Jump to content

Talk:Sangguniang Panlungsod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus -- tariqabjotu 06:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Howard the Duck has moved these articles back to Tagalog names (Panlungsod, Bayan, and Kabataan). This is something I don't understand, since this is not Tagalog Wikipedia is it? These articles should use common English names because even in the Philippines the English names are often used alongside the Tagalog names, see forexample Angeles City Council, Pasig City Council, Zamboanga City Council, and Quezon City Council. Look at the template {{Legislatures of the Philippines}} where these entries have the English names in parentheses precisely because most English speakers outside the Philippines will not be familiar with the Tagalog names. Most of the articles in Category:Sangguniang Panlungsod which use "Foo city council": Manila City Council (created by Howard the Duck on 13 December 2012), Mandaue City Council (to which Howard the Duck added "Category:Sangguniang Panlungsod" on 9 January 2013 without any concerns about the name), and Navotas City Council (renamed by Howard the Duck on 25 April 2013, as well as the related Category:Filipino city and municipal councilors (created by Howard the Duck on 25 February 2013), not to mention the fact that Cities in the Philippines is not at Lungsod and Municipalities in the Philippines is not at Bayan. There are no exact equivalent articles in Tagalog Wikipedia but the Cebuano version of Sangguniang Kabataan gives Youth councils as the English name. I think it is just plain confusing to have some categories and articles in Tagalog and others in English so lets have them all in English. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 00:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Green Giant (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These titles are Philippine English. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. When talking about individual Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan, the English translation is the name more predominantly used: Apayao Provincial Board, Manila City Council, etc. Now, when it talking about Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan in general, the "Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan" term is used. This was lengthily discussed at Talk:Sangguniang Panlalawigan. As per WP:USEENGLISH, these terms are, believe it or not, English, as seen on the law; and WP:USEENGLISH is often misinterpreted: it doesn't mean "translate to English all the time" (if that's the case, we'd be moving "San Francisco" to "Saint Francis"), but "use the name English sources predominantly use". That means we'd be basing our sources mostly on Philippine sources, which is reflected on the setup of "Sanggunian" for general and "Board/Council" for individual uses. Also, we predominantly use non-"English" terms for legislative bodies, such as Malaysia's Dewan Rakyat, Ireland's Oireachtas, Estonia's Riigikogu, etc. In short:
    • When referring to legislatures in general, we'd use "Sangguniang ______".
    • When referring to specific legislatures, we'd use "<Name of place> <Type of place> Board/Council". It's bad English even in the Philippines to say "Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila".
  • Confusing, yes, but one should get the hang of it. –HTD 13:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not necessarily. "Sangguniang (unit) of (place)" is actually sound construction, and is used in a number of places, such as court cases (example: [1]). I'd actually support a move to this construction if push comes to shove. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can probably be persuaded in "Sangguniang Panlalawigan of <province>", but for Sangguniang Panlungsod and Bayan, "Sangguniang (unit) of (place)" such as "Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila" (perhaps the Supreme Court was just following the "official names" of these bodies) or "Sangguniang Bayan of Taytay" is not the predominant use at all. –HTD 11:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did a quick search on the ChanRobles website, and it seems to be the predominant (if not exclusive) use for cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court, and has even been used in jurisprudence (see [2] and [3]), although granted, official use and common use may vary. Concurring to this use, members of these legislatures would be referred to as Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan (and that is provided for by law, not by judicial fiat). --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that's true, but it's quite silly to deny that the common name for these positions aren't board members and councilors (in English), and bokal, konsehal and kagawad (for Tagalog, dunno for other languages). That's partly the reason though why I'm insisting on "Sangguniang <type>" to refer to usage in "general" terms and "<place> Provincial Board/City/Municipal Council" for specific usages. –HTD 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • For me, I would place primacy on consistency over what we may think is right or wrong. As it is, forcing readers to switch from English to Filipino or vice-versa is not very practical. While there is room to tinker around with the nomenclature, if we are to keep the parent articles in Filipino, the daughter articles should likewise be in Filipino. There are times when we go against common use: just look at how the MoS treats Macedonia. (Then again, the dual naming scheme is seen in certain places: voivodeship sejmiks in Poland are treated the same way as you're suggesting.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is not about "right or wrong" but on which term is the one that is more predominantly used. No one would argue that any term that has been given is "wrong" (one can say that "Provincial Board" is outdated, but it is still "right"), it's just that we have to find a suitable article title. I can be persuaded if someone gives a convincing argument that says that terms "Provincial Board" or "City/Municipal Council" are the predominantly used terms when referring to such legislatures in a general context; which is mostly on formal discussions such as political science and law papers, which, as you've pointed out on your Supreme Court example above, almost always defers to the "official name". On specific contexts, it'll be quite hard to find proof that "Sangguniang <type>" are the predominantly used terms, simply because most of the uses of the term is more on everyday speech, and, even in Tagalog, "Sangguniang Bayan" must not be used by the people more than say "Konseho". –HTD 14:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per Howard the Duck. There are a myriad of examples of "native" names for legislatures being kept on Wikipedia the way it is: otherwise, I'd expect the articles on the Lok Sabha, the Oireachtas and the Bundestag be renamed to their English "equivalents" as well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Lok Sabha, Oireachtas and Bundestag are all national level bodies, and if this was about the Philippines Congress, your reasons would make sense, but whereas Philippine cities are third-level subdivisions, well below the Congress. Green Giant (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but I don't see why should that matter. It actually strengthens the position of using "local languages" since there should be more references about these local legislatures from local sources than foreign ones, which are usually translated into their mother tongues; I did even see the Philippine Congress being referred to as "parliament" in WP:RS outside the Philippines, which is a clear misrepresentation.
