Wikipedia

Talk:Bulusan (municipality)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Amakuru in topic Requested move 19 January 2022
Learn more about this page

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bulusan, Sorsogon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 24 July 2021 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bulusan (municipality)

Per WP:OTHEROPTIONS there is no support for keeping article where it is and appears to be consensus that there is WP:NOPRIMARY, so the article must be moved. There is no consensus as to where article should be moved, but Bulusan (municipality) has slightly more support than other options. If anyone objects or has a better suggestion, they may make a fresh move request. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


Bulusan → Bulusan, Sorsogon – Bulusan by itself is ambiguous, because it may either refer to the municipality or the volcano itself. However, Bulusan commonly refers to the volcano. As such the plainname "Bulusan" must be a disambiguation page, and the article title be reverted back to Bulusan, Sorsogon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Weak oppose the proposed title doesn't resolve ambiguity since the volcano is also in Sorsogon. I think WP:DABCONCEPT applies since the volcano appears to be named after this but if disambiguation is needed it should be something like Bulusan (town) or Bulusan (municipality). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • @Crouch, Swale: there is also Lake Bulusan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • Which is also in Sorsogon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • @Crouch, Swale: Page readership shows a meager 394 views for Bulusan town vs. 1,281 views for Mount Bulusan. It is just similar to Olutanga vs. Olutanga, Zamboanga Sibugay, wherein the island is the primary topic instead of the town (as per [1], the island was named after the Lutangan tribe and was originally coextensive with the town until the creation of both Mabuhay and Talusan in the 70s).
        • For the case of Bulusan, Sorsogon vs. Mt. Bulusan, as per this old Rappler article, there was an old disaster preperation and response plan called "Operation Bulusan" during the 70s. Note that Bulusan in that term refers to the volcano. Hence the primary topic of the name "Bulusan" is split between the volcano and the town. Therefore Bulusan must be a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
          • With Olutanga isn't the town named after the island? Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
            @Crouch, Swale: when Bulusan is first said or heard, the first thing that comes to our minds is the volcano itself. It is similar to Pinatubo and Mayon - both refer to the volcanoes even if there are no "Mount" or "Volcano" affixes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • @Crouch, Swale: I think the presence of a comma strongly implies a settlement. See, for instance, Lake Placid, New York and Lake Placid (New York). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • Isn't that because of USPLACE but that isn't the case with the Philippines. PLACEDAB says "Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
        @Crouch, Swale: we in the Philippines don't use that, and that doesn't comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Hence instead of "Angeles (city)", "Angeles, Philippines" was moved to Angeles City. The same is true for Lapu-Lapu City. The most natural form for the title of the town is Bulusan, Sorsogon. Bulusan alone is ambiguous. "Bulusan (municipality)" is no longer natural. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
        The problem is that Bulusan, Sorsogon is also ambiguous since the volcano is also in Sorsogon so "Bulusan, Sorsogon" is no disambiguator however if it is common usage as you say it may qualify as natural disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • @Crouch, Swale: nope. The use of comma convention clearly indicates it is a settlement for us in the Philippines. Though I supported the use of <cityname> only convention for towns with unique names like Aparri and Matnog, "Bulusan" alone is not unique, as it is overshadowed by the more famous volcano. Thus Bulusan is best made as a DAB page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Per 'King of Hearts', the comma implies a settlement and avoids confusion with the Volcano. Vpab15 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose and move to Bulusan (town) or Bulusan (municipality) per Crouch, Swale. There is no call for using a name which is clearly still ambiguous with the volcano, when we have perfectly good unambiguous titles available to us. And yes, as noted above it's Angeles City rather than Angeles (city), but as far as I can tell there is no such WP:NATURALDIS title available to us in this case. And because comma-separated dab is also not appropriate here, it's best to just use the third form suggested at WP:NCDAB, which is simple parenthetical disambiguation.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • @Amakuru: Bulusan (municipality) is unnatural, and Bulusan mainly refers to the volcano instead of the town. Comma convention is the most natural title for this town. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
