what we feel, but on misleading information. Such kind of information are provocative. --Weekeejames 07:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The red line? Those are provincial borders. About Manila, it has been largely independent in its history, right? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the red line and even though they are provincial borders, but what's the point? Are we talking here about the Zamboanga Provinces or Zamboanga City - the independent chartered city? --Weekeejames 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Lazy users won't read the article, they'll rather look at the infobox." - Well that defeats the Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia's purpose. We should go see an almanac rather than read articles on Wikipedia. --Weekeejames 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So what's the connection to the map? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning is faulty. --Weekeejames 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes are meant to be summaries. It aims to give info on a glance. So what's wrong with that? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And infoboxes should not be misleading. They should not also be taken as a subsitute for articles because this is a wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Look, I have stated my opposition to that map, and I have said my points. --Weekeejames 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What's so misleading about the new map, it now shows that Zamboanga City is independent of any province. The colors for del Norte, del Sur and Sibugay are now brown. Zamboanga City is red. If del Sur's colors are light beige, then it means that Zamboanga City is within Zamboanga del Sur. See Image:Ph locator zamboanga del sur zamboanga.png#File history. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, let me establish that I'm neutral, so I'll try to maintain as unbiased as I can against either side. The thing with Manila is that the city itself is a direct descendent of the province that was called "Manila", and that the grouping of cities and municipalities into today's Metro Manila was with the intention of provincial status, but since Metro Manila has been so urbanized, the description of "province" was no longer accurate, even though Metro Manila in the Marcos era had Imelda Marcos as "provincial" governor. So technically, the locator map of Manila is accurate.
With Zamboanga, on the other hand, Zamboanga City was made independent of the former Zamboanga province, as stated in Article 47 of the city's charter. However, Zamboanga province itself had no legal heir when the province was split into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur under RA 711, and further on to include Zamboanga Sibugay. Politically, Zamboanga City cannot be associated with any Zamboanga subdivision unless there is something stating that either one of the three Zamboangas today can claim to be or is recognized by the government today as the legal heir of "old Zamboanga" (like how Russia is the political heir of the Soviet Union). The issue now I think is of a more socio-cultural importance of who's closer to who, rather than political. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 11:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I guess the issue now is (hopefully) resolved. The point of contention really was the map. With the changing of the colors, labelling and captioning in the map, I hope everybody's happy. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems better, but the red line again is questionable. I suggest a series of "- - - - -" would do the trick. I appreciate the editing of the infobox on province. --Weekeejames 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Are you saying that the lines and the shade are both colored red? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Howard, the color is not really important. It's the line. Have a look at www.zamboanga.com and why they think that line, although it only serves as a mark for bordering, is making it such an issue. The line is tracing to diff points. Why not make it a series of hyphens of sorts. Like - - - - - - - - - instead of a straight line. Got my point? --Weekeejames 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So all borders, instead of being solid, must be changed to dashes? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Not the color shades, but the continuous line should be changed to a series of dashes, if you will. That way, it won't look as it's like a tracing line. Are you drunk? :D --Weekeejames 15:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, so all of Zamboanga City's borders would be a series of dashes. Perhaps I can do it tomorrow morning. Or, you can even do it yourself, so that there would be no mistakes. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I leave it up to you to change it because you're the one who keeps on insisting that regional map, anyways. Good luck! --Weekeejames 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, BUT I'd post a preview first to see if you'd agree, tomorrow. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC
Wait, I'd be restarting the indentions, OK?