However, even if you go into local WP:RS, at least that is found online, most of them are still in English, and when in referring to specific local legislatures, most still use the English name. For example, this one refers to a "[Provincial] Board Member" but not to a "member of the 'Sangguniang Panlalawigan' (MSP)". However, when citing these local legislatures generally or collectively, most use the "local names", such as this and this. –HTD 18:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:AT says article titles should be recognizable. It's not linguistic imperialism that drives WP:UE, but a desire for recognizability for English speakers. Sometimes foreign words or phrases make their way into English usage, so titles like Ancien Régime and Wehrmacht are acceptable, and such usage isn't unusual in Western European languages. Unfortunately, Tagalog has a much less extensive exposure in English. It's not a matter of Wikipedia's own systemic bias, and we're not here to right great wrongs. So lacking a recognizable English term, we should use a descriptive title recognizable to virtually all English speakers. If I had to guess, I'd think the current titles were personal names. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to think that Tagalog's exposure to the English language, or any other non-English language for that matter, is immaterial if we'd be using a non-English term in the English Wikipedia. WP:UE is very clear on this one: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, while for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used." All of the English language sources used in this article (Sangguniang Panlungsod) use the term "Sangguniang Panlungsod" when referring to a legislative body of a Philippine city. Nowhere in WP:UE (at least in that section), says that "So lacking a recognizable English term, we should use a descriptive title recognizable to virtually all English speakers;" instead, the main gist of WP:TITLE, of which WP:UE is a section of states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (emphasis mine)." Nothing's more reliable than the laws of the government, which are entirely in English. –HTD 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed titles here are descriptive titles. How would we apply that to a title like Göttingen or Søren Kierkegaard? --BDD (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are by definition, not descriptive titles, at least when you judge the examples at WP:NDESC. These bodies were created (or upgraded) from a single law, which states that they are called "Sangguniang Panlungsod"; when translated it's "city legislature", no less descriptive as say, the "Miami Dolphins". –HTD 20:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know "Sangguniang Panlungsod" isn't a descriptive title. No one's going to argue that. I'm arguing that a descriptive title, rather than an official name, would better fit guidelines on article titles. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a descriptive title just as "City Council" is... –HTD 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only to a Tagalog speaker. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps Philippine English speakers, as well? –HTD 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BDD. Recognisability is important. If you are say looking through Category:Local government in the Philippines and don't know Tagalog you would have know idea what the article was about.--Salix (talk): 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Howard the Duck the Tagalog names are very common in English in sources either from the Philippines or talking about the Philippines. I look at these as similar to Dáil Éireann and National Diet. Indeed, I suspect that many will come to Wikipedia because they are searching to the Tagalog terms since they have read them in an English language paper or another source. It is also in cleaner not having the "in the Philippines". Further still, "municipality" and "city" have different meanings in the Philippines whereas in International English, all cities are municipalities and therefore having two separate articles -- one on "city councils" and one on "municipal councils" -- would be confusing since there would be no difference. Using their Tagalog-derived names would avoid that confusion. Indeed I would argue that the sense of "city" and "municipal" is too unique to the Philippines to be effectively used in the titles. (Maybe this is an argument to merging the two articles to "municipal legislatures in the Philippines" but that is another discussion.) Finally, the article titles have survived for 5 years or more before this issue coming up. Over time therefore the crowd's consensus has been in favor of the current titles. If these names were not useful than someone before now would have changed them. The fact that they have survived this long suggest that the first editor made the right choice. In short, I think that you can make an argument either way on the article titles (except Sangguniang Kabataan, see below) -- it is a close thing, almost evenly balanced, though I think the totality of usage among (especially among Philippine-knowledgable English sources) leans in favor of current titles -- but secondary factors move the scales decidedly in favor of current usage -- (a) cleaner title, (b) likely Google search, (c) unique Philippine distinction between city and municipality, and (d) survival until now of current titles. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Howard the Duck was absolutely right to revert by WP:BRD controversial moves. Support per Google Books sources and Philippines English press - these terms are used in Philippines English, Philippines govt and legal documents without further explanation. They are also used by foreigners discussing the legal and administrative network in Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 July 2013

