Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 7 April 2021

Main

Discussion

Assessment

Requests

Members

Articles (Featured · New · Popular)

Sources

Portal

• WT:TAMBAY
• WT:PINOY

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tambayan Philippines. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tambayan Philippines at the Reference desk.

Archives

00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Pinoy Misplaced Pages on social media   [REDACTED]     This box: view talk edit

LGU Maps

Hi. Have you had seen the UP NOAH website? here I think it is a good source for accurate provincial, municipal/city and barangay boundaries. (tested it myself a day ago) The tab for the boundaries is at the left side and it says that data are from the PSA and the UI is great, too. I think it would be great to be applied in LGU locator/location maps, especially the town/city maps because some of the lines at present maps are soggy and are surely inaccurate. And most of these I believe are outdated. Thanks. Crear2000 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is indeed accurate, then it proves that Isabela's 4th congressional district is contiguous only as much as you can consider that a quadripoint on the summit of Mount Dos Hermanos means two jurisdictions border each other if they "face" (Utah-New Mexico or Arizona-Colorado) each other. Our current maps don't show this quadripoint, instead showing Echague separating Dinapigue from the rest of its district. Would be an interesting court case if someone brings it up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, it also shows that Santiago-Cordon does not border Jones-San Agustin. This was a bad gerrymander. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Like HTD says, hopefully it is accurate. If so, I agree that it would be nice to update all the maps of the 1634 LGU's and 120 provinces. Big task though, we'll need some volunteers with good graphic skills. Unfortunately, I have no time to take that on... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is accurate at least in places I know where there are welcome arches or signages separating political entities, and some usual border conventions that I am aware of. It is also noteworthy that, according to these maps, much of the political boundaries up to the barangay level are shared with waterways and rivers or at least run near the said water courses. I am just unsure why PSA didn't "explicitly" publish the maps. Well, yeah, it'll need much time to update the maps here. Crear2000 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, most of the boundaries in the Philippines are unofficial based on the fact that these have not been surveyed yet, especially on mountainous areas. There are still court cases with LGUs disputing barangays. If we're following the U.S. precedence, the actual surveyed boundary will be the boundary instead of what was in the law, which was supposed to guide surveyors. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be very much willing to help make these maps since I've already been doing it for about two years now (maybe even three). Unfortunately, Felipe Aira's PhlMapCit.svg, the basemap that I used for my projects, came out to be inaccurate so I had no choice but to halt the rest of the project and make a new map out of scratch (it's right here). Though, it is worth mentioning that I did "finish" all regional/provincial locator maps but they were only used for a brief moment and were replaced by the ones we're currently using. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It says in the NOAH municipal borders maps that those were based on both PSA and NAMRIA, which is again where we should be basing all our maps from, the central mapping agency no less. i doubt PSA makes maps other than demographic so my guess is they also rely on NAMRIA. Hows the progress on our district maps and new more accurate province locator maps? :) The current ones we use are fine, i like that they are plain and without labels or too many colors making their locations stand out. Although i would suggest adding like zoomed insets for those really small provinces like Camiguin, Siquijor, Biliran, Guimaras, Romblon, Batanes, etc. They are barely noticeable in those maps :)--RioHondo (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is my experienced opinion. The barangay boundaries used by UP NOAH and displayed on their maps was compiled in 2015–2016 as part of the efforts of Information Management Technical Working Group (IMTWG) of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). The boundaries are derived from the internal dataset used by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in conducting their census and have been cleaned up to be consistent with NAMRIA's coastlines and added with PSGC IDs. This dataset is considered indicative at best and quite inaccurate at worst (see the boundary of Post Proper Southside and Post Proper Northside in Makati, and the barangays in Las Piñas with weird exclaves, for examples). I know that PSA strongly discourages the use of their dataset outside of humanitarian contexts and without the express permission of PSA (despite the Intellectual Property Code). (Source: I personally know people in NOAH who worked on the dataset and I attended several of the IMTWG meetings as a representative of the OpenStreetMap Philippines community.)