      I don't see what's unnatural about that. The common name of the place is "Bulusan", but that name is ambiguous so we add a parenthetical to disambiguate it. This is standard practice across Wikipedia, and it is certainly the most helpful title we can use for our readers, rather than giving the name of the province, which is still ambiguous with the volcano.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • @Amakuru: I don't think it is ambiguous by using comma convention. Using that certainly signifies it is a settlement (a town). In our everyday speech we use comma convention to refer to towns (like Pulilan, Bulacan and Lingayen, Pangasinan). Sometimes it is applied to cities too like Imus, Cavite and Catbalogan City, Samar. While it has been accepted to use plain city names for uniquely-named cities and towns, Bulusan is not the case. Hence the best method is to use provincial name disambiguation. It is automatic - affixing the name of the province refers to the town. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • And note WP:MOSPHIL does not provide the use of "xxx (city)" and "xxx (municipality)" disambiguations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
        The provisions of MOSPHIL can't apply here, due to the ongoing ambiguity, and it also doesn't override our sitewide guideline for this, which is WP:NCDAB. That gives an ordered list of three options for disambiguation - (1) natural, which seems to be unavailable, (2) comma-separated, which is also unavailable - we can't use "Bulusan, Sorsogon" for exactly the same reason that we can't use "Bulusan", because the volcano is also in that province; therefore we're on to (3) which is the parenthetical, simply stating the generic class of the object. The examples given are Mercury (element) - an element called mercury and Seal (emblem) - an emblem known as a seal; well this one is Bulusan (municipality) - a municipality called Bulusan. Very clear for readers, even if it is a unique case in the Philippines.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
        Perhaps we need to address one of the 1st points I made above, does this article serve as a WP:DABCONCEPT? since the volcano is at least partly in the municipality and seems to be named after it. I know that that might not work in cases like Anfield/Anfield where the newer thing has essentially become primary in the sense the suburb being at the base name wouldn't be helpful to most readers but Liverpool still hosts an article on the city its self. The views for the city are 64,634 with 331,123 for the football club while the views here are 1,590 for the volcano and 347[[2]] for the town. While I generally prefer to disambiguate if in doubt it seems that DABCONCEPT may work better here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
        @Crouch, Swale: nope, we mainly think of Bulusan as the volcano and not the municipality. The municipality is not unique and not famous, just only made famous because of the volcano. Hence I stand to the use of provincial name convention for this particular municipality with not unique name. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • Google Maps finally say otherwise: much of the volcano lies in Irosin which is a neighbor of Bulusan, Sorsogon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
          I don't really think a DABCONCEPT works here. That works well where there are lots of specific topics that can be covered by one overarching umbrella topic, for example Football (as a DABCONCEPT for association football, American football, rugby union etc), or particle. The municipality of Bulusan and the volcano are not really conceptually connected in any way though, except in their name and their rough geographical location. It's right that we have two separate articles, and readers will generally only be interested in one or other of those articles, not some overarching commentary on both. Thus a simple disambiguation of Mount Bulusan for one and Bulusan (municipality) for the other, with a disambiguation page at the base name Bulusan, seems to be the best option. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
          Can't the volcano be mentioned in the lead though there is already a hatnote. Surely the fact that the volcano is named after the settlement and at least part of it lies in the municipality makes DABCONCEPT viable? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Move to Bulusan (municipality) as per Crouch, Swale's comments. This is not unnatural since "(municipality)" isn't really part of the name, it's just a disambiguation. This method is used in Philippine provinces (e.g. Laguna (province) and Antique (province)), why can't cities/municipalities use it too? I also support moving Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City to Angeles (city) and Lapu-Lapu (city), respectively. