Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Please help fill the needed articles for the PhilPres template

I ask to all of those Filipino Wikipedians, and even foreign Wikipedians, out there to please help me fill the voids of the PhilPres template. Out of the 31 related-articles, we have successfully made 18 articles (15 newly-created articles and 3 already-there-before-the-template articles). We still need to create 13 more articles in order to complete it.

I wanted to set an exact deadline (December 31, 2006) so that it would create some pressure on us, but I think it would only create a chaos, so, I think, we should complete all of the 13 needed articles. If you want to set a deadline, please tell me and let's decide if it will reach a concensus. --- Kevin Ray 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the color scheme into something not so eye-straining. I hope you don't mind. --Mithril Cloud 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats Ok Mithril Cloud! Well, I have to thank also Men72194 for creating the List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less. Thanks a lot! I have also finished the List of Philippine presidential inaugurations article. We have already successfully done 20 articles!!! 11 articles to go!!! Keep up the fighting spirit! --- Kevin Ray 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: 23 articles done, 8 articles to go! - Men72194 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Lastest Update: As of December 7, 2006, we have already created 24 articles and 6 articles left to be done! I had deleted Control of Congress because the infos about it is so hard to find and created List of Philippine Presidents by longevity. Maybe we'll return it later if we have enough datas for it. -- Kevin Ray 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anong Latest sa PhilPres: As of December 14, 2006, I had finished 2 articles: Former Philippine Presidents who ran again and List of Philippine Presidents by time as former president. We have already 26 articles and 4 articles left. Please help us in completing this list. Please... -- Kevin Ray 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Three more articles because I already made the List of Philippine Presidential elections. Just check it out for some minor edits. So maybe later I'll do the list by presidential tickets. Yay! This is so much fun to do.. And yay too because its already winter break! Don't worry Kevin Ray, we'll finish this list in no time! --Glenncando 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Glenncando for your help! I really appreciate it very much. At last, we're now having 27 articles done! What's left? 2 more articles. Want to make them? Well, here's the 2 articles-to-be created left : RP V.P. Term Length and RP Presidential tickets RP Major Party Presidential Candidates Tickets. -- Kevin Ray 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I added 2 new articles! Philippine Presidents' Parents and Philippine Presidents' Birthday. The list has now a total of related-articles of 31 articles: 29 DONE and 2 STILL TO BE DONE (RP V.P. Term Length and RP Presidential tickets). So, if you can help me finish this, in no time, it wouldn't reach the new year. -- Kevin Ray 14:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
ONE MORE ARTICLE TO GO! Hey guys, we still have one more article to go for the PhilPres template, becaue I already finished the RP Presidential tickets just now.. So check on it now! --Glenncando 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Added one more! Before that, thanks a lot again Glenncando. Your such a great friend. Anyway, I had just finished creating List of Philippine Presidents by children. We have now a total of 32 PhilPres articles : 31 DONE and 1 STILL TO BE DONE and that's the List of Philippine Vice Presidents by time in office. If you can do it, feel free. I hope we can finish this as soon as possible. -- Kevin Ray 13:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The links on your PhilPres template are finally done, good job! If you like you can just decorate with more additional info and pictures on the List of Philippine Vice Presidents by time in office. The December 31, 2006 deadline is now officially null and void. --Weekeejames 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Philippines
Presidential lists of order Order of service • Birth • Longevity • Post-presidency length • Term length
Presidential personal life lists Nicknames • College education • Province • Religious affiliation
Presidential professional life lists Inaugurations • Currency appearances
Vice President lists of order Order of service • Birth • Death • Term length
Succession Line of succession
Elections Election results
Candidates Tickets • Former presidents who ran again
Spouses First Ladies

I would also like to thank those who helped me in creating and editing the PhilPres template related-articles :

--What will be the next list--List of Presidents by how many times they burp?KaElin 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For the love of LRT pictures!