While doing the map, I don't see the point making dashed lines, because whatever you'd do, they're still political boundaries. Lets have a consensus on this first. How about making the 3 provinces and the city with different colors, as done [2] here? I did my own version here. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're talking here about Zamboanga City and not about Zamboanga Peninsula, aren't we? The dashed lines would do the trick because it will show (a) the borders (b) the political boundaries which are important (c) it will break the continuous line that erroneously seems like a tracing line. Actually, if you will just agree with the local map, it will be just fine because the exact location of Zamboanga City in the world is just right there: on the location sub heading. And the location sub heading isn't really that long for lazy readers!--Weekeejames 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What are tracing lines? In the map we have now, it is a fact that Zamboanga City is distinct from any province. All of the 3 provinces are colored brown, not light beige. Also, we need to see where Zamboanga City is. I can draw a square here, and say its Colorado, but you'd need to have an idea where it is in relation to other places. The local map does not have that, it just shows Zamboanga City, in fine detail, if I may add, but it doesn't give the reader an idea where it is in relation with other places. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
A tracing line is a line that you can trace from one point to another. I can put a square and say it's Zamboanga City by pointing out to its west is the Sulu Sea, to the east the Moro Gulf and to the south, the Basilan Strait, to the Southwest, the Celebes Sea and it will be fine without having the square in relation to any province. Look at the satellite map, as an example. --Weekeejames 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the satellite map shows a piece of land that is Zambo del Norte, while the local map just shows white space on areas outside the City's jurisdictions. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
But at least it doesn't have a tracing line that can trace from one point to another. See the dashed line. Come on, are we going on circles here? Im sleepy. Just have a look at www.zamboanga.com and Zamboanga_del_Sur and try to understand why inaccuracies are provocative. --Weekeejames 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I have comments below on actually removing the boundaries, but dashed lines can also mean territorial demarcation lines; they don't necessarily have to be political. But anyway, the problem with that is that we need district/barangay(?) boundaries of Zamboanga City for that to work, since legally there are no towns in the conurbation that is the City of Zamboanga. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we'd need barangay (although district would be good) boundaries. I think the point of contention here is how to represent Zamboanga City in a map. We all know it is independent from any province, the problem is how to make it appear that way. IMHO, the current map does just that. BTW, I've edited image description page of the map too. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, go to Zamboanga_del_Sur and have a look at their map. See the color shades of Zamboanga City and Zamboanga del Sur. Doesn't it look like Zamboanga City belongs to Zamboanga del Sur province? Isn't that map also inaccurate and misleading? That's the whole point of www.zamboanga.com's contention. --Weekeejames 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I've noticed that too, and already informed User:TheCoffee about it. I don;t want to mess around with his files, one is enough. Although I agree with you that those are incorrect. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is actually political, and that is the reason why Zamboanga City was made independent of the Zamboanga provinces when it was created as a chartered city. Zamboanga City has NOTHING to do with any of the Zamboanga provinces, and Zamboanga City does not want to associate itself with any of the provinces, nor does it want any of the provinces be associated with her. The city's charter speaks for her. Any association would only be geographic. But again, any geographic tool such as a map should be careful as not to mislead information on this politically sensitive issue that includes geo-boundaries. Geo-jurisdiction also means political jurisdiction. That map served its purpose - to show the borders. However, it was misleading as the line was tracing Zamboanga City to Zamboanga del Sur province and as an added insult to injury, the line that says formerly of Zamboanga del Sur province was insisted. It was outrageous. --Weekeejames 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I really don;t get this line? Provincial boundaries? The map states that the City and del Sur are separate. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant the province line (row would have been a better word) on the infobox where you stated that it was formerly of Zamboanga del Sur province. I looked at it as an added insult to injury with that misleading map. Again, I appreciate the editing on that. --Weekeejames 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it already. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Development: While I still stand by my statement earlier, I decided to check the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) website for their say on the "Zamboanga is where?" issue. According to them, for statistical reasons, Zamboanga City is grouped under Zamboanga del Sur. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps on statistics Zamboanga City is grouped under Zamboanga del Sur, but politically they're separate. Makes me ask, anybody have a list independent cities in the Philippines? --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And why on earth would Zamboanga City be grouped under Zamboanga del Sur for statistical purposes? Just look at the (more accurate) map. You gotta cross Zamboanga Sibugay before you even reach Zamboanga City from del sur. --Weekeejames 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure with the NSCB, but I think they didn't take into account properly the Zamboanga del Sur-Zamboanga Sibugay split. In fact, even the ZIP Code directory, of which the one on the Wikipedia is taken from the PLDT telephone directory here in Metro Manila, groups Zamboanga City and Zamboanga Sibugay under Zamboanga del Sur in the printed version (the one here documents Zamboanga Sibugay as separate; I think Philpost needs to update their ZIP Code directories). --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Cities of the Philippines mentions that. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not complete, methinks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So do I. However, I think that the independent cities of the Philippines include this city, the cities of Metro Manila, Baguio City, Cebu City, Davao City, Ormoc City and Naga City. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 14:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already begun a discussion at Talk:Cities of the Philippines#Independent cities. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
People working for NSCB on Zamboanga City's statistics are dimwits. Just as Zamboanga City has always been branded as a city of terrorists and terror activities, this city is so misunderstood and infos about her have always been misleading and inaccurate. --Weekeejames 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well we can't necessarily blame them. They technically are part of the government, so they "might" know what they're doing. Anyway, I think the reason why the original map was made was because of the statistical reasons, but since I still stick by my original statements (see above) and since I'm still techinically neutral, Zamboanga City would be better off independent until for some reason some Zamboanga division is mysteriously the heir of the former province, which I doubt (unless someone has access to RA 711 at, let's say, the National Library)?
Whether Zamboanga City represents the former province or not does not matter. Again, the city's charter speaks for her. Zamboanga City as an independent chartered city is what really matters. Funny how and why those provinces always want to associate themselves with Zamboanga hermosa! --Weekeejames 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
But still, since Zamboanga City, as stated by its charter, is independent of any Zamboanga province existing today, how about we just have the Zamboanga Peninsula map without any borders excluding the regional border with Region X, to accurately document the old Zamboanga province, of which the city was made independent of. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We're talkin about Zamboanga City here, so why not use basically a Zamboanga City map? --Weekeejames 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We can, but since we're making a map of Zamboanga City up to provincial standards, is there like a map of districts/barangays (?) that we can use? --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because we'd need to know where Zamboanga City is in relation with other places. Have you seen a local map used in an infobox? More often than not, there is a locator map but no local map. I'd suggest to use the discussion within two horizontal lines above. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
For our sakes, let me restart the indentation:

In order to make a provincial map, the map has to be made to the following specifications (as stated by my observations of User:TheCoffee's maps):

  1. The province/city/what-not has to be shown in relation to the region it is in
  2. Internal boundaries must represent the locality in light beige with non-affiliated entities in brown
  3. External boundaries are in red while internal boundaries are in grey

To make a Zamboanga City map that would be up to provincial standards, we need a set of internal divisions. Districts would be nice, for example, but of course, it's only a suggestion. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Have a look at this page Zambo City satellite map and note the dashed line. Can you do something like that with your map? --Weekeejames 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, that is a very accurate map of Zamboanga City. --Weekeejames 17:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I don't see the difference if we use dashed lines or solid lines. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Again look at the main page of www.zamboanga.com and look at Zamboanga_del_Sur and you will understand zamboanga.com's contention. --Weekeejames 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the current map does not suggest that the City is not a part of any province, right? Also the webpage was wrong: Zamboanga del Sur people did not create that. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Zamboanga has only 1 legislative district, dunno about administrative districts. For me, in cases of Zamboanga (and independent cities outside Metro Manila), the map would show the city in relation with the region, since they're not a part of any province. Internal divisions would be nice, but I think they're too detailed. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the city article, by the time of the elections next year, the Lone District of Zamboanga City would be split into two, one for the eastern shore and one for the western shore, including Zamboanga City proper. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It won't have any effects on Zamboanga City as an independent charter city. --Weekeejames 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So a Zamboanga City locator map would show the two districts? Again, I don't like the inclusion of barangays in Wikipedia, so I dunno about that. How about Manila, they're six, right? We'll be doing that to? Also, Davao has 3. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Manila has a locator map with its administrative districts, I don't think documenting its legislative districts is necessary. With Davao, while the city is independent, it is generally regarded as part of Davao del Sur, so the current map there is fine. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub! I also thought that Zamboanga City is attached to Zamboanga del Sur, or even Zamboanga Sibugay (several offline maps suggest that, even the COMELEC implies the City is within the province). Since the regions' locator maps show them in reference to a country, while the municipalities and cities are shown in relation with their provinces, should independent cities be shown in relation to their respective regions, since no province "owns" them, irrespective of their districts and barangays? --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Note first that the COMELEC uses NSCB statistics, but the concept of independent cities within regions sounds good. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I was told not to trust the government, now I can't even trust their websites lol. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but how about the DILG? Even the DILG says Zamboanga City is under Zamboanga del Sur. I think there's a government consensus on that. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Methinks still the City is separate from any province. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So do I. I think its for statistical reasons again? --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Perhaps it is for statistical groupings only. Gathering and presenting stats such as this would be doubly hard if independent cities are not associated with a province. --Howard the Duck | talk, 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


After quite a lengthy deliberation/debate on the map, I concede to the fact that the locator map of Zamboanga City is now fine and not necesarily misleading anymore. After the color shades have been changed, the line now seems to only serve one purpose: to show the provincial borders within the Zamboanga Peninsula. It does not seem to trace Zamboanga City anymore to the del Sur province. I would like to thank Howard the Duck and Akira123323 for their kind understanding on the matter. Still, I would like to ask Howard the Duck to contact TheCoffee to please do the same with the Zamboanga_del_Sur map which seems to show that Zamboanga City is part of Zamboanga del Sur province.

www.zamboanga.com has released a critical note, and I quote:

"Terror Map of Zamboanga City has been corrected thanks to the rapid response and heroism of many Zamboangueños and their friends. The Zamboanga del sur terrorist map herein will remain posted here for many more to see and be educated by it. This illegal map depiction of Zamboanga City by Zamboanga del sur has been going on for decades! We will not rest until the country and the world knows about this crime of cyber-terror against a peaceful sovereign city and its proud people!"