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @HueMan1: not WP:NATURAL. Plus, that only encourages redirects and potential WP:BIDIRECTIONAL problems. Mislinking may also occur, like what happened to various Batangueño and CALABARZON articles when Iloilo's Anilao was pointed to that title. If you would like to make substantial changes, send them to WP:TAMBAYAN as this is not a forum to discuss changes that will affect 99% of all Philippine LGU articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move discussion edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I still protest this move to Bulusan (municipality). It actually just made the article title more ambiguous. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, comma convention is the most natural form to disambiguate, as it automatically denotes a settlement or a populated place. While I support use of <cityname> only convention for uniquely-named municipalities, "Bulusan" alone is not unique. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Bulusan, Sorsogon" is still ambiguous, as it can still refer to the volcano and the town (the "comma convention" is not exactly limited to settlements). This is the best solution, IMHO. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 19 January 2022 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago68 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Bulusan (municipality). This name was established in the prior RM above, and despite a lot of text in this RM there is again a consensus to move to that title, as establishing a unique and unambiguous name. This should not be moved again without a further RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bulusan, Sorsogon Province → Bulusan, Sorsogon – Revert back to the WP:MOSPHIL-compliant and most stable article name. It seems the "(municipality)" suffix won't be stable, as evidenced by another page move. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Note that this article was under the title "Bulusan (municipality)", but was moved to "Bulusan, Sorosgon" by @Kuyamj1220: on December 29, 2021 without reason. It was later moved by @Jdcedit: on January 19, 2022 to correct the typo, then under the title "Bulusan, Sorsogon Province". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Move back to Bulusan (municipality). Nothing has changed since the last AFD, so the consensus for that should be followed. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Howard the Duck: seems like not every-Juan agrees to the "(municipality)" disambiguation. If it is OK, then why someone moved it? It has been a natural first-hear/seen interpretation that the provincial suffix means that it is a populated place (a city or a municipality). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • It's not always that straightforward. The "comma convention" also applies to places such as schools and hospitals. I suppose more people know of the volcano than the town; "Bulusan, Sorsogon" might mean "Oh, the volcano?" to them. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
      @Howard the Duck: I think it is more of the opposite. Bulusan, Sorsogon - the town. Bulusan alone - more of the volcano. It is already normal to refer to volcanoes by their single proper names, like Taal, Pinatubo, Kanlaon, and Mayon. Note that Mayon is under plain-name (as it is a uniquely-named volcano). Affixing names of provinces automatically means the name is referring to a populated place. We can forgo that for uniquely-named towns from Pagudpud to Malabang, bit those with potential for ambiguity need to be affixed as such, like Carmona, Cavite and of course, Bulusan, Sorsogon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • Pinatubo and Mayon don't have LGUs named after them, and are shared by multiple LGUs. What's interesting are the cases of this one, Kanlaon and Taal. Does "Taal, Batangas" really mean the town, the volcano or the lake? I love how Canlaon is the city and Kanlaon is the volcano. Most people know of the Mount Kanlaon, and may not realize that a city is named after the mountain; the same case with Bulusan. People may think "Ah, the it is the volcano, just with the name of the province attached to it." It was you who said on last year's RM that the volcano is more popular than the town, "Bulusan, Sorsogon" is like saying "Hinulugang Taktak, Antipolo". Howard the Duck (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
        @Howard the Duck: yes, that's why Bulusan is for volcano and for the town, Bulusan, Sorsogon. Volcano is more popular: one will first think that Bulusan is the volcano upon hearing that, instead of the town. Since there is also a lake of the same name, Bulusan must be turned into a disambiguation page, just like the current use of Bulusan at Commons (c:Category:Bulusan), which I also created. The fact that both the volcano and the town are located in the same province is irrelevant: it is which comes first in the mind of many people upon hearing the name "Bulusan" - the volcano. For the use of suffix: it is automatic. Use of provincial suffix automatically implies it is a settlement. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
