Talk:Santiago, Isabela

Note on the move

Santiago is not a part of Isabela since it is an "independent component city." This should've been moved to Santiago. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As the SUBJECT of HOAX

112.198.78.122 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Bertrand Martinez (LINK: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=124867274259819&set=a.119462624800284.27594.119461068133773&type=1) is the MOST FAMOUS HOAXER who lived in this city. His HOAXES consists of Fake TV5 programs, Fake TV5 stations, Radyo Alagad HOAX, Fake Dream FM stations, Us Girls HOAXES which shows that the show allegedly air on 1975, Pangarap Kong Jackpot Hoax, among others. For more information, Log on to: http://www.facebook.com/LarsArnoldBertrand

Moved to Santiago, Philippines

Last time i checked, there is no Santiago Province in the Philippines for it to merit a 'City' suffix (like you would for the Cities of Batangas, Cebu, Davao, Iloilo, Quezon etc. to differentiate them from the provinces of the same name.)

Move to Santiago, Isabela?

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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Santiago, Philippines → Santiago, Isabela – Upon checking with WP:MOSPHIL, a Philippine city article may only be titled using the format "Cityname, Philippines" IF 1) It is a highly urbanized city; and 2) No other Philippine city or town has the same name. In the case of the city of Santiago in Isabela, it is an independent component city and two other places in the Philippines share its name: Santiago, Agusan del Norte and Santiago, Ilocos Sur. --RioHondo (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – sounds reasonable per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Lack of citations, references...

The article has no single citation or reference to verify its content.Jher 04:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

• I just recently added five (5) sources for Wikipedia readers for them to verify article's content. I hope, avid editors of this article will follow the same. Jher 02:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Are there any reliable and credible source for the artcile's claim SANTIAGO as the GATEWAY of the vast land of Cagayan Valley? I think that title rightfully credited to Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya linked via national highway. How about Cordon, Isabela as actually the gateway of Isabela province? Is that gateway transferrable? [I'm not joking, people]. Jher 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Wkjt14 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC) With your due respect sir/s, the term gateway here refers to the starting point of the vast lands or plains of Cagayan Valley. I know you are aware that Nueva Vizcaya is situated on a mountain range (Caraballo Mountains) up to parts of Cordon, Isabela. it is not a self proclaimed tag or nickname whatsoever. It just states that Santiago is the starting point of the vast plains inside the valley, vaguely implicated to add color or art to the sense (if you know what I mean).

• I would appreciate if you can provide reliable source to this, wikipedia articles must be encyclopedic in nature not a collection of flowery words and other work of arts. Thank you.Jher 01:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

This blog I found on this link http://lakbay-pilipinas.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_27.html by Lakbay Pilipinas was a copied version of Santiago's article credited to wikipedia. The page (referring to the blog) reflects earlier version prior to the article's (now in wikipedia) fraudulent edits.Jher 03:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Wkjt14 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Can you please cite examples of any "fraud" in this article. I myself know that the data and facts presented here are true given that I do live in Santiago City. If you could give some, I would be the happiest to edit them. Thank you

• It's good to know this article is improving. I may contest with the tag name "Queen City of the North" and so and so forth thing. It doesn't mean if you're a resident, you know everything about your place. Such case like this: Foreigners are more info about Amanpulo island than most Filipinos nowadays. I guess you don't know where it is before you google. Jher 09:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Place of Birth. All residents must not use SANTIAGO CITY or CITY OF SANTIAGO in their place of birth (birth place) unless if they were born on July 6, 1994 to present. Meaning, if you were born on July 5th, 1994 backwards, Santiago, Isabela should remain as their entry on place of birth. Jher 09:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Wkjt14 (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Thank you sir. I did not state anything that I know "everything" about Santiago. What I meant to say was that data presented here are true and accurate, most likely, because the infos were from the city government itself. And about that island thing you brought up, how and why should I know? I don't even know the name of each and every town or barangay of Isabela. And about the tag "Queen City of the North" thing, I guess the LGU or even residents of this city can freely use that because it's not stated in the law that a bill must be passed and be turned into an RA first before you use or tag your city as such, besides it was the Department of Tourism which gave that tag according to former mayor Amelita Navarro.