BTW, contrary to expectations, NAMRIA isn't the authoritative agency for PH boundaries; that would be the Land Management Bureau under the DENR. AFAIK, the LMB doesn't have a complete dataset of boundaries down to the barangay level because the work of delimiting the boundaries and resolving disputes is still not finished.

P.S. Isabela isn't even the most egregious in terms of non-contiguous districts. That honor would go to Bohol's 2nd district (illustrated). —seav (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The exclave seems to be San Isidro, Bohol. On the new Bohol political map, it has a 90 degree border with Clarin, Bohol, so you can argue it's connected to one point in space. The Isabela district still takes the cake though as it has 3 exclaves of roughly equal size; this just has two.

Also, as per my expectations, there still isn't definitive dataset. We hope there's one soon. I'm also quite surprised that an agency of the DENR is doing this; I thought this was the DPWH as they have their municipal boundary markers all over the place; maybe those are for their own usages only and is still not official.

Has anyone seen PAGASA's municipal maps? Recently, their storm signals are now down to per town, instead of the vague "northern Camarines Sur" that we were used to. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I saw a NAMRIA map that shows a quadripoint of Echague, Dinapigue, Maddela (in Quirino), and Jones. Echague is not touching Aurora's northernmost municipality, Dilasag. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I love how that district's contiguousness still isn't resolved. You know a province is held by one family if no one sued this for its constitutionality. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I found that NAMRIA map here: https://data.humdata.org/m/dataset/philippines-administrative-levels-0-to-3. I wonder what I could do with these... —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of maps, the map of the Philippines in Provinces of the Philippines#List has an error. As of today, when clicking the Pangasinan area for instance, it will send you to Northern Samar/Eastern Samar articles. Thank you. Crear2000 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crear2000: Someone messed it up on Wikimedia Commons (File:Labelled map of the Philippines - Provinces and Regions.png). It should be fine by now. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crear2000: actually it is full of errors. When clicked on Cavite it will land you to the article Surigao del Sur. When clicking the name (name, not the pointer) of Central Luzon in the WPS it will lead you to Negros Occidental. You are also sent to Capiz if you click an area of the sea to the west of Zambales. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Zambales is also at the point where Marikina and Rizal is at the inset of the map. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Expressway name abbreviations

It has been years since we improved our article on expressways by adapting the article structure observed by WP:USRD, WP:CARD and WP:HIGHWAYS, but one remaining problem is how we should writing abbreviations of expressway names (i.e. NLEX vs NLEx, NAIAX vs NAIAx). So far, in my experience, with the exception of MCX, STAR, SEMME, the usual way of writing them is all caps and the concessionaires themselves also use them (e.g. NLEX Corporation). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For NLEX, SLEX, SCTEX, TPLEX, MCX and NAIAX, overwhelming practice is ALLCAPS. Isn't STAR Tollway spelled that way? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The STAR is all caps as the acronym of its longer name, but not the Tollway suffix; in addition, the article should have been named STAR Tollway, not the little-used full form of STAR. Have you looked at all the expressway or highway articles that still use the forms with small x (i.e. NLEx, SLEx, CAVITEx, SCTEx, TPLEx, NAIAx, CLLEx, SFEx, CALAx/CALAEx, CCLEx)? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "STAR Tollway", yes that's how it is exactly spelled. People are apprehensive with moving to acronyms on roads (see EDSA (road)) but I'd support STAR Tollway.