        As stated earlier, use of provincial suffix does not automatically implies it is a settlement. In this specific case, "Bulusan, Sorsogon" doesn't automatically mean "the town of Bulusan in Sorsogon", it can mean "the volcano in Sorsogon, with the province's name appended to it," moreso as the volcano itself is more popular than the town and people may not know about the town itself exists. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Speedy revert to Bulusan (municipality), the consensus was for this at the previous discussion which makes more sense if disambiguation is needed though I'm skeptical it is needed, if the volcano is the only reason for disambiguation then "Bulusan, Sorsogon" or "Bulusan, Sorsogon Province" doesn't make any sense as the volcano is also in Sorsogon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Move back to Bulusan (municipality) per above arguments. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Jdcedit: What was your motivation of doing such move without consultation? --Exec8 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Revert move back to Bulusan (municipality) per WP:MOSPHIL#Places and Howard the Duck Maanshen (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Maanshen: nothing in MOSPHIL suggests the use of "(municipality)" or "(city)". This is going to be inconsistent to others at Category:Municipalities of Sorsogon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
WP:MOSPHIL has been superseded by actual practice as set in WP:RMs and WP:AFDs. Probably time to tag that as historical. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
If MOSPHIL is now "superseded", then time to format article titles anyone would desire or wish. That will create chaos and disorder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
As stated earlier, the WP:RMs amd WP:AFDs, discussions with actual consequences, can more than stand up to anything that's on Wikipedia namespace. An example is WP:MOSPHIL#Historical figures, where in Mariano Gomez (priest), which has its diacritics removed and disambiguated as there was another notable Mariano Gomez after a successful WP:RM.WP:MOSPHIL has been superseded with actual RMs elsewhere, where previously, all municipalities are in "<townname>, <provincename>", but successful RMs removed <provincename>, MOSPHIL notwithstanding... which led to MOSPHIL being edited to reflect actual practice. Namespace should reflect actual practice, based on actual discussions such as RMs and AFDs, and not impose what the actual practice shall be without discussions that have consequences. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Then better abandon WP:AT's WP:CONSISTENT pillar altogether! While it can still be considered consistent to have two types of article titles for Philippine cities and municipalities — one under plain name (ex. Pulilan) and the other under comma-suffix (ex. Pandi, Bulacan) — adding "(municipality)" suffix breaks away consistency, and will open the gates for unwanted attempts to rename such to "plain names" with such disambiguation. After that, what's next? Pandi (municipality)? Labo (municipality)? Carmona (municipality)? Las Navas (municipality)? Ternate (municipality)? La Trinidad (municipality)? Basco (municipality)? Los Baños (municipality)? Virac (municipality)? Pili (municipality)? There will no longer be consistency if such is done. Removing consistency pillar of WP:AT, the whole article title system will collapse altogether. It is already enough to accept "City" for two special case-cities — Angeles City and Lapu-Lapu City. That is already enough. There will no longer be consistency for titles of all 1,634 municipalities and cities of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Every-Juan may laugh or scorn such LGU article titles that are "trying hard to get themselves unique despite not so". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
We're only doing this for Bulusan and probably a handful other towns where "<townname>, <provincename>" nomenclature is stil ambiguous (my favorite example is Lake Sebu, South Cotabato). Consistency is almost always never 100% because for every rule, there is an exception, and for every exception, there is an exception to the exception. I am for the "<townname>, <provincename>" nomenclature but those pushing for using just the <townname> won out. You win some, you lose some. Either way, for this case, it's indisputable that "Bulusan, Sorsogon" can mean different things. In fact, we shouldn't be having this discussion; the move should have been reverted as there are consensus on an RM just last year. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Howard the Duck: how come using "XXX, province" becomes ambiguous? It is automatic in our society — that the suffix refers to a city or municipality. Bulusan, Sorsogon is automatic — it refers to the town. No one is crazy enough to claim Bulusan, Sorsogon is the volcano! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Lake Sebu, South Cotabato is automatic — is is the town. The lake? Plain name Lake Sebu. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
As I explained earlier, not too many people know that "Bulusan" or "Lake Sebu" as a town exists; they know "Bulusan" is a volcano (not too many people even know there's a Lake Sebu town or lake. They might think it's a lake in Cebu City and someone is just bad in spelling). They may conclude that "Bulusan, Sorsogon" means "the name of the volcano with the province it is located at appended to it." So yes, someone is crazy enough to think "Bulusan, Sorsogon" is the volcano. I mean, the exact phrase "Mayon, Albay" has 9k search results.