Wkjt14 (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC) And lastly pertaining to your argument about "Place of Birth", I think it's a common knowledge sir. (I don't even get the idea why was it brought up here) Thank you sir!

Santiago as an independent component city

Please try to review and revise the city's description in the article vis-a-vis its location in Isabela province. You have several other highly urbanized cities and independent component cities that are described as being geographically part of their old provinces. Some are even provincial capitals even when they are independent of their provinces, (e.g, Puerto Princesa, Palawan; Lucena, Quezon; Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental; etc). Naga, Camarines Sur, despite being independent from Camarines Sur province, is titled with the province name as there is also a Naga in Cebu. But i have not seen those cities complaining about their geography. See Puerto Princesa example. It is NOT described as being "surrounded by the province of Palawan" but is actually within Palawan (as it obviously is!) despite being independent itself. So how can Santiago, historically and geographically part of Isabela, be "surrounded by Isabela and other provinces..." and an independent city in "Northern Luzon"? It sure can't get more precise than that. And Puerto Princesa is an independent city in "western Philippines" outside Palawan.--RioHondo (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wkjt14 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I've edited the article based on your arguments. Please review. Thanks

Thank you. Worth mentioning as well is how the city is grouped under Isabela's 4th legislative district despite being independent. Regards --RioHondo (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why independent city? It's written your city charter that Santiago City is an independent-component city (ICC) in the Province of Isabela.Jher 12:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Wkjt14 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) As you know sir/s, highly-urbanized cities and independent-component cities are both independent cities, independent from the province. They are even on the same level with provinces as a matter of fact. ICC classification is the term for an independent city that does not meet the 200,000 or so number of population requirement to be classified as a HUC. Same is true with having a lone district (needs 250,000 number of population). In the case of Santiago, it only has 130,000+ population (2010 census) so it still needs to share it's congressional representative with the 4th district of Isabela. The bottom line, the category "Independent-component city" is only a term to distinct it from "highly-urbanized city", though they act very much the same, versus "component city" in which is under the jurisdiction of the province.

2 types of city in the Philippines: 1. independent city (HUCs and ICCs; part of a province geographically speaking and for cartographic convenience) 2. component city (part of province legally, financially, administratively, politically)

I hope to enlighten ou regarding this argument. Thank you.

TV stations

I thought ABS-CBN Isabela's frequency is in channel 11 not in channel 2. Jher 01:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)GerryYabes

Moved to Santiago, Philippines

Wkjt14 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Upon checking with WP:MOSPHIL, places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient. In case of an independent component or a highly urbanized city with the same name as that of another non-Philippine municipality and other Philippine city or town with the same name, use CityName, Philippines.

Santiago City is an independent component city and it has the same name with Santiago, Ilocos Sur and Santiago, Agusan del Norte which are both municipalities. I can now move Santiago, Isabela to Santiago, Philippines to further disambiguate it from other places named as such and for giving it the credit for being an independent city.

I think this move is premature, as the entire convention is currently being discussed at WT:TAMBAY. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The old name was bad, but the new one isn't perfect. Would it be detrimental if we'd successfully move this again in a matter of weeks? –HTD 19:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it won't be that damaging sir HTD. As long as the article's name doesn't have Isabela in it. It would be an achievement for those who long to move Santiago, Isabela to Santiago, Philippines or Santiago (Cagayan Valley) if necessary.

Yes but it's confusing for readers and editors alike if articles are being moved frequently. –HTD 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wkjt14 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC) As of now, we follow WP:MOSPHIL. But as soon as the discussion is over, then we follow the ruled decision. There are only 38 independent cities in the Philippines, including Santiago, versus the other 100+ component cities which are part of their respective provinces. I don't think moving an independent city to its rightful category (first-level administrative division) will create confusion to the readers but instead will even show them the fact.