Notice

[edit]
I agree, if the consensus is with "Sangguniang Foo" then that one should be moved back too. Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If this turns out to be "no consensus" (status quo), what happens to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan article? –HTD 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That will be up to the closing administrator. I think this discussion can be viewed as the R part of WP:BRD, so no consensus would revert to the stable title prior to BOLD action. But I'm biased at this point. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which means the title before it was boldly moved by Green Giant? –HTD 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I hadn't dug far enough into the page history. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the discussion here should influence all the articles, though I would be open to having English for some articles and for others. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the question of Sangguniang Kabataan from rest

[edit]

I think that the question of Sangguniang Kabataan and Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman, especially in its most common form of SK Chairman should be divided from the others. While I occasionally here of "provincial board" or "city council", I rarely if ever hear of the "Youth Council", and never of the "youth council chairman". It is always "SK Chairman. See for instance the articles on the elections, e.g. Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, 2013

I dunno if "Youth Council" is even the "proper" translation. Someone told me it was anywhere from "legislature" to "assembly". In either case, "Youth Council" may be an "accurate" translation. As for your question, it doesn't help that SKs are so insular there's no sense in calling them as "Bahay Toro Sangguniang Kabataan" as when someone refers to "SK" s/he means his/her barangay's SK and nothing else. Therefore, each "SK" is called as an "SK". It also helps that individual SKs are almost certain to be not notable.
As for "city councils" and "provincial boards", this is because "city council" or "municipal council" even "town council" are predominantly used terms in English. Even the local names konseho alludes to "councils." Also, provincial legislatures were actually called "provincial boards" before the enactment of the Local Government Code, so the name got kinda stuck; the local term "bokal" for "board members" has also persisted so the "provincial board" is still predominantly used for individual legislatures. There's even an argument saying that "<Province name> Provincial Board" is outdated (and hence wrong) and should be replaced with "<Province name> Sangguniang Panlalawigan." As long provincial legislature candidates still refer to themselves as "bokals" or "board members" I don't see any reason on doing a "modern-day" move. Even more soon councilors. –HTD 16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional comment on move

[edit]