This is the exact same reasoning you gave in the earlier RM. This is essentially a WP:DRV of the original RM. Can somebody close this so that we can move on? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, Howard. That reasoning from me last year is for Bulusan, something being pushed through by some editors. But for this case: Bulusan, Sorsogon — it is the town. Do not get confused with my reasoning last year: my statement that volcano is more famous and noteworthy applies to the plain name, not "Bulusan, Sorsogon". Adding suffix signifies it is the town, and is in line with WP:CONSISTENT with many others at Category:Municipalities of Sorsogon. You are mixing up the context for "Bulusan" (to which my reasoning last year applies) and "Bulusan, Sorsogon, for this DR now. I doubt your claim that Bulusan, Sorsogon is ambiguous. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) What's wrong with Bulusan (municipality) again? If I knew this was moved without consensus, I would've reverted it to Bulusan (municipality)—the name chosen by the participants of that had a pretty decent amount of support from the previous RM. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@HueMan1: simple. Inconsistency to others at Category:Municipalities of Sorsogon. Major breach of one of the four pillars of WP:AT. We already accepted two types of titles for most Philippine cities and municipalities (excluding special-case Angeles and Lapu-Lapu), now we will welcome a "third party"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
But there's a completely valid reason for it to be an exemption. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Bulusan, Sorsogon is nothing special compared to the two independent cities. By arguing for it, then Pandi, Bulacan must be under this exception too or Lake Sebu one from Howard, but the lake is already at Lake Sebu and Lake Sebu, South Cotabato is already stable enough and no one complained it until now. If ain't broke, don't fix it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is there a landform or something else that's named as "Pandi"? I honestly do not know, and doubt others too. The Pandi example is a clear one where "Pandi, Bulacan" refers to the town. The case of "Bulusan, Sorsogon" is different from Angeles and Lapu-Lapu City. I for one, would've wanted for it to be at "Angeles, Pampanga" considering similar HUC/ICCs are at Naga, Camarines Sur and Santiago, Isabela". Lapu-Lapu City is renamed from Opon when it became a city, so that cityhood renaming stuck. Ideally, Roxas City and General Santos City should be identical cases. See... not all cases are the same, that's why we have... gasp... exceptions! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree. "Angeles, Pampanga" is commonly used by the media. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why you all at WP:Tambayan gets confused by the use of provincial names, when outside Wikipedia it is automatically understood that affixing the name of the province refers to the city or municipality. You all are making article titles less stable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Re: General Santos — it is already stable. Roxas, Capiz is also stable, and long-term. You will only create future problems, if ever one of the two Roxas'es becomes a city. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
While formerly described as a "commune," "University of the Philippines, Diliman" is certainly not a municipality of the great province of Diliman.