The convention of those referring to the city is still Santiago, Isabela. IMHO, we shouldn't deviate from that. -- Namayan (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the only reason we add the provincename is because it has namesake LGU's in WP. And as far as wp:commonname is concerned, the city is almost always disambiguated by its province location the same way we do for other independent cities like Naga, Camarines Sur and San Juan, Metro Manila. So there shouldn't even be talk about their correct political name as the natural disamb and what people would normally enter in google searches is not Santiago Philippines (hardly anyone does that, not even for Lucena, Quezon nor Angeles, Pampanga) but Santiago Isabela, its precise location. Cos if you're gonna talk about factual titles then every city would be named X City or City of X. Also, notice how the cities are categorized under Category:Cities in province while municipalities under Category:Municipalities of province. --RioHondo (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, we can't add any province name because it is no longer a part of any province. How simple is this to understand? If the Isabela Provincial Board passes an ordinance banning the use of condoms in the province, they can't do anything to Santiago if the mayor and the council disagrees. Even if the congressman from the district that has Santiago wants to impose the no condom rule, he can't do anything. Same for cases such as Naga in Bicol; San Juan's a special case because "San Juan, Metro Manila" is actually factually correct. –HTD 13:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to insist that inclusion of ICCs and HUCs, and the exclusion of CCs, in provincial allocation of seats in Congress, and their relationship to mother provinces, if any, Cities of the Philippines#Independent cities has this to say (I don't remember writing this):

The representation of a city in the House of Representatives (or lack thereof) is not a criterion for its independence from a province, as Congress is for national legislation and is part of national (central) government. Despite Antipolo, Dasmariñas and San Jose del Monte having their own representatives in Congress, they are still component cities of Rizal, Cavite and Bulacan respectively, as their respective charters specifically converted them into component cities and do not contain any provision that severs their relations with their respective provincial governments. Conversely, the city of Cotabato has, since its incorporation in 1959, been autonomously governed from the provinces which surrounded it. Although for the purposes of representation in the various national legislatures the city has been grouped with the province of Cotabato (until 1972), Region XII (1978 to 1984), Maguindanao (1984 to 2007; 2008 to present), and Shariff Kabunsuan (2007 until its dissolution in 2008) and back with Cotabato (2008 onwards).

I hope this clears any confusion on cities and how they are represented in Congress, and how they are connected to provinces, if any. –HTD 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wkjt14 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Articles should be presented in encyclopedic way. I think I'd rather go for on what is "factual" rather to what is "conventional".

I think that's not reasonable sir Namayan. What if a municipality is turned into a city, should it still be treated as a municipality because of "convention" thing? Then what's the purpose of being a city then if we will still stick to what is conventional? Besides Santiago is an ICC, an independent city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.145 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We'd still would've been retained at "Santiago, Isabela" if the upgrade was from a town to a component city, but since this is an independent component city, it's wrong to attach the Isabela name to it, so every article name that has "Isabela" in it is factually wrong from the get-go. This city being grouped into one of the province's congressional districts doesn't count; it's not grouped in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts, for example. –HTD 02:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a very nice argument sir HTD. I dont get it why other users here keep on attaching "Isabela" to the article although they know that Santiago is independent from the province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.145 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wkjt14 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Very well explained sir HTD. I hope other users will be enlightened as well. good day to all.

I understand why some people attaching "Isabela" in the article on two major points: (1) it's their conventional way, people use or base it on generally what is done or believed (that's why the NSO grouped Santiago to Isabela), and (2) there are people whose birth certificates indicated "Santiago, Isabela" (21 years old and beyond) prior to (July, 1994) its conversion into an ICC. Hope this help you a bit. Thanks a lot.Jher 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)GerryYabes

Well, I give the third major point, Santiago's Catholic Religion is under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Ilagan, see here: http://www.dioceseofilagan.com/parishes.html the dioceses also controls the entire Isabela including Santiago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.54 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia should be encyclopedic in nature hence it MUST display "factual" informations not "conventional" ones. If you insist on grouping Santiago under Isabela then what's the major purpose of separating it from the province thru RA No. 7720 in the first place? As stated on the table, Santiago is part of Isabela geographically only, not administratively nor politically. It is a 1st level administrative division same as of a province which is under the direct supervision of the national government. And I guess the laws stated on LGC Sections 25 and 29 have more authority than NSO, PhilPost, or the Catholic Church. Wkjt14 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

NSO on the other way belongs to the Executive Branch of the Philippine Government. So, when NSO group Santiago to Isabela province, NSO rules above LGC Sections 25 and 29.Jher 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No further discussion as to whether the article be moved again [and again] to Santiago, Philippines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a part of Philippine government for it to be under the subject of obedience or compliance to Philippine national or local laws. [userG]

