This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles

I rather choose, "Territorial Disputes" as is the practice in international law to refer to areas where sovereignty is contested by other nations. If you were to use "Claimed possessions" you can simply ask "How can you claim something you possess?"

The Spratlys should be among these disputed territories, as its sovereignty remains to be contested among the claimant countries. The Philippines has control of 7 or 8 islands in the Spratlys, these islands compose the Municipality of Kalayaan in Palawan. However it also lays claim to all the islands and islets within the line we normally see in Philippine maps, most of which is under the control of other claimant countries, hence it would not be right to say, that the Philippines is in total possession of the areas it claims in the disputed archipelago. Hence, the Spratylys should be included in the disputed territories.

ARMM should be referred to ARMM, because not all of Muslim Mindanao which also covers its historical extent, is within the jurisdiction of the ARMM government. Scorpion prinz 11:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies:

• I was going to revert back to "Territorial disputes" (TD) but apparently you changed it back to claimed possessions (CP). Either way is fine with me.
• The Philippine-occupied and administered Spratly Islands is already at Kalayaan, Palawan, which is further under Palawan. It will be redundant if we'll add Spratly Islands at the TD/CP.
• Automomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is called "Muslim Mindanao" because its under special region. Calling it in its full name will be redundant. Also, it will not be misleading because it links to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao article, not to the Muslim Mindanao or Muslim Filipino article.

--Howard the Duck 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The government chose the preposition "IN" not "OF" to refer to the region, because not all of Muslim Mindanao is autonomous. Hence, it will be politically incorrect to simply refer to the region as Muslim Mindanao. Scorpion prinz 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about if we display "In Muslim Mindanao"? --Howard the Duck 11:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it is redundant? If it is so, what about Mountain Province? Scorpion prinz 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Since you didn't answer my question) How about if we display "In Muslim Mindanao"? --Howard the Duck 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to retain Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as it is. Ü Scorpion prinz 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll concede this. How about Spratly Islands? Are you in favor of their removal? --Howard the Duck 03:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm for its retention, since we do not control all the islands within the boundary we claim in the Spratlys. Scorpion prinz 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But they are under Palawan already, since the islands that we claim are the islands that we control; we don't claim the entire Spratlys, and Kalayaan, Palawan fits the bill. --Howard the Duck 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI we actually claim all the islands within that perimeter we see on our maps, but we only control 7 islands, other claimant countries control islands, i.e. we also claim Itu Aba (Taiwan), back in the 70s Philippine troops were repulsed by Taiwanese troops. Mischief Reef is the most famous as China built structures on it, even if its within our claim. So its not exactly correct to refer only to the 7 islands as the territories we claim. Scorpion prinz 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, if we display "Spratly Islands", it means that we claim/dispute all of them.