A mass of Manila Light Rail Transit System pictures were deleted, and it's all because of the PD-PhilippinesGov license. Apparently, even two of the three pictures nominated to be kept per discussions here were deleted. Either we get free replacements now (urgency on the LRT map), or otherwise, I have to re-upload some of them per fair use rationales. --Sky Harbor 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Aguinaldo signature missing

Aguinaldo signature missing. Scorpion prinz 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in LSQC School Article

hi guys. the Wiki page on Lourdes School of Quezon City (see page history) was recently vandalized by User:Lourdesian3404, who added a smattering of uh, pornographic words.

i've already reverted the edits; however, seeing that i'm quite inexperienced when it comes to these kinds of issues, can you advise me as to what step i'll take next? can this user be banned for the vandalism? any thoughts on this from the pinoy wiki admins?

thanks a lot guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corsarius (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia:Reverting. And the school hymn really has to go too. --Howard the Duck 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks, howard. i've removed the hymn. oh, and apologies for the unsigned post. forgot it! -- Corsarius 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Philippine Government

Something is wrong with this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Philippine_Government Whoever is responsible, please fix it. Thanks! Never mind! I already fixed it. It was vandalised. --Weekeejames 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On this week in the Philippines

Hope everyone can fill up the dates at Portal:Philippines/On this week/Anniversaries. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok since there were few contribs, I might make this "On this month". --Howard the Duck 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

i have some info for the DYK section. problem is, i don't know how to do it. and, there are already existing articles about those information. how do i go about doing this? --RebSkii 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done this myself, but I do remember that some information can be found here and here. This, on the other hand, is the guide. Hope these help. :) --- Tito Pao 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Men72194 (talk • contribs)

You guys might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emir214. – Chacor 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Very surprising indeed. This is why reconciliation is so hard. --Sky Harbor 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the northernmost island?

Mavudis Island or Y'Ami Island? --Howard the Duck 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Y'Ami is the northernmost point of land at latitude 21°07' N. however, Y'Ami is an islet, thus the northernmost island is Mavudis Island the exact longitude of Mavudis in seconds (is unknown to me) i'm not sure if W or E of Y'Ami and latitude is (based on my interpolation) some seconds or even minutes S. - RebSkii 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

License lessons

Well, we all know the "why we should use Creative Commons" picture in the map factoid discussion. Well, I took the initiative to translate it into Tagalog. Take a look!

What do you think? Literally, this is my first image to Commons, and hopefully this works! --Sky Harbor 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is great :) Kudos. -- Corsarius 12:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the good work!! height--Jondel 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Though I see you use siya to mean it. ;-) --Chris S. 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Like previous experience, it's commonly used. Unfortunately, I have a hard time choosing between iyan and iyon with regard to objects, so I chose the neutral alternative.  :-) --Sky Harbor 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. For me the neutral alternative would to have simply used no pronoun at all; i.e., "hindi gaanong kakumbiniyente..." --Chris S. 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Subic Rape Case

It seems that there is no article regarding Nicole and Corporal Daniel Smith. Berserkerz Crit 06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You create it yourself. --Howard the Duck 06:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yah I did. I'm just having a hard time composing it with everything that needs to be included. @_@ Berserkerz Crit 07:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
i think an article on the subject should rather be included in the news section. i have nothing anything against nicole or the american marines, but i believe they should have some sort of notability -- RebSkii 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
well the case itself is notable because of the fact that for the first time the Philippines has convicted an American officer on the grounds of rape. A lot of cases have been filed only to end with a dismissal, acquittal, or private settlement. The case has a lot of implications for RP-US relations. Berserkerz Crit 14:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I second that...especially the part about RP-US relations. In particular, much of the discussion about this case not only rests on the actual crime (the rape) but also on the treaty (the Visiting Forces Agreement or VFA); think of any known op-ed columnist, and chances are, they have written about this case. AFAIK, this is the first application of the VFA with respect to criminal cases, so it would also be a good idea to discuss how it has made (and, in the future, would continue to make) an impact on RP-US relations. --- Tito Pao 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Berserkerz Crit, I put some refs in your talk pages. See if they're useful. Lenticel 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