Dubious Radio Stations

Bombo Radyo is in Cauayuan, not in Santiago. DWDY is in Cauayan also, not in Santiago. DWND 88.5 is in Cauayan again, not in Santiago. Big Sound 95.3 is also in Cauayan, never in Santiago. Rock 104.5 is in Roxas, Isabela not in Santiago. 96.1 Star FM was in Cauayan never been in Santiago, a commercial station now defunct. [[userG] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.142.82 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

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: moved to Santiago (Philippine city). Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Santiago, Isabela → Santiago, Philippines – I appeal with the move that was made.Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, shouldn't it show FACTS? Then why did you discredit the reasons we have presented on this talk page? It creates mass confusion here. If the upgrade was from a municipality to a COMPONENT CITY then Santiago, Isabela is alright. But Santiago is an INDEPENDENT city. Please check the article of Angeles City. It is named Angeles, Philippines because it is in fact an independemt city. Why can't Santiago be named the same? The moderator sided with CONVENTIONAL reasons per se. If you say that the laws of the Philippines don't do justice, what would be the BEST evidence then? Please read the LGC SECTIONS 25 and 29 again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, there are two other municipalities named Santiago in the Philippines, but they're small, and so this one is the primary topic of "Santiago, Philippines". People familiar with the city will not necessarily know it is in Isabela - but "Santiago, Philippines" is surely recognizable. That said, Santiago City is commonly used to refer to this city as well, so I would also support a move to Santiago City. There does not seem to be much support for "Santiago, Isabela" in reliable English sources. --В²C ☎ 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Santiago is an independent COMPONENT city in the province of Isabela. Dont circumvent your city charter.[userG] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.200 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, too soon after the previous move. I suggest we discuss this first until we figure out what to do. As for the primarytopic for "Santiago, Philippines", there is none for it actually (google shows mixed results for the city, the Senator, the Fort in Intramuros plus a bunch of Filipinos with that surname), and I have already stated my preference for using the WP:COMMONNAME instead.--RioHondo (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please help us rename this article correctly. Any other name is alright as long as it won't have Isabela on its title. Can't we consider any other way? Why is it hard to understand that there are only 38 independent cities in the Philippines not belonging to any province versus the the other 100+ component cities that are under their respective provinces. Can't we consider those points? People nowadays rely on Wikipedia to gather FACTS but if the title of this article itself states that Santiago is in Isabela which in fact is not true since 1994, isn't that misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, if you look at Category:Independent cities in the Philippines, Isabela, Basilan and Naga, Camarines Sur still have their provinces too in their names but that's also because their names are not unique and are shared by other Philippine LGUs. So it does not follow that all independent cities must be named "independent" from their provincial location especially if its the most natural disambiguator. Remember the WP rule is not to use official titles in naming articles, but what are commonly used to refer to the topics. I think locally, the most common reference to the city aside from the plain name (which we can't use given the number of Santiago articles) is Santiago City. BUT we know we can't use that either cos as far as the global WP community is concerned, the biggest and most popular "Santiago City" there is is also the Chilean capital city which should get the primary topic for both the plain and city titles. As for Santiago, Isabela, i think as far as the rule on WP:COMMONNAME is concerned, this is the most adequate title as that is still the most common reference to the city aside from those I mentioned which we can't use. Please take a look at these online news sources from Inquirer, etc: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7. And then some city institutions which continue to use Santiago, Isabela in their addresses: Northeastern College, Southern Isabela College of Arts and Trades, Patria Sable Corpus College and Isabela State University Santiago. And some notable landmarks: Robinsons Place Santiago and Ford Isabela. Again, WP does not care about official titles or statuses, and apparently neither do those sources I posted. :) --RioHondo (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Can it be renamed Santiago City, Philippines then? As stated there are two other small municipalities in the Philippines named as such and to disambiguate I suggeat to attach the word City. Also there are many places named Santiago in other countries, so can we put Philippines after? Why is that so hard to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There are rules in MOSPHIL that prohibit attaching the word City to article titles on Philippine cities if they have no namesake provinces or regions (hence City here is used only as a disambiguator from the bigger local government unit, e.g, Cebu and Cebu City). So that's out of the options too. I think if people are still uncomfortable with the WP:COMMONNAME for the city which is really Santiago, Isabela, then I can probably advise them to request moving the article to probably Santiago, Cagayan Valley instead? (although that is not commonly heard, but the "City, Region" format worked for San Juan, Metro Manila) Plus, IMO it is more fair and considerate to the other Santiago's and San Juan's in the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Rename to Santiago (Philippine city). Second choice per nom. This city isn't in Isabela, so it's wrong to put Isabela anywhere in the title. "Santiago, Cagayan Valley" is just never used anywhere as some form of disambiguation; it only works for Metro Manila (as there are no provinces) and nowhere else. "Santiago City" is too ambiguous. Let's just hope the other Santiago towns don't become cities in the near future, though... –HTD 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Santiago (Philippine city) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Santiago (city) is ambiguous, and so is Santiago (Philippines), because of other uses of the name in the Philippines. But Santiago (Philippine city) avoids these problems. I also support this solution. --В²C ☎ 00:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • True. That actually sounds more like a standard WP AT to me. I just hope we're not setting a precedent here for other cities to follow. And the MOSPHIL really needs to get updated so badly with all these changes and RMs. I'd like to hear from the editor who renamed this article though.--RioHondo (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