Yeah, for GenSan, I can live wuith that, but Roxas City is the undisputable WP:COMMONNAME of the city formerly known as the municipality of Capiz, WP:CRYSTALBALL and all. And hey, we did well with the two Nagas and the two San Fernandos. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
What does "stable" even supposed to mean? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Remember when MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila) was in a stable place for years... whatever the article name was? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Stability shouldn't be our problem since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Do not use the two San Fernandoes and two Nagas. Both were using City suffix during the time the naming standards were confusing. I read that whole discussion, in which the current and most stable titling system was set up. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, ditching "City" for most cases was a good move, except when "<cityname> City" is the actual WP:COMMONNAME, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS be damned. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Section break edit

It appears the "(municipality)" disambiguation didn't help at all. Using Pageview Analysis for the period December 30, 2021 and January 17, 2022, during the time the article was wrongly titled "Bulusan, Sorosgon", most redirect visits are to "Bulusan, Sorsogon" as opposed to "Bulusan (municipality)":

Bulusan (municipality)
Views: 21
Daily average: 1
Bulusan, Sorsogon
Views: 91
Daily average: 5

For January 13, 2022 alone, "Bulusan (municipality)" received 0 visits, while "Bulusan, Sorsogon" garnered 12. This proves most visitors desire to visit the article via "Bulusan, Sorsogon" as opposed to "Bulusan (municipality). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

We're not sure if visitors of Bulusan, Sorsogon were looking for the mountain or the town. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Most likely for the town, not the mountain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
And your source for that is??? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
No need for source. Simple common sense. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Very convincing! This doesn't fall under WP:SKYISBLUE, does it? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
That does not apply, as we are not dealing the content but the title itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
You do realize that the "common sense" argument isn't exactly convincing without data/evidence, right? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply


(Edit conflict) Care for evidence? Here's another one, using the method by other editors who participated at Talk:Commission on the Filipino Language#Requested move 28 May 2020, which I "stalked" during that time:

Simple Google search results

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's quite obvious that no one would search for "Bulusan (municipality)". The "(municipality)" is only used for disambiguation. It's not part of the name. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this is pretty dishonest way of presenting data. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict)

Searches on the web
  1. PNA (02/08/2018): Bulusan, Sorsogon Mayor Michael Guysayko has entered a guilty plea to the charges of 10 counts of violation of Section 52 (c) of Republic Act No. 8291, or the “GSIS Act”. (Note: PTV News and Philippine Star both mirror this convention for Bulusan, Sorsogon in their stories about the same event)
  2. PNA (12/05/2021): DOH-Bicol cited the LGUs that reached more than 100 percent of their target as the city of Legazpi and the municipalities of Bagamanoc, Baras, Gigmoto, and Panganiban in Catanduanes; Cabusao, Camarines Sur; and Bulusan, Sorsogon.
  3. Inquirer (10/24/2016): (as the location determiner) BULUSAN, Sorsogon — Four times during the past week, Mount Bulusan in Sorsogon belched out gray ash plumes in a series of minor phreatic (steam-driven) eruptions that sent ashfalls over villages in the towns of Bulusan, Casiguran and Irosin, threatening crops and endangering the health of some residents.
  4. UNTV (01/29/2020): The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Bicol has rescued a Lesser Frigatebird (Fregata ariel) at Barangay Dapdap, Bulusan, Sorsogon. (The attached post by DENR Bicol also uses the convention "Bulusan, Sorsogon" instead of plain "Municipality of Bulusan, Sorsogon")
  5. Pilipino Star Ngayon (12/24/2021): Hawak na ng Pasig City Police ang isa sa mga suspek sa 30-million pisong robbery incident sa Brgy.Kapitolyo ng naturang lungsod noong naka­raang linggo matapos itong sumuko sa ilang opisyal ng bayan ng Bulusan, Sorsogon kamakalawa ng umaga. (Note: this is followed by RMN)
  6. PhilExaminer, 09/10/2020: The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency – V (PDEA – V) and the local government units of Bulusan, Sorsogon, and Jovellar, Albay have formally inaugurated today their respective reformatory shelters that will provide support programs to drug surrenderees to build a renewed life.
  7. Brigada News, 10/02/2021: Maghigpit ng ipinagbabawal simula ngayong linggo ang pagtungo o pagpasyal ng mga turista sa mga resort at iba pang pasyalan sa bayan ng Bulusan Sorsogon tuwing araw ng Sabado at Linggo.
  8. PNP Region V (ca. JAN 2019): The suspect was Rank No. 4 Municipal Most Wanted Person in Bulusan Sorsogon.
  9. Only In Ph.com (02/12/2021): Sa Facebook, ibinahagi ng DepEd Region V - Bicol ang isang masipag na guro sa Baitang 5 na si Augusto Furaque mula sa San Isidro Elementary School sa Bulusan, Sorsogon, na pinapagpasyahan pa rin ng mga bata ang mga aralin sa kabila ng suspensyon sa klase dahil sa pandemya.