This is a very contentious question in my opinion: what do we do when CheckUser goes wrong? I do, as a matter of procedure regarding archiving my YM messages, have a statement from Emir214 (talk • contribs) saying that Men72194 (talk • contribs) is not a sockpuppet of the former, and that while they may edit the same articles, the former does not initiate Philippines-related articles in the first place. Should I ask for another checkuser? --Sky Harbor 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's rare for CheckUser to be wrong. It's not surprising that Emir would deny it. – Chacor 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't know. He tells me that the two have different editing styles yet they edit (roughly) the same articles. A coincidence, perhaps, but what else can we do? --Sky Harbor 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Now what did Men72194 wrong to warrant a checkuser? Can the findings be made public? --Howard the Duck 09:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser was filed under code "F", which is to use sockpuppets to avoid indefinite blocks or bans (Emir214 is blocked indefinitely for offering his password to the public). Editing style was a key factor in choosing to include Men72194 in the request. – Chacor 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think his password thingy wasn't that malicious, since he was offering his password to anyone who'd want to edit under his username (I think he didn't know Wiki's right to vanish and/or user renaming stuff). So what's checkuser's data? --Howard the Duck 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser results are never made publicly available, only those with CU access get to see it, I believe. – Chacor 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically we'll never know whether they are the same person or not? Howard the Duck's presumption is correct: he told me that he was unaware that posting passwords is not allowed. He recently saw this post anonymously. --Sky Harbor 10:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser confirms that they're the same person (or at the very least edited from the same IP address over a period of time, to the exact same articles), that's pretty much all the confirmation you'll get. There is no way to appeal a CU verdict, as I understand it. The evidence is pretty strong anyway. (If it is possible, but not confirmed, the CheckUser response will say exactly that; there are different possible responses based on how likely it is, Confirmed, Likely, Possible, Inconclusive and Unrelated. In this case, the result returned was "Confirmed". – Chacor 11:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But does editing the same articles merit someone being labeled a sockpuppet? Has any communication been established with the user in question? --Sky Harbor 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indent reset - CheckUser is extremely technical, but if there are doubts the human running the check will note them. In this case, there is a very high possibility they are the same person - Essjay will have noted "Likely" or "Possible" if he wasn't sure. Essjay is highly trusted in the community; there should really be very little doubt about the result. Like I noted above CU data is never released due to the information collected, and there are (at current time) no known ways of appeal (even then, this would be frequently misused so there's little chance of a method of appeal even being implemented), the best you could do is probably bring it up at the talk page of WP:RFCU itself... although no response is guaranteed. – Chacor 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did contemplate doing that in the past, but I decided not to because of that. Although I, like any other self-respecting Wikipedian, have respect for people like Essjay, I don't know what else I can do if that's how CU works. But, then again, what about the little possibility that they are not, judging by the "very high possibility". --Sky Harbor 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your discussion, and for this, I left the English Wikipedia. I am busy on the Tagalog Wikipedia with "User:Emir214/Reming 0621" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pilipinas". - Emir214 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine Presidency Portal is now up!

I am glad to inform you all Filipino Wikipedians that I have finally finished creating the Philippine Presidency Portal. I was compiling things up all about the Philippine Presidency, and I found it something challenging to create the portal.

Actually, I created it last December 3, 2006. It's just today that I let you know that it's now fully published and you can now see it for yourself. Contact me (talk) (contribs) first before editing and changing the portal features & for questions, suggestions, proposal, and queries regarding this portal. Thanks! -- Kevin Ray 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this can be sustained. There are too few articles on the subject. --Howard the Duck 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a breakdown of votes per province/city of presidential and vice presidential election results of 1969, 1992, 1998 and 2004 (the last is available from the House of Representative website) that I obtained from the COMELEC and House Congressional Library. Prior to 1969, they dont have it available. Let me know if youre interested. Scorpion prinz 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4 more ARMM towns proposed

The Regional Legislative Assembly of the ARMM cant just get enough. Just right after the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan, here comes the passage of laws creating 4 more towns [1]. Pandag and Mangundadatu, to be taken from the municipality of Buluan; Midtimbang from the town of Talayan; and Talitay from Kabuntalan. I guess we just have to keep track of their relentless appetite for more LGUs. Scorpion prinz 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Reming/Durian

With perhaps a thousand people dead, Typhoon Durian (known to us as Typhoon Reming) is really a lot more notable than being merely a subsection of 2006 Pacific typhoon season. If anyone has some free time and willingness to help the wiki, this would be a good place to direct your efforts in making a new article. --Coffee 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The naming convention would put the new article at Typhoon Durian (2006). --Coffee 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see User:Chacor/Sandbox/Durian 0621. Your help is appreciated! – Chacor 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinagat Islands it is!

The "Yes" voice of the people of Dinagat Islands has made it the 5th Province of CARAGA Region and the 81st Province of the Philippines.

With a margin of only 6,914 votes coming from five towns in Dinagat Islands bailiwick of the Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association (PBMA), the "Yes" vote for Dinagat Islands prevailed over a poorly promoted "No" vote in the December 2 referendum.