      This has been one of my proposals in the last discussion. What other city has this same predicament? –HTD 12:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

      • The other two Santiagos in the Philippines will take 30 years or more before reaching cityhood. They only have more or less 20 thousand population each while the required minimum population to be an INDEPENDENT city is 150,000 thousand. Santiago (Philippine city) is the perfect title of this article. Santiago, Isabela is far the worst. Wkjt14 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • On the narrow-minded idea though that Santiago is not in Isabela, I have already provided reliable sources to the contrary. And let me just add these legal documents too from Congress and SC some even recent: 1; 2; 3; 4. WP:COMMONNAME is really Santiago, Isabela, even in Filipino language-RS: 1; 2; 3; 4. But for the sake of political accuracy, then this alternative title I guess would please the pundits. ;) --RioHondo (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's because they too think that Santiago is still under Isabela. Most people, bloggers, students, and even professionals rely on Wikipedia to gather information. But since this is titled Santiago, Isabela then they also assume that Santiago is really a part of Isabela. If this is corrected, I believe people will follow suit. I am hoping someone will move this article to its new and correct title: Santiago (Philippine city). Wkjt14 (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • And Congress with those bills? There are plenty of written documents too referring to Santiago, Isabela in the Judiciary: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5. And PIA: 1; 2; 3; and Gov.ph: 1; 2; 3. You see it's not WP's job to decide what is the "correct" title or to lead the way for the correction of "errors", we simply follow common names and popular terms according to reliable sources 1. ;) --RioHondo (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But we cannot deny the fact that Santiago is an independent city as well, independent from Isabela. Still, I strongly believe that this article must be renamed to Santiago (Philippine city) as what others have suggested. In this way, there'll be no more arguments because it will be a win-win solution. :) Wkjt14 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • No one is disputing the fact that Santiago is an independent component city, okay. We've read the R.A. But naming its WP article is a different thing, and here we follow certain standards, one of them is WP:COMMONNAME. I have provided the reliable sources both news and government portals. Even if you change the article title, your sources still say Isabela. ;) --RioHondo (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
          • • Santiago is "grouped" with Isabela, it's not just "in" Isabela, the same reason why Zamboanga City is often "grouped" with Zamboanga del Sur (despite being miles away from each other!) or Ormoc is grouped with Leyte, or that part of Bicutan in SLEX is thought to be in Taguig but it's actually in Paranaque. It's just for the sake of convenience. The Isabela government can pass any law and it won't affect Santiago. Santiago voters don't vote for provincial officials. To insist that Santiago is "in" Isabela, what naming this to "Santiago, Isabela" ultimately does, is factually wrong. –HTD 12:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Santiago is grouped with Isabela; Santiago is within Isabela. So that if you're coming from Manila on your way to Santiago via the AH26, you pass through Cordon, Isabela first where you are greeted by this landmark hill and this welcome sign at the boundary with Nueva Vizcaya. Santiago is another 15-30 km away from this border right within Isabela's provincial territory ;) As for Zamboanga del Sur, the national government treats this province the same way it treats Caloocan or President Roxas, Cotabato by combining the area and population of both sides separated by another LGU. So its nothing new. As for Ormoc, no doubt it is in Leyte, just maybe not officially part of Leyte (province) although this too is treated as a component of the province. And that part of Bicutan in Parañaque is San Martin de Porres. Anywhere you look at it, physically, statistically, even congressionally, Santiago is Isabela, just like Naga, Camarines Sur and Camarines Sur. :) --RioHondo (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