  10. Manila Times (12/14/2015): It made a second landfall over Bulusan, Sorsogon, later at 4 p.m.
  11. Rappler (12/14/2015): In its bulletin issued 5 pm on Monday, state weather bureau PAGASA said Typhoon Nona was already located over Bulusan, Sorsogon. It continues to move west at 17 kilometers per hour (km/h), heading for Burias Island.
  12. Manila Bulletin (02/26/2021): The group said Estilon was nabbed with 62-year-old Enriqueta Guelas in Barangay Lalod, Bulusan, Sorsogon on Dec. 24, 2020, and they were detained at the Sorsogon City District Jail.
  13. Manila Bulletin (07/24/2019): Feast rites will also be observed in Buenavista, Agusan del Norte; Bulusan, Sorsogon; Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte; and in Paete, Laguna.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Most of these are wire reports emanating from the municipality. This doesn't prove that whenever you say "Bulusan, Sorsogon" you refer to the municipality and not to the volcano or something else... it does prove though that "Bulusan, Sorsogon" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the municipality and not just "Bulusan". This is where WP:QUALIFIER comes up... and how the previous RM last year with the consensus move. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Howard the Duck: I am not yet done! Now adding one from Rappler. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
And why do wire reports make a difference, when as you said came from the municipality? If the municipality itself requires news outlets to refer them as "Bulusan, Sorsogon", then the issue should be settled: Bulusan, Sorsogon is the town and does not in any way refer to the volcano, again in the context of using ", Sorsogon" suffix, while the volcano can be referred to as "Bulusan" simply, as the main topic of Bulusan alone is the volcano (which it currently redirects). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just to be sure, your arguments are:
  1. "Bulusan" refers to the volcano, and is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for everything named as "Bulusan."
  2. The municipality of Bulusan is commonly named as "Bulusan, Sorsogon".
Meanwhile, here is a history on how the current article is named:
  1. Article created at "Bulusan, Sorsogon" in 2007 by Seav
  2. Article moved to "Bulusan" in 2016 by Hueman citing WP:MOSPHIL
  3. Article moved to "Bulusan (municipality)" in 2021 after an WP:RM
My questions to you:
  1. Is the undisambiguated WP:COMMONNAME for the town is "Bulusan"? (To clarify, if it doesn't need disambiguation, its WP:COMMONNAME is plain and simple "Bulusan", regardless if other things are named "Bulusan," just as the common name for Georgia the US state is "Georgia"?)
  2. Is the ", Sorsogon" added purely for disambigutatory purposes, or because it is a part of the WP:COMMONNAME of the town?
Howard the Duck (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Howard the Duck: number 1: no, because Bulusan can also refer to the volcano in everyday speech. Just as we here refer to the nearest volcano as Pinatubo or nearest major mountain as Arayat (but that is another story). Number 2: it is part of the common name, as evidenced by sources and everyday speech. And BTW, hueMan1 didn't move it in 2016 but in 2021, just a few months before the first RM. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Re #1: To clarify, disregarding the fact that "Bulusan" primarily refers to the volcano, is the town also referred to as plain and simple "Bulusan", just as the volcano is always refered to as "Mount Bulusan" and not just "Bulusan"? I'm from Central Luzon, and I know for a fact that a town of "Arayat" exists. Now, someone from Bicol may not know the town of Arayat exists, but knows about Mount Arayat.
As for #2, I asked this, because as someone from Central Luzon, when we refer to the town of Bulakan, we always say "Bulakan, Bulacan (thank goodness this was named correctly)" (as "Bulakan" and "Bulacan" are homonyms) all the time at least on the first reference, when talking orally (when writing, the "K" is usually enough to distinguish it from the province, but not all the time). Is this the same case for the town, is it always referred to us "Bulusan, Sorsogon" in everyday speech i.e. "I came from Bulusan, Sorsogon" and not "I came from Bulusan" or even "I came from the town of Bulusan". Compare to "I know someone from Bulakan, Bulacan". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Howard the Duck:
Re. 1: sometimes, but only after context has been established. I am also from Central Luzon (as a matter of fact I am from Bulacan), and so I am very familiar with place name conventions used here. Arayat may refer to both the volcano and the town, but more commonly the former and not the latter.