Visit this link to read the news: Dinagat isles land provincehood status

Just like with Shariff Kabunsuan, I guess we have to make some new things again. Feel free to add to the list and to put "done" on finished items. --- Kevin Ray 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I messed up Dinagat, Surigao del Norte --- It should be Dinagat Islands not Dinagat Island, is an administrator around to fix the redirects? I messed up the redirects . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion prinz (talk. Scorpion prinz 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Chris S. 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like articles on the separate islands and what municipalities are on them. I did something similar for the islands of Romblon and Camotes Islands. --Chris S. 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More from Shariff Kabunsuan

Apparently, this Philippine Daily Inquirer article tells us that Shariff Kabunsuan also absorbed two towns from Lanao del Sur: Kapatagan and Balabagan. Looks like we need to update, and fast! --Sky Harbor 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of the report, please refer to: [2], this is the official COMELEC resolution regarding the plebiscite to create Shariff Kabunsuan. I reverted some articles already on this basis. Besides the article mentions only 8 towns "Shariff Kabunsuan, which has about 500,000 people, is made up of the towns of Sultan Kudarat, Sultan Mastura, Matanog, Buldon, Barira and Parang, and the Lanao del Sur towns of Kapatagan and Balabagan. It was created on November 28 through Muslim Mindanao Act 201." (6 from Maguindanao and 2 from Lanao del Sur). Scorpion prinz 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dekada '70

Hi! I need your comments on the merging/moving Dekada 70 to Dekada '70 which I was working on. Please post your comments in Talk:Dekada '70 Thanks.--Pinay06 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the Philippines

There seems to be a problem with Template:Politics of the Philippines. The template is full-screen and bumps the body of the article(s). Please somebody check. Thanks.--Pinay06 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! --bluemask (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!--Pinay06 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Another map factoid...

Just watched TV Patrol Sabado and saw the Guinobatan, Albay locator map flashed on the screen beside Bernadette Sembrano. --Howard the Duck 12:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeda:WikiProject Pilipinas

Just popping in from the Tagalog Wikipedia. I am inviting you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Pilipinas in the Tagalog Wikipedia. I am also asking you to help out in its tasks. It's time we put the past between us and move on.... - Emir214 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Quezon, Isabela

I would like to thank the mayor of Quezon, Isabela for providing me all necessary info about the municipality. He personally made a request to upload the article in wikipedia. - Exec8 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Congratulations! --Pinay06 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That's one extremely detailed article. Really, really nice. I guess, anyone who wants to can make a term paper about the municipality now. :) --seav 13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Demographics of the Philippines

Hello! Will somebody please be kind enough to check the template? It looks like the contents are cluttered and not in good order. Thanks.--Pinay06 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

GMA Net Satisfaction slips to -13 again

Hey guys! Just thought of giving you a heads up on the Social Weather Stations new survey results: SWS News.--Pinay06 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine Constituent Assembly