                • Let me put it this way: If the Isabela provincial government can't force its laws upon a place, that place isn't "within" it. This is basic local government. Even our Isabela maps in Wikipedia show this fact. Caloocan and President Roxas isn't analogous to Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga City. North and South Caloocan are Caloocan; the same for President Roxas. Zamboanga City isn't "in" Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga del Sur isn't in Zamboanga City, or that Ormoc isn't in Leyte (province) or that Angeles isn't in Pampanga. The correct analogy for Santiago and Isabela isn't North and South Caloocan, but Pateros (as Santiago, Puerto Princesa, Ormoc and Angeles) and Taguig (as Isabela, Palawan, Leyte and Pampanga, respectively). –HTD 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
                • And yeah, Bicutan railway station is in Paranaque. Let's rally in front of PNR to rename it. –HTD 12:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  For the record, I've suggested a move to "Santiago (Philippine city)" way back in 2010. This is better than "Santiago City" (which may be preferred by "Santiago isn't in Isabela" people) and "Santiago, Isabela" by "Santiago is in Isabela look at my thousands of references" people. The former is right, the latter is wrong, but neither article name is good enough. "Santiago, Philippines" might work if this city is one of the larger cities in the country, a la what happened to Santiago, Chile, but it isn't. This means the "Santiago, Philippines" nomenclature isn't common. –HTD 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  You know what I think this looks like? It's like you are arguing that the actress Angel Locsin should be named something else as her surname there is wrong, but seeing that her real surname is not commonly used, you'd settle for Angel (Philippine actress) instead. LOL JK. Again, WP:COMMONNAME. Looking at the article's references alone, all but 2 of them contain Isabela. :) --RioHondo (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know how Angel Locsin's case is analogous here. Angel Locsin supposedly doesn't share her name with another person, and is known as Angel Locsin. If someone else has an identical name, it should be on "Angel Locsin (actress)", if she isn't the primary topic. Santiago is either known as "Santiago" or "Santiago City", with "Isabela" only used as bad disambiguation. You have been advocating for town names to remove the perfectly legitimate province names from the title, and you're here to put a province name on where it shouldn't be added. I dunno how'd you call that. –HTD 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  P.S. It looks like Santiago's government officials themselves are not bothered by Isabela. See the ff official docs from the city's official website: 1; 2. --RioHondo (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support the move to a rightful and permanent name Santiago (Philippine city). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's why we have to agree on a common thing to resolve this. Even if you present hundreds of documents, there are still people uncomfortable with the title "Santiago, Isabela". It wouldn't be contested if it didn't bear inaccuracy in the first place. How about the sections 25 and 29 of LGC? Those references we are presenting here are contradicting each other hence we should move this article to a title which will stop these arguments. Wkjt14 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. I suggest we move this to a full discussion as what you are requesting is unconventional for Philippine LGUs. IMO, it will take a complete revision of the WP:MOSPHIL as it does not have this "(Philippine city)" format nor any guideline at all for independent component cities. The title stays at "Santiago, Isabela" if only WP standards are followed though. And while we try to decide on the best style for the AT of Santiago, I hope we also consider the other cities in the same category and make sure there is at least some consistency in their style. We would also need more than just the three of us in the discussion to amend or update our manual of style. --RioHondo (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As for being uncomfortable with article titles, there is nothing the WP community can really do about that if they are really whats commonly used in references. If there was only a way to rename articles based on personal views alone, I would have long moved those articles on MIMAROPA, CALABARZON and especially SOCCSKSARGEN looong ago! They make me uncomfortable up to now TBH! :) --RioHondo (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • MIMAROPA, CALABARZON and SOCCSKSARGEN are perfectly legitimate names. "Santiago, Isabela" is downright wrong from the get-go. It's like naming Washington, D.C. as Washington, Maryland. (many Americans assume DC is either in Maryland or Virginia!) Using your "Angel Locsin" example, it's like putting that article to Angel Locsin (Darna).