Re. 2: Very rarely people will use the name of the town as it is not notable to most (overshadowed by the volcano). A Bulusanon will most likely say "I came from Sorsogon" (Galing ako sa Sorsogon) when chatting to a new-found friend based in Pampanga or Caloocan, let's assume. If there is a need to know the precise location, then "I came from Bulusan, Sorsogon". If you say "I came from Bulusan", your friend may thought that you hail from the barangays near the volcano or mountainside; or worse, you came from the volcano itself! ;) And not all barangays surrounding the volcano are under the town's jurisdiction! ;) But anyway, the use of Sorsogon disambiguation establishes the context that you hail from the town. Regarding "Bulakan, Bulacan" (which I may reply even if irrelevant here), yes even us here in a certain 100 K+ (2020 cen.) town to the west-central of Bulacan we mainly refer to the first capital as "Bulakan, Bulacan", sometimes used interchangeably or misspelled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to add also that <municipality, province> establishes the context that it is referring to the municipality. I may have reiterated this many many times. That also applies to "Lake Sebu, South Cotabato". Provinces are very important political and socio-cultural divisions of the Philippines: you trace your provincial origins via provinces. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Lake Sebu should probably also be used, unless its argued the comma is almost always part of the name rather than just disambiguation it clearly fails WP:PRECISE and I'd point out regarding consistency that WP:ATDAB says that this can result in inconsistency but we will be consistent in how we dismbiguate similar cases such as "(municipality)" for both Bulusan and Lake Sebu. Who does Lake Sebu, South Cotabato help when the lake its self is also in South Cotabato? The convention for places is generally 1st choice plain name, 2nd choice comma and 3rd choice brackets which at least for Lake Sebu the choice is 3rd as the 1st isn't possible for technical reasons and the 2nd fails PRECISE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Crouch, Swale: abusive use of precision has led to numerous conflicts. WP:USPLACE is a noteworthy issue. In fact most of Wikipedians based in the U.S. do not see the issue surrounding universal use of <XXX, state>. The universal rule "If ain't broke, don't fix it." applies here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    What conflicts? The problem with Lake Sebu is that it contains a pointless qualifier that doesn't distingish, WP:PLACEDAB says "Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)." that's exactly the case with Lake Sebu and here if you argue the plain name ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Crouch, swale: using such disambiguations only makes the place more generic. "Bulusan (municipality)", what municipality? "Bulusan, Sorsogon", that has established context and understood that it is the town. Same case for Lake Sebu. Provincial disambiguation settles the context that it is the town. I am very apalled by several users who claim that they are still confused by the usage of provincial name disambiguation in the titles of articles of several municipalities that do not meet the plainness criterion (as opposed to the likes of Aparri and Lingayen). You will push more readers, especially Pinoy readers, into confusion which only some Wikipedians may not fall just because of abusive use of "(city)", "(municipality)", etc.. Also, consistency still matters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    "Bulusan (municipality)" shows its the municipality and not the volcano, if the volcano is supposedly ambiguous with plain "Bulusan" that would also apply to "Bulusan, Sorsogon". When you type "Lake Sebu" into the search box you get "Lake Sebu" and "Lake Sebu, South Cotabato", if you want the municipality how would you know the latter if the one and if you want the lake how would you know not to click on the latter? "Lake Sebu (municipality)" is unambiguous to everyone, Lake Sebu, South Cotabato is meaningless. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Crouch, Swale: Bulusan, Sorsogon is automatic: it refers to the town! I already presented sources using that above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't even if some sources are using it sometimes as a natural form or modifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    In your question "What conflicts? ", it is WP:USPLACE, where several users like you try to apply <placename> only despite that many U.S. places are not unique. But that is another issue best tackled in a separate area. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulusan_(municipality)&oldid=1200446229"