Re: Small "x". I'm not sure, but in the old days it was actually "NLE", then "NLEx", then the "x" just grew up. People still use "SSH" for "South Superhighway". I suppose saying that "it's wrong to use 'NLE'/'NLEx'," may be stretching it, and you can say that either is a variant that's sometimes used. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, but the main problem with our articles is that existing articles may contain one of those variations. We may mention the various abbreviations of the North Luzon Expressway in the lede, for example, but we should choose the best form for use in the rest of the prose, as well as junction lists or tables in other articles.—TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus on expressways and highways is for spelling out those acronyms and using their full names to make them recognizable even to people not very familiar with these roads. Another argument for this is the inconsistency in acronyms and abbreviations as you demonstrated above with those examples. The north and south Luzon expressways spell Expressway as EX or Ex whereas the Muntinlupa–Cavite and NAIA expressways spell it as just X, as in MCX and NAIAX not MCEX and NAIAEX? As for STAR, the official logo itself does not carry the suffix Tollway so might be better to stick to this base name of just STAR. I agree with the mention of all known abbreviations, acronyms and nicknames in the lede, but as for the standard abbrev to use in tables across the project, we must first determine the most widely used ones for each expressway. I have a feeling it's those in allcaps too. Then you can also add these title and abbreviation conventions once finalized as a supplement to our WP:MOSPHIL or as a separate guideline page similar to WP:NCAURD or WP:USSH.--RioHondo (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest using whatever abbreviation is used by the WP:RS that is being used to cite that statement. Pre-Noynoy, "North Luzon Expressway" was just "NLE". So for those cases, use "NLE", then use "NLEX" whenever it started to be used. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that use of small 'x' still floats around: the Inquirer did it just a few months ago, and its use of small 'x' and big 'X' is inconsistent. That said, I would think that we can point this in the lead, and then use an agreed-to version everywhere else. I personally use small 'x', but the difference between this and big 'X' is pretty much inconsequential. --Sky Harbor 07:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

First Mass in the Philippines

The 500th anniversary of this is coming soon, so if you guys want to fix this up for WP:OTD, please do so. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Po and opo article?

Shouldn't the Po and opo section in Mano (gesture) be a separate article, as it is only loosely related to the hand gesture? –Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Yeah or maybe move it somewhere else since it's very short. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Technical specifications" and "Features" sections in expressway articles

Alongside adapting consistent use of expressway name abbreviations, I think it's time we should get rid of the "Technical specifications" and "Features" on our expressway pages. Well, our expressway articles now mostly follow the standard used in North American highway articles, but we still have "Technical specifications" and "Features" sections which are a holdover from the early forms of those articles and seems to violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Most toll road articles I have read (such as those of American tollways, e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike) don't contain sections about features or technical info (vertical clearances, lanes), and if there are (such as lane counts), are covered in "Route description". TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

TagaSanPedroAko I agree. In fact, I already removed all of the said sections in the Tagalog Misplaced Pages equivalent articles (though much of them were added by me during my translation works around late 2016–2017). Like tl:Subic Freeport Expressway. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I've already done away with those subsections on NLEX, SLEX, Skyway, and STAR Toll. I'm busy with Canada articles now (mostly adding redirects that use two-letter postal abbreviations for various articles of cities, towns and villages throughout Canada), so you can do away with the others. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: right now, my focus is on Commons. Perhaps other editors may help. Ping @RioHondo and HueMan1:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko and JWilz12345:  Done! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't completely removed those at NLEX (at "Technical information"). Would do a final sweep. Content in question is already covered elsewhere in the NLEX article.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry im still on my annual sabbatical and have been traveling so i cant contribute much to any article for now. But i believe the only important technical information as far as roads are concerned are their length and number of lanes which could be mentioned in the lede or in their history section where you can lay out their expansion and progress in technical terms so long as they are supported. For toll roads, the number of exits and toll plazas are important technical info as well but i believe they have their own dedicated sections already. The number of service centers/areas and their location might also require improvements.--RioHondo (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Are schools notable?

Most school articles (especially high schools and elementary schools) doesn't have references and sources (and if there are, it would be a primary source or an unrelated source which has nothing to do with the school in general) and highly doubt that there would be anytime soon. I believe that most of these articles are way far from meeting the general notability guideline but it's surprising that no one cares about them being filled with original research and directories. If there's a way to save them (or fix them, whatever), please speak up, but if there are none, can we just delete them for goodness sake? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I assumed this would have to get past the Schools lobby, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus changed in 2017, so apparently they can now be deleted. CMD (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Should we initiate AFDs now? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not, keeping in mind the RfC does say not to "flood" AfD with "excessive nominations", so presumably it'd have to be in small batches. CMD (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)