Talk:Isabela (province)

	Philippines portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#U.S. military government|American military government]] The anchor (U.S. military government) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

WikiProject Philippine LGUs

Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

The Isabela District Locator is not correct due to error color coding/labeling of First and Third Districts of Isabela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryyabes (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the table of municipalities, Echague is set to 4th class and belong to 2nd district. However, when you go to the link where Echague is described, the town is a 1st class (partly urban) municipality and belong to 4th district. I believe Echague belong to 4th district but i do not know about the ranking in terms of economy 121.97.177.115 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Daryl[reply]

The color-coded picture was based on the Table of Municipalities. If the table will be updated to a more accurate one, then the picture will be updated too. jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The color-coded picture for the districts is already updated.

Done jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map of Ilagan is re-drawn showing its coastal area facing the Pacific Ocean gerryyabes (talk) 18:05, 30 August, 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure Ilagan has a coastal area? jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which Ilagan barangay is located on the Pacific coast, but I do know Ilagan extends to both Divilacan and the Pacific Ocean on the northeast. From Republic Act No. 8474 (Charter of the City of Ilagan), "The City of Ilagan shall comprise the present territory of the Municipality of Ilagan over which it has jurisdiction bounded on the north by the Municipality of Tumauini; on the west, by the Municipality of Quirino; on the northeast, by the Municipality of Divilican and the Pacific Ocean; and on the southeast, by the Municipality of San Mariano." Btw, Fuyot Springs National Park, located in the Ilagan portion of the Sierra Madre range close to the Pacific coast, is at Barangay Santa Victoria, the easternmost barangay that I know. Cheers! Posted byRioHondo (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC) oon Talk:Ilagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryyabes (talk • contribs) [reply]

Physiographical Areas ?

L.S. ,

Under the heading Geography , Subheading Physical , the article mentions 3 physiographical areas but defines only 2 , namely an Eastern and Western Area . What is the third , distinct area ( if any ) and where can this information be verified ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.72.214 (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabela (province). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabela (province). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

This has been asked many times before, but while we have the four coastal towns correct, it seems that the boundaries for the inland towns still need correction. If you'll be shading the towns per legislative district (Isabela was recently redistricted to 6 districts from 4), the southern ones show up to be noncontiguous. (Noncontiguous districts are okay if it's separated by a body of water, or if a new district was created from the old one, splitting it into exclaves.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can always try and ask the Commons Map Workshop for help. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm looking for authoritative sources on municipal boundaries... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Yes, that is hard. I have looked for that before too. Without success. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among the provinces, this is the hardest to get right. I believe Echague doesn't separate Jones, San Agustin and Dinapigue from each other. Dinapigue is in the district with the southernmost towns, it doesn't make sense if they don't border each other. See for example this page. We've already fixed up Santiago encircling Cordon, I guess this is the last major correction we'd have to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider an image from a blog as an authoritative source... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, but I suspect he stole it from an authoritative source. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: The map looks like a revamped version of Namayan's work: both are using the same font (ITC Officina Sans Std) and has similar boundaries (except Echague's extent). This issue is not exclusive for Isabela only, Misamis Oriental and Davao de Oro has noncontiguous districts as well, according to your map btw. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Davao de Oro's districts are contiguous, it's just that our base map has to be wrong. MisOr's districting is unique, since the province itself is not contiguous as Cagayan de Oro isn't in MisOr. (See Sarangani and GenSan for another example of that.) Howard the Duck (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Then how about Cabuyao in Laguna? It's separated from the rest of Laguna's 2nd congressional district because of the apportionment of Calamba. You didn't even include Cabuyao in your map. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piecemeal redistricting screws up things. See for also Batangas-2nd. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they messed up on Isabela too? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabela was redistricted wholesale, not piecemeal. There's good reason to believe Echague doesn't go all the way into the Aurora/Quirino border. These noncontiguous districts only happen if a province is not contiguous in the first place, or piecemeal redistricting divides a district into two enclaves. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly let me know if you come across something. I based Isabela's map from what I saw on their website, plus a few other sources which somehow is consistent. I haven't been making maps for a while but I'll be glad to be back on it. -- Namayan (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most maps in the internet do have Echague bordering Quirino and Aurora, but Openstreetmaps has a quadripoint border, causing it to border Jones, Dinapigue and Maddela, Quirino at the quadripoint, and never Aurora. If this is right, this means Dinapigue borders another town of the 4th district, and we'd have to correct the maps. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current depictions, even in Google Maps, do show a quadripoint, but for Echague, Dinapigue, Maddela and Dilasag, Aurora. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Google Maps shows the Dinapigue poblacion south of the border, in Aurora. (WTF!) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAMRIA

I think as far as maps and city/municipal boundaries in the Philippines are concerned, Wikipedia should rely on only one source and one authority: Namria, the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority. It has all sorts of downloadable maps for all provinces, including topographic maps at different scales and hazard maps showing municipal borders. Based on a few of those ive seen of Isabela, a narrow strip of Echague does extend southeast to Aurora, and Aurora only. Ilagan also does have a narrow access to Palanan Bay (Pacific Coast). See this landslide hazard map of Isabela for example. Feel free to download each type of map for comparison, but be mindful of boundary markers vs. road markers (boundary markers are those dashed or dotted lines while roads are solid lines).--RioHondo (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAMRIA maps have disclaimers that boundaries are not authoritative/approximate. Just like how one barangay in San Pablo, Laguna is excluded from Laguna's Hazard Map. -- Namayan (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]