Not really, it is clear we only claim part of it. Nor referring to the area we control as Kalayaan Group of Islands is not also specific, because the Philippines uses that naming convention to the entire archipelago, even those outside our claimed baseline. It's a fact, that the status of the Spratlys remains to be disputed. Hence, we cannot just simply nix it out of that list, it might provide the impression, that it has been resolved. Scorpion prinz 13:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going back, it should only be Autonomous Muslim Mindanao, we have to omit "Region", Mountain Province should stay at Mountain Province since it the standard short form "Mountain Province". Or, if you really don't like that, ARMM will do. --Howard the Duck 12:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are all naming conventions, never has ARMM been referred to Autonomous Muslim Mindanao, so have the full name itself. Similar to Province: Mountain Province (because thats the way it is called), much like if you name the cities, others may go without the 'City' after them, but that's never the case with Quezon City, nor refer to it as City of Quezon. Scorpion prinz 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really still it should be "Muslim Mindanao". For example in ((Administrative divisions of Russia)), the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is simply called "Jewish" while it is under the Autonomous oblast section. --Howard the Duck 11:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't follow. We call it officially Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Scorpion prinz 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official name of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", yet in the navigation box its called "Jewish", following that, ARMM should be "Muslim Mindanao", or "in Muslim Mindanao". Another: the official name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" but in ((Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China)), it is simply called as "Hong Kong". --Howard the Duck 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I was mainly pointing to the area of ARMM is not all of Muslim Mindanao, hence if you refer it to it as Muslim Mindanao it might be construed that all of Muslim Mindanao is autonomous, there remains to be 10 provinces that are considered to be part of Muslim Mindanao, which is not part of the autonomous government. For Hong Kong, SAR, Jewish Oblasts there are no other areas to be contested for inclusion in their territory. Scorpion prinz 05:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok we should add "in Muslim Mindanao" to indicate that the autonomous region is in Muslim Mindanao, not the whole "Mislim Mindanao". Because if we'll put display "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" under "Autonomius Regions", it'll be like Autonomous Region Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. --Howard the Duck 07:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what about Mountain Province??? Shall you then call it as Mountain??? When the British list their territories - do they just simply refer to British Antarctic Territory as British Antarctic? or the British Indian Ocean Territory as British Indian Ocean? They don't. Just like in Australia, when they list their territories do they simply say Northern? or Australian Capital? They will always have Territory/ies follow it. For Hong Kong, it has always been its short form. HK, SAR is its long-form comparing it to ARMM, it has no short form, it is in itself already its short form. France is a short form, French Republic is the long form. Comparing it from one country to another is for me, inappropriate because each country has its own naming conventions, for the Philippines we have never referred to ARMM in a short form other than in its entirety. Another thing, if you list all republics in the world, do you simply list Czech Republic and Dominican Republic as Czech or Dominican/Dominica - we don't? So go figure. Scorpion prinz 13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao"'s short form is ARMM. However in navigation templates, we tend to omit "City" and/or "country". However all of the province/city's official names are in the "Province of Foo" or "City of Foo", all except of Mountain Province where it is "Mountain Province" (see the seals on the right).

About Czech Republic and Dominican Republic, it's the same thing, every country goes by "Republic of Foo", or "Kingdom of Foo", but in this case, it's Foo Republic, hence Czech Republic, and Dominican Republic. Also, Slovakia also went by the name of Slovak Republic, but since Slovakia sounder better, they stuck to that name. How about Czechia? Also, there's Dominica, so Dominican Republic can't do anything about it.