Since this won't push through, I don't know on what to do with this... --Howard the Duck 08:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can add it under the 13th Congress of the Philippines. Scorpion prinz 10:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Or you could add it to the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article. 23prootie 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So, this is how I see the article as it stands: there is a basic discussion on what ConAss is, and what it does. That, by itself, may be a little boring and may be better left to liars lawyers, tongressmen congressmen and political scientists. However, there is ample room for developing the history part. There were a lot of people involved here (GMA, JdV, Pirma, the opposition etc.), there were a lot of incidents that affected how the ConAss proposal moved on (how GMA planned to change the system, which prompted sympathizers to solicit so-called "real" signatures in a signature campaign, which was contested in the COMELEC, which was junked by the Supreme Court, which prompted JdV and cohorts to scheme and plan the recent brouhaha and shouting matches in Congress...). Also, there's a lot of good back story material---among others, Jose de Venecia, who was also involved in a similar movement way back during Pres. Ramos's term. So the way I see it, we can instead re-develop this into something like, say "the Philippine controversy about the ConAss" and then move the title to something like, say, "2006 Philippine Constituent Assembly Proposal". I'm thinking along the lines of "Hello, Garci"...it was just a simple phone call, but it was part of a greater story---and it now has its own article :) --- Tito Pao 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not true. ConAss talks are blown over and dramatized by the politicos, and the media follow their trail. It's just newsworthy, but not even historic (at the moment). Talks for such action by the politicos happen for years, and people protest for years. IMHO, ConAss should be in Wikinews or the run-up to the Philippine general election, 2007, and then fork out if its big on its own (ex. 2006 referendum on the constitution of the Philippines). When the GMA-JDV pair are already a Pres-Prime combo running the country, then an article can be made on that, (or when a new people power unseats the presidency and the lower house, whichever comes first) Crossing fingers, lol :) --Noypi380 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please compile all this charter change-related topics into one. How about having a Arroyo's Charter Change in the Philippines or Charter Change in the Philippines, 2006. It would scope to People's Initiative, Con-Ass and even Con-Con! Rather than creating one short article without conjoining other Cha-Cha related topics. -- Kevin Ray 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, CONASS, CONCON and P.I. are all different so they warrant different articles. As for the whole thing, 2006 in the Philippines has a summary of the events. --Howard the Duck 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The topic 'con ass' and 'con con' should be under the article Philippine constitution. But since this article is part of the series on the Politics of the Philippines, then these charter change topics should be under the Politics of the Philippines article. I don't see importance as to writing standalone articles on these topics. They are merely means of modifying or changing the constitution - a simple expression or a phrase (they are better off as wikitionary entries). --Weekeejames 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The topics about Constitutional amendments should be at Article 17 of the Constitution of the Philipppines, while current movements for charter change might have their own articles. As for CON-ASS, if it pushed through it will certainly warrant its own article, but since they backtracked I'm happy with a merge+redirection. If a CON-CON pushes through, then we'd have its own article (like 2007 Philippine Constitutional Convention]]. If P.I. pushes through then we'd have Philippine constitutional referendum, 2007. --Howard the Duck 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Julia Clarete

Hello! I know that most of the discussion on the tambayan has been on "serious", academic topics, so I hope you won't mind going a little "showbiz" :-) By accident, I found out that the Julia Clarete article is up for deletion, so if you have anything to say for or against the AfD, feel free to comment. --- Tito Pao 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have checked here instead of using her personal talk page. Anyway, an anonymous user just slapped on the AfD notice and did nothing more. The deletion page - which is supposed to be created by the person who put the notice in - was made by TitoPao who was voting against it. In any case, I speedy deleted the deletion page and removed the AfD notice. --Chris S. 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I also left a message on the anon user's talk page, asking for an explanation. Apparently, this same IP address was used to edit the same article a few years back, so I had a feeling that something was amiss. --- Tito Pao 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There's still an AfD notice which I've removed again. Berserkerz Crit 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg of the Philippines

I just found this site! Good resources on Philippines! Check it out! I still have to check out the books. --Pinay06 05:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay - Critiquing Filipino modes of knowing by Jaime Polo

Hello all! I am trying to get hold of a copy of the essay "Critiquing Filipino modes of knowing" by Jaime Polo. If anyone here, especially Atenista, has a copy or knows of how to get one, please, please let me know. Or if anyone has access to it, knows how to access it, etc. Please help. Thanks. --Pinay06 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the MRT

Well, this is a good thing: the Manila Metro Rail Transit System will be today's featured article for this Monday, December 18! Although I asked for today (December 16) since it was the opening day of the MRT, they had to give it to some evil terrorist. Oh well. --Sky Harbor 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Telenovela = Teleserye

I cant quite understand why Wikipedia should have a teleserye article when it is identical with telenovelas. Fantaseryes can be a different genre but teleseryes aren't. --Howard the Duck 13:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the telenovela truly stands as an article but teleserye as well. It is a localized form of telenovelas and the content seems to be fit for Wikipedia albeit it needs a cleanup. Why, do you have an idea or suggestion as to what we should do with the teleserye article? Berserkerz Crit 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between the two? We all knew them as telenovelas until ABS-CBN came up with its own term. --Howard the Duck 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
They will even invent another new term this 2007 that would even confuse us about teleserye and telenovela, it's called telepelikula. That's what Boy Abunda said last night on their Christmas special. Sources say that it's like a soap opera on T.V. but with a characteristic and content like a movie. -- Kevin Ray 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly this is getting stupid. Even the likes of Pinoy Big Brother is billed as a teleserye. So what to do? --Howard the Duck 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire article is original research. I am so close to just redirecting the whole thing to telenovela. Coffee 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You can copy what you had salvaged into the telenovela article :D --Howard the Duck 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, we now have articles about teledrama (I redirected it to teleserye, Asianovela (I nominated it for prodding). Perhaps we should merge these into Television in the Philippines. ("Suspects" include User:Nivrem, User:Wowowee 13, etc.) I'd recommend full protection of teleserye, teledrama, telefantasya and Asianovela. --Howard the Duck 09:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, yet again. --Howard the Duck 05:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikipedians

We are the Persons of the Year. --Exec8 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good job to all those who contributed to the world class Featured Article Manila Metro Rail Transit System! Kudos and keep it up, you guys! --Pinay06 (Talk*Email) 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yey for Wikis and Youtube!! User directed-content rules. Berserkerz Crit 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations to us all! =) --- Tito Pao 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine general election, 2007

We need to change the Pulse Asia survey results table to Table 1 Page 1 or add Table 1 Page 1 because that will actually show the Top 12 senatoriables, as of survey time. The current table is Table 1 Page 2 which shows some results, but not the magic 12...--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Table 1a already. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Metro Manila Water Map

For someone who had any talent in computer mapping kindly replicate the map drawn in the newspaper.

Image 1

Inquirer Headline

---Exec8 08:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a start. The boundary in QC needs to be fixed better, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Choose a better color. A lighter color. --Exec8 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. You can place labels and post it in a good article. --Exec8 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Government images

I found this topic at the fair use page, Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Template:Philippines-politician. Yall should try and look at this and what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrote in a comment, feel free to discuss and find holes in my argument (my stand is, the law is clear on this, all works by the government are not under copyrighted per the IP Law of 1998). --- Tito Pao 21:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So did I. Take note that the IPCP was passed in 1997. --Sky Harbor 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont want to prolong war with abu madali because all photographic images (digital camera, scanned or cropped) from .gov.ph websites are all public domain as long as it was created or taken by a government employee or a group commissioned by the government. It is not under copyright. --Exec8 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It basically contradicts the IPCP, the stand of the government. --Sky Harbor 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope this gets clarified soon, but if not, I can talk to Danny and Brad Patrick about this issue. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your questions about the Intellectual Property Code are welcome. You can send your questions through the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines or the National Library of the Philippines. --Exec8 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another map factoid Filipino wikipedians!