      • I don't understand your strict adherence for WP:MOSPHIL, TBH when you've done RM saying that we should ignore that. This instance, city having the same name as another place outside the Philippines, is not on WP:MOSPHIL anyway. That means we'd use the standard dabbing procedures. –HTD 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • As I said in the Wikiproject talk page, disambiguations such as your proposed dab are issues that can only be addressed by WP:MOSPHIL. We introduce this convention first, then we can proceed with the rename. As of the moment, MOSPHIL has only the "Cityname City", "Cityname, Provincename", Cityname, Regionname", "Cityname, Philippines" and plain "Cityname" conventions. --RioHondo (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah I wanted this too, but you went ahead and made a host of successful RMs with virtually no input from everybody else and claim "consensus has been reached". I would've also stuck with a strict reading of WP:MOSPHIL if this specific instance is cited. It isn't. This is not even a "gray area" this is an area not stated in WP:MOSPHIL. Hence, unlike removing province name from town articles' titles that should have really went through WP:MOSPHIL discussion, this should have ignored that part because it isn't stated there in the first place. This RM would have been the perfect venue to determine on what to do on cases that are not stated there. –HTD 13:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Was that 3-4 RMs for Santiago in the last 2 years? This time lets give this a more permanent article title. Back to the drawing board, let's fix WP:MOSPHIL. :) --RioHondo (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Don't misrepresent moves as RMs. There were only 2 RMs, as seen on this very same page you're editing. The first one had one user supporting aside from you as the initiator, and was moved; a discussion on which you're rather familiar with these past few weeks. This is the second one.
                1. 2006: Article created at "Santiago City"
                2. 2010: Move request, moved "Santiago City" to "Santiago, Isabela"
                3. 2011: Moved to "Santiago City, Philippines" by Wkjt14
                4. 2012: First RM, moved to "Santiago, Isabela" opened by RioHondo.
                5. October 23, 2013: Moved to "Santiago, Philippines" by Wkjt14
                6. October 26, 2013: Moved to "Santiago, Isabela" by RioHondo
                7. December 28, 2013: Moved to "Santiago, Philippines" by Wkjt14
                8. July 29, 2014: Moved to "Santiago, Isabela" by Exec8
                9. Later that day: Second RM opened by Wkjt14
              • –HTD 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
                • Wait. You forgot 2012 I moved it to Santiago, Philippines first before I opened the RM to Santiago, Isabela a few weeks later. (Just forgot to sign up there). ICCs are tricky matters. And yes, Moves is what I meant there, duckie. Now if you can get everyone to agree with our proposed update to WP:MOSPHIL then we can actually do something to end these RMs (relentless moves). --RioHondo (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Gah. All but two(?) moves were either from you or Wkjt14. –HTD 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
                    • But regardless, you know the AT can be challenged again and moved without the WP:MOSPHIL backing it up, like the RMs we carried out for some municipalities. We're almost there.--RioHondo (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
                      • Yeah, by people who don't seem to understand that WP:MOSPHIL doesn't include this type of situation. And the RMs of which you did only involved you, Seav, and at least another ignorant guy (zomg MOSPHIL violates AT let's disregard that!), you wanna invoke the Marcosian legislatures analogy again? –HTD 12:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to Santiago, Isabela. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.7 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• • The problem with MOSPHIL is that ICCs were not taken into consideration. If only the title of this article is good enough, then there would have been no arguments right now. I am not in favor of the current title hence there's an RM made. I support HTD on the move to Santiago (Philippine city) cause the title Santiago, Philippines was not good enough. Wkjt14 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually ICCs were considered. All cities omit the province's name. It's the disambiguation that got screwed up. –HTD 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Article's short description

I support the short description as "Indepedent component city in Isabela, Philippines" as this city is not in the jurisdiction of the province of Isabela. To indicate as "Indepedent component city in Cagayan Valley, Philippines" is wrong! Government offices in Cagayan Valley in the regional level has jurisdiction to the city, e.g. DepEd region 2, DTI region 2, etc. etc. I hope this is clear.--Gerry (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)