Now since ARMM doesn't represent the whole of Muslim Mindanao, instead of "of", it goes by "in". So, in keeping with "Province in Foo" phraselogy, we omit the "Autonomous Region in", and that leaves as with Muslim Mindanao. But since it is often understood that once you omit "Autonomous Region in", it is "Autonomous Region of", we add "in" before "Muslim Mindanao" so that it'll become "in Muslim Mindanao". I really don't understand why you are opposed in leaving it as "in Muslim Mindanao" considering there's only one autonomous region in the country, and it's understood that it's "in Muslim Mindanao".--Howard the Duck 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I bet you are aware that ARMM is an acronym. The region's short form as well as its long form is Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. There's no short form for it. It is already in its base form, no need to further shorten it. Let's keep it at using what is the accepted naming conventions. Mountain Province is indeed Mountain Province, it's the base form of the province's name. I don't know how will you sort out British Antarctic and British Indian Ocean as the short form of British Antarctic Territory and British Indian Ocean Territory, respectively when they are listed under British Territories. I don't know why you do also insist of shortening Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as "in Muslim Mindanao" in reference to the said region. Never has it ever been referred to as "in Muslim Mindanao" when we talk of autonomous region/s in the Philippines. If you can cite news report using the base form you want to use, I'd be enlightened. Something like... autonomous regions in the Philippines "in Muslim Mindanao". Scorpion prinz 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Scorpion prinz. :p Coffee 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast isn't referred to as "Jewish" in Russian media. The reason why I'd prefer "in Muslim Mindanao" is to balance other regions, which are simply "Ilocos", "Central Visayas", "Davao", etc. "in Muslim Mindanao" fits the ball, and it isn't wrong to say "im Muslim Mindanao". A navigation templates seeks to summarize, to give an overview. --Howard the Duck 16:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what about British Indian Ocean Territory, British Antarctic Territory, Australia's Northern Territories, Canada's Northwest Territories? What I'm underscoring here is the standard naming convention. I vividly recall, my almanacs when I was small, during the time of the Soviet Union, they never referred to their republics as merely Russian Soviet Federated Socialist but would always have Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (Kazakh SSR), Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR), etc. So why use in Muslim Mindanao, if you'd go with that I'll bat for Mountain instead of Mountain Province. But that is really silly. Scorpion prinz 10:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Reindented). The simple form is not Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic or Russian Soviet Federated Socialist but "Russia." I've heard someone called it "British Indian Ocean". So instead of linking ARMM and "Other regions", I've figured to list the hierarchy of the LGUs replacing the autonomous region pane, Regions, Cities, Municipalities and Barangays. --Howard the Duck 14:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heard is different from used. Regions are not really considered a government unit (except for ARMM) thats why they dont have governments, it only facilitates better adminitration of LGUs. Scorpion prinz 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This debate is moot since I changed it already. The new links will give more info than a link about ARMM and the regions. --Howard the Duck 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you guys think that, instead of the "Autonomous region" section with ARMM, we could just include all 17 regions and have Template:Philippine regions redirect to this template? --Coffee 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This can be a touchy issue but since only one region has real political power, only ARMM has to be included. Also, if we'll include them, then it's like previously deleted ((Philippines)) template. Also, how are we going to name the regions? "Ilocos" or "Ilocos Region"? Just like in ARMM, I wanted it to be simply "Muslim Mindanao", not "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" because it removes the simplicity. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilocos can be Ilocos, so as Bicol. Cordillera too. but not really for ARMM. Scorpion prinz 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go with the acronym/roman forms: I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, CAR, ARMM, NCR. Short and sweet. --seav 16:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like that better. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If no one objects, I'll implement this. --Howard the Duck 14:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is difficult to read as one cell of a table maybe change it to a bulleted or numbered list instead? Also multi-word prov's should have & n b s p ;(no-break-space) between each part so as not to split between lines.
I'll play around with this in my "User sandbox".
Mkouklis 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was loosely patterned on ((USPoliticalDivisions)). --Howard the Duck 10:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to make this section READABLE to someone whom is not in the Philippines as it is many places are breaking onto the next line examples the province of "Lanao del
Sur" | Camarines
Norte" and the rest...
--Mkouklis 07:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about formatting it this way: [[Lanao del Norte|Lanao del Norte]]? IMHO, I don't see nothing wrong with the previous format. --Howard the Duck 07:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked the previous content, but I like the formatting of the current one, so why not place the all of the provinces here, then provide links tp regions, cities and other divisions, plus the disputed territories? --Howard the Duck 08:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Mkouklis 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) • or | which looks better between the entries?Reply[reply]