In behalf of Zamboangeños, muchisimas gracias. --Weekeejames 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The battle is not yet over, there still many maps in bookstores that depict the City as part of Sibugay or del Sur. But let Wikipedia be the first. Also, if TheCoffee can tell me the font/s he used perhaps I can change all of them. Weekeejames, are you the owner of that site? --Howard the Duck | talk, 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't own that site. --Weekeejames 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I have reservations in showing Zamboanga City apart from its mother province Zamboanga del Sur. I guess for the resolution of this issue, the following points would have to be considered:
It is true that highly urbanized cities are independent from their mother province, this is affirmed by Section 29 of the Local Government Code which provides that: Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. No legislation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan can be made applicable to them, and residents of the highly urbanized cities do not vote for provincial officials.
The Local Government Code of 1991 provides (Chapter 3, Article I, Section 25) — The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to Barangays.
If this is the case the First Level Subdivision or the primary political subdivision of the Philippines are: not the 79 provinces alone but shall include the 2 special cities (Manila and Quezon City), 27 highly urbanized cities, 2 independent component cities, 3 municipalities of Metro Manila. As the chief executives of these local government units report directly to the Philippine President.
The Second Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the component cities and municipalities of the Philippines.
The Third Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the barangays - but what about for the highly urbanized cities and independent component cities??? Do they become second level then, since their city is a first level subdivision?
However, as listed in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code, the highly urbanized provinces are grouped together with the municipalities of its mother province. Metro Manila's case should be an exception.
In a nutshell if we decide that Zamboanga City be shown apart from its mother province being an highly urbanized city then it must also be the case for other highly urbanized cities and the independent component cities which are as follows: Baguio City (from Benguet), Angeles City (from Pampanga), Olongapo City (from Zambales), Lucena City (from Quezon), Bacolod City (from Negros Occidental), Iloilo City (from Iloilo Province), Cebu and Mandaue Cities (from Cebu Province), Zamboanga City (from Zamboanga del Sur), Iligan City (from Lanao del Norte), Cagayan de Oro City (from Misamis Oriental), Davao City (from Davao del Sur), General Santos City (from South Cotabato), Butuan City (from Agusan del Norte), and Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Taguig, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela (all from Metro Manila); and the independent component cities which are: Santiago City (from Isabela), Ormoc City (Leyte Province), Cotabato City (from Maguindanao). --Scorpion prinz | talk, 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Zamboanga City does not have a "mother province." It does NOT belong to any province, nor does any province own her. --Weekeejames 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard, it seems that www.zamboanga.com is not fully convinced. See www.zamboanga.com again and look, your map is there! I think for as long as TheCoffee does not edit that map on Zamboanga_del_Sur, www.zamboanga.com will not rest on the issue against the del Sur province. Please allow me to edit the caption of your map for www.zamboanga.com's sake. Leave it there temporarily. Gracias. --Weekeejames 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get their beef with the current map. It shows Zamboanga City as a primary subdivision and its location within Region IX. It does not indicate association with any province except by proximity (which is the point of a locator map). Polaron | Talk 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Me either. I thought after a lengthy deliberation and Howard's editing of the original misleading map, everything was now fine except Zamboanga_del_Sur's map. I even emailed the people behind www.zamboanga.com and explained to them what has been going on here at Wikipedia. Seems like they are not fully convinced especially because the map of Zamboanga_del_Sur has not been edited. See for yourself. On the del sur's page, it does seem like Zamboanga City is part of the del Sur province which is way wrong. --Weekeejames 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, changing a single map isn't that hard. Changing a lot of maps is a lot harder. We would take time in changing those maps, especially since they were TheCoffee's project like a year ago?
Zamboanga del sur's cyber terrorist goons are indeed very desperate in OWNING Zamboanga City, no matter what! They are probably behind the drive to convert our prosperous City into a lowly province like theirs, to match their sorry state!!! The Zamboanga City government must do something to stop this pervasive terror attack! - zamboanga.com
Ok, now, if you think wrong maps are offending, then they do should do something about it! Creating maps is no easy task, especially if you're making a lot of maps for a whole country. What they should do is go here and let their voices be heard. It is very hard to please close-minded people, but please, if there's a problem, they should tell it to us, and we'll do something about it. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that you and I have done our best. Your Zamboanga City locator map is fine and does not need to be changed anymore. I think it only takes a little "explanatory note" for them for a while. They don't participate in Wikipedia and I don't think they are aware of our discussions. So, a little explanatory note will, hopefully, work for now. Also, I persoanally still think the locator map of Zamboanga del Sur should be changed. Yes, wrong maps can indeed be offending, but we can't force them to come and join Wikipedia. :) --Weekeejames 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a legend key will do the trick, although that'll mean will have to add each and every map a legend key (no favoritism) which is way too hard. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
uh uh --Weekeejames 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Just noting that I edited the locator map for Zamboanga del Sur so that Zamboanga City is no longer highlighted. I hope this reolves the issue. Polaron | Talk 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)