I was searching for the details about the investigation of Rep. Bersamin's assassination, until I saw this thing in ABS-CBN's news website Gunmen strafe town mayor's home in Abra. They used the map of Dolores, Abra from Wikipedia without the permission from its author. This t.v. station is ought to be reprimanded!!!! -- Kevin Ray 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screenshot of that web page and is found at ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs. Lets see how it works out. --Howard the Duck 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand already. A letter should be sent to ABS-CBN as soon as possible. --Mithril Cloud 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Or we can change all of the locator maps' licenses into CC. (Either way, they'll still plagarize it hahahaha) --Howard the Duck 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, sad but true. ~_~ --Mithril Cloud 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My experience in contacting the BBC about the Lestho flag image was pretty fast and responsive, so what I suggest is sending a letter to the ABS-CBN, perhaps endorsed by the maker of the map. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Contact GMA-7 instead, they will cooperate in our fight indeed. --Exec8 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggested contacting the network few weeks ago. Sadly, dinedma ang suggestion ko. We should stop complaining about the use of Wikipedia's images (without the permission of the creator) on Philippine television if we cannot do something anything about it. --Weekeejames 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
i think the webscreen shot image in the abs-cbn news article was shown in the inappropriate section. it should have been placed somewhere else. if abs-cbn is guilty of copyright infringement, they should be contacted about it. comments, suggestions and reactions should be placed in the proper forum and not on a wiki article which abs-cbn doesn't even own. --RebSkii 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The screenshot never, ever hinted of infringement, even at the caption. Also, we need a screenshot of what the ABS-CBNnews.com website looks like. --Howard the Duck 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
i agree, however, my point is, it was placed in an inappropriate manner. it was placed in a subsection titled Past Personalities. the image disrupts the content of the section by giving way to some unnecessary white space to a list of past personalities which most probably has nothing to do with the news article. they were past personalities, chances are, they did not write that news article. if we need an image that will show what ABS-CBNnews.com website look like, the main page of that website will be the best way to show it and not that particular news article placed in an inappropriate section. by the way, according to your previous statement, which is speculative in nature, "let's see how it works out" has underlining meaning to it (my opinion) .--RebSkii 16:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, there is no "web section" (or would an article about the website be notable per se), so I placed the image in an empty area (My resolution is 1024x768). If a web section is to be created, then that'll be its best place.
As for "how it works out," the previous image was deleted since it didn't have any use, save saying ABS-CBN plagarized Wikipedia. Now this has a legit fair use claim (IMHO), so lets see how it works out). --Howard the Duck 16:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
we cannot simply get away with talking in circles. editing articles should be bound by the rules and guidelines set by this community. the image, which "disrupts the sections' contents" is an inexplicit showing of a pre-meditated act of vandalism. you were aware that a website section did not exist, but still you pasted it in a section that has nothing to do with the image (which appeared between the subsection header and the info list). since there is no web section, the image is useless. i tagged it hidden until the appropriate subsection is created. thanks and more power. --RebSkii 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If you accuse of vandalism, the way to go is WP:AN/I. Nevertheless, I placed all of the pics under the infobox so it is technically under not any section. If there's a pic that shouldn't be on that page, its this since the logo is already displayed at the infobox. --Howard the Duck 18:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
you never really answered my point. you uploaded an image of the screenshot of the website of abs-cbn news and you put that image under the section, PAST Personalities. which is a list of past talents or employees. can you tell me why you did that? that's the only thing i need to know and nothing else. thanks again and i'll stay away from this issue from this edit on. i need a cooling off period. more power. --RebSkii 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
First, there's a lot of white space at the right margins of the article. Second, "Past personalities" didn't have a pic. Third, there is no web section. Fourth, the article deserves a web section. Fifth. I added a sentence about the website. Sixth, several other article do this, and there is rarely an issue. Seventh, it is not a big issue. Eighth, there shouldn't be an issue at all. Ninth, the screenshot is fairly used. Tenth, It's not vandalism. Eleventh, if you insist, go to WP:AN/I and report me. Twelfth, I can't think of another reason anymore. Merry Christmas. --Howard the Duck 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I find the above discussion ridiculous and an unnecessary waste of energy! I strongly believe the good editors of Wikipedia build on each other's articles, and when they do edit, they do so with positive intentions and without ill-intention. I also strongly believe that there is no reason at all for User:Howard the Duck to apologize or explain himself in 10+ reasons because his good contributions to Philippine-related articles is phenomenal, and should be a source of inspiration, not negativism or the typical Filipino "crab mentality". --A Filipino by heart 67.49.235.135 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I was trying to hit 12 reasons to coincide with the Twelve Days of Christmas, but it didn't work. --Howard the Duck 07:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine history coverage

Hi. Those who can should dig up references and try to remove pro-US systemic bias (if any) fron the articles related to the Philippine-American war (while keeping it NPOV). The sources are out there but no one's using them (much). Also, there's a great deal of difference between sources by Philippine historians - between Zaide and Constantino, for example. (As for me, I generally stick to cleaning up Tolkien articles, but I might help from time to time.) Uthanc 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Hello all! I started the article Intellectual property protection in the Philippines from the red link in the requests page, but I saw that there is also an article Philippine copyright law. It has been suggested that both be merged. Are there major distinctions between the two? Please send comments...--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While I suggested a merge earlier, but from looking at the articles, I would say both can stay on the Wiki as-is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put a link from Intellectual property protection in the Philippines to Philippine copyright law. Although from my POV, I think the former has to be merged to the latter, with Phil copyright law being the umbrella topic, where the specifics of RA 8293 should be, with a sub topic on how intellectual property protection is being carried out in the Philippines (through the OMB and other executive orders). Berserkerz Crit 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

split Dekada '70 (film) and Dekada '70 (novel)

On the current article Dekada '70, there is also a suggestion to split novel and film. Please post your comments in Talk:Dekada '70. Thank you.

It's easy to split the article since there are separate sections. --Howard the Duck 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Okey. Will do it...--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine National Police article