Since I already looked this up and just missed commenting above, I'll post an additional comment here....An additional point: on the English language ballots prepared and printed by COMELEC the terms SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN and SANGGUNIANG BAYAN are used. See the ballot templates, e.g. [4] and [5] on COMELEC's website.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, so for Sangguniang Panlungsod, Bayand, Barangay and Kabataan, they stayed on their current titles. The only problem is Sangguniang Panlalawigan which is at the badly titled "Provincial boards in the Philippines". If it's going to be named that way, at least it should have been at "Provincial Board (Philippines)". –HTD 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Provincial Board? Do we need the modifier (Philippines) when there is no other article in Wikipedia that even uses that term?
By the way, that article was moved from Sangguniang Panlalawigan just this past May. I have proposed at Talk:Provincial boards in the Philippines#Revert to old name to revert to the status quo ante, if you will, until a consensus has been reached about all non-national legislature titles. See the discussion there for comments. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought i was in the Tagalog wiki when i stumbled upon this article. Hey look, it's even got its own Tagalog category under the all English city councils category. Didn't even immediately recognize it as i was trying to create one which i deleted anyway as it turned out to be a duplicate. But anyway, I don't care if the article is titled in Tagalog, but what i don't understand is why it has to be forced on the rest of the English articles. I am also not 100% sold on this "common use" criteria for writing articles on PHL. For one, English is an official language in the country so naturally, their English names and titles should be used when an English audience calls for it, which is what EN WP is. Sangguniang Panglunsod, Panglalawigan, etc are not english. They may appear in english legal texts but still, we all know they are not English. My experience in another bilingual country and city taught me you can never combine both, its either english or in the case of where i lived, french. And though conseil munisipal is common use in Quebec, you don't see that in English articles and especially their titles. They know their english from their french, unfortunately in the phl it seems they don't.
May i propose that the category be at least renamed Category:Sangguniang panlungsod of the Philippines just like Category:Barangays of the Philippines under Category:Neighborhoods or Villages? But even that doesn't right, at least it'll be more recognizable as it has Philippines in it. --RioHondo (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The insults (They know their english from their french, unfortunately in the phl it seems they don't.) and sacrasm are uncalled for and are against the spirit of Wikipedia and common civility. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody uses these terms except for people in the government, so if any insult was intended, it was towards them...unless you're a politico yourself? But anyway, i just really find it weird and funny how we can't translate simple Tagalog words and phrases to our second official language that is English since this is the English WP. And yet over at the regional wp's. our editors there are doing all they could to come up with their own translations for them. Take, for example, the article on "Konsehong Kabataan" over at the Cebuano WP which in the Tagalog WP is at "Sangguniang Kabataan." Naturally for the English WP this should have its own equivalent. So if you're from Iloilo and you're writing on these articles for the Hiligaynon WP, wouldn't you name it as "Konsehong Kabataon" or "Kasapulan-kabataon"? And for City Council and Provincial Board: Kasapulan-dakbanwa and Kasapulan-puod? Can you imagine if our regional language wikipedias follow the same wp:common use principle, would there be anything left to translate when we all know Tagalog terms like these are common use these days anywhere in the country? --RioHondo (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People in government, academics, and probably some other people?
There are other legislatures that are in local languages, such as Seimas for example. While that is a national legislature (ergo, there's only one "Seimas" in that country), it's reasonable to assume that in that country, it's called "Seimas" in English. Is that true for our local legislatures? Here's the catch: when referring to a single legislature, we use the English term; when referring to them collectively, or in general terms, it's in Tagalog. The latter usually occurs in academic and legal contexts, so perhaps that's the reason why they're sticking to the "official English name". –HTD 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's in, who's out?

[edit]

I'm puzzled as to what bodies qualify for membership here. Is it all component and independent component cities or what? I look at the table in the article, regarding Cebu, I can see Danao, Talsay and Toledo; but I can't see Bogo, Carcar, Naga (Cebu). Are these just omissions (how many more?) or are there other criteria?

Shouldn't all this be in the article? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 10:24, wikitime= 02:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions: All cities; for omissions, perhaps they have been missed out. –HTD 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems those three are from the infamous "League of 16". Maybe no one hasn't added them yet. –HTD 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sangguniang_Panlungsod&oldid=1199580123"