Doesn't matter to me, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template suggests that the Philippines claims Labuan. Is that true? __earth ^(Talk) 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check out the history and add the user who insists adding "Territorial disputes" in the "political divisions" template. –Howard the Duck 11:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless, the claim is disingenuous because Labuan was never part of the Sulu Sultanate. It remained under Brunei when Brunei granted north eastern of North Borneo to Sulu. __earth ^(Talk) 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can remove it. If he brings it back then we'll discuss. –Howard the Duck 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. __earth ^(Talk) 12:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao are already part of Island Groups, If this words are repeated on the other part, There will be redundancy in the Template -121.54.2.91 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we should remove the provinces list since they're redundant with the Provinces link? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The decision is on your hands, for me, it is better to change only the list 4 of the template, if you want separate Island Groups to other list. Again, I recommend to change only the list 4 of the template -121.54.2.91 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao articles should be linked to all province articles. If you have a good idea on how to link them using this template and without using a separate row for "Island groups" as it is not a political division, be my guest. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Island Groups should be separated and should not be include in other subdivisions. Because it is a special kind of subdivision that requires it to be separated, just like the province template. please consider my idea... - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I said in May... any ideas on how to link them by not using a separate row? They're not political divisions in the strictest sense of the world.... same with the legislative districts and the territorial disputes. –HTD 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Good day. Don't you think that this template is already fulfilling the purpose of ((Regions of the Philippines))? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We also have Template:Provinces of the Philippines. Ideally regions should use the regions template and the provinces should use the provinces template, not this monstrosity. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to merge the regions and provinces templates into this one, and use a switch so that this template only shows the corresponding subsections, or alternatively, just hide the irrelevant subsections. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do we have to unnecessarily complicate things? We can keep all three templates. We'd just limit this one to links about the different divisions and lists. Here's an example of what we can do for this navbox:

Howard the Duck (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. But wait, does this mean we're making articles for judicial regions as well? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about this but these are borderline notable so I dunno how to tackle that one. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I agree with HTD, none of these individual administrative divisions per subdivision type is even tackled in the main article. This template must stick to its purpose, to identify only those subdivision types, just like in Template:Administrative divisions of the United States and Template:Administrative divisions of France.--RioHondo (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of those are sidebars, they are not going to appear in articles in the same way this template does (right at the bottom where only the most dedicated will see it). I don't see the value of making those dedicated readers have to go to more places to access various links. CMD (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Howard the Duck: It appears that none of the 81 provinces of the Philippine were utilising Template:Provinces of the Philippines, thus, leading to my assumption that such template does not exist. I have successfully replaced ((Administrative divisions of the Philippines)) (and its redirects) from the provinces with ((Provinces of the Philippines)). Everyone @P199, RioHondo, and Chipmunkdavis:, have we reached a consensus to use HTD's proposal above? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use for what? It shouldn't be used for any of the actual regions or provinces, as it doesn't meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Nor should this template have been replaced by the less useful one. CMD (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I mean implement it. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks HueMan! TBH Navboxes arent my forte and i admit not knowing half of what CMD has been criticizing up there lol. But if it looks right and feels right, you have my support. And yea, HTD's revised template does look right, linking only to the main subtopics written in the main article. Not a fan of wholesale navboxes really ;)--RioHondo (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RioHondo: I think he meant that it would be a bummer to go to the bottom (where the navbox is) of the article just to go to another article, probably because of some reader's short attention span or whatnot. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have three different templates for the administrative divisions of the Philippines: ((Administrative divisions of the Philippines)) (this one), ((Administrative divisions of the Philippines list)), and ((Administrative divisions of the Philippines sidebar)). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave this template, then TFD the other two. ((Politics of the Philippines)) does a good job showing the different political divisions, and is not on a navbox and can be prominently displayed wherever it is (unless it is at the bottom which means it's not better utilized).

We'd just use the regions navbox for articles about regions, provinces navbox on articles about provinces. A navbox with more than 100 links is not helpful, more so if it pertains to articles that are not of the same subject ("subject" here is defined conservatively). 14:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck:  In progress at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 29. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. Now we have to figure out what this template is for. If there's consensus that the regions and provinces links should also be here, we should TFD those templates as well. Now, if there's consensus to use those templates just like 99% of the countries in the world, we should refigure this navbox into something else. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is for navigating to the different levels of country subdivisions in the PH, so your revised template up there is more or less on point. Sorry i was multitasking a while ago so it took me a while to understand that bidirectional argument from CMD hehe! Btw, since the other divisions only have links to the their main articles, i suggest the judicial regions and island groups do the same and not link to their individual entities. They have their own templates too i suppose? We could lump them under Others only for this template. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's the case, the easiest solution is cull the list of regions and provinces in this template. The judicial regions can come at a later time if someone creates articles for those. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]