Many of us distrust our police force. This could be the reason why the Philippine National Police article is poorly written. I hope that there could be a wikipedian who could add in to the article. --Exec8 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As it stands today, distrust of the PNP is almost a given in Philippine society; however, taking things in perspective, I don't think it may be one of the main reasons (if not the only one) that makes the article poorly written. For one, websites of government agencies and LGUs are notorious for publishing very little information about themselves (and sometimes information is not updated on a regular basis). If this is not the case, the information on the website is sometimes not well-written that you would sometimes wish you rewrote the website yourself (this is how I feel after taking a look at some pages on the PNP's website (it doesn't look like it's user-friendly for the general reader)). This, I believe, is one reason why the PNP article contains very little information that is usable. So the next best resources that we can use are the newspapers, especially if and when the anniversaries of each government agency is featured. Manila Bulletin's Panorama magazine (available on Sundays) usually dedicates lots of space for comprehensive information that you wouldn't normally find on a government website (and the Panorama staffwriters are good at it), so if someone could look for an old Panorama article that features the PNP, I'm sure we can include as much information as we need. --- Tito Pao 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have one, but it is not with me. The issue when Calderon became Director-General. Might get it after New Year's Day. --Howard the Duck 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Leo Echegaray

The discussion on the Subic rape case (in particular, the discussion on legal names) got me thinking of another controversial rape case, the Leo Echegaray case. Since it didn't have its own article, I created one (currently a stub). Since I was too young to know a lot about the case when it happened (I was in high school when he was convicted in 1996 and hence only knew about the case because it was a recurring topic in Social Studies/History class and in religion/Christian living class), please feel free to add to and expand the article. For a start, I included links to the full text of the Supreme Court rulings, one which affirmed the death penalty and another which denied Echegaray's appeal with finality. And in case you were wondering...yes, the two decisions also contain the full legal name of the victim (who was then a minor and was understandably given a nickname by the media). --- Tito Pao 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Added actual Supreme court rulings in the External links. --Guest818(talk) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The interests of Cebuano

Well, as much as I support writing articles on French communes as I do barangays, the Cebuano Wikipedia has reached 10,000 articles. It's now even larger than Tagalog! Congrats to its contributors for reaching this important milestone. --Sky Harbor 01:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, it's 13,508 articles as of 23 December, 2006 here and counting...--Guest818(talk) 04:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well yeah, but what matters is that Cebuano is the first Philippine-language Wikipedia to reach that landmark. And when only around 2-3 weeks ago, Tagalog showed dominance over the other Philippine languages in terms of size. --Sky Harbor 07:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Noche Buena

Currently Noche Buena redirects to poinsettia. Anyone want to "reclaim" the article and turn it into an article about Noche Buena in the Philippines? I'd do it, but I'm not overly familiar with the origins behind it. I suppose, though, that those familiar with Latin American Noche Buena could add things but I was just slightly annoyed that the article redirected to a plant. ;-) --Chris S. 08:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Although I've only reclaimed the article. Berserkerz Crit 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, as the Chinese say, Malaming Saramat! --Chris S. 02:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New Philippine Judicial Articles

Just recently, I have created 3 new Philippine Judiciary-related articles. The Philippine Court of Appeals, the Philippine Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. I was wondering if it's necessary for these articles to be included in the Politics of the Philippines Template? Well, I had just added it on the list, but can u tell me if it was a nice move? -- Kevin Ray 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't a nice move, it was a great one. ^_^ Great start on the articles and addition of those 3 to the Politics Template. Berserkerz Crit 15:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally some real articles, instead of PBB, PDA and PI articles, lol. --Howard the Duck 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

All images with PD-PhilippinesGov will be deleted

I have received this message twice and I would like to clarify if this is true. WAvegetarian says to me that:

The laws of the Philippines are such that while government created images 
are public domain, they are also non-commercial use only. As such, 
we can't use them on Wikipedia. Every image tagged with 
[[Template:PD-PhilippinesGov]] is a candidate for speedy deletion 
per [[Template:WP:CSD]] if a complete fair use claim for each usag7e isn't 
present on the image page. These images will be deleted if no fair use 
claims are added. They are subject to immediate deletion under policy and 
could be gone at any time.
</noinclude>

I'm was not sure if this was real because there's no info about these pics as candidates for speedy deletion. If ever this is true, can we do something about this as soon as possible? -- Kevin Ray 10:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Present a fair use rationale for each image used? --Mithril Cloud 11:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO, if there are images that should be speedily deleted, its those which are at List of Maging Sino Ka Man episodes which are mainly used for decoration and are utterly unimportant than those found at PD-PhilippinesGov. Even Lost doesn't have one. --Howard the Duck 13:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to follow the format for animated shows which feature screenshots on the episode list. But going back to the topic, putting a fair use rationale for images at risk isn't that hard. If it has one, then we can complain if it gets deleted. --Mithril Cloud 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
But there are lots of them. I can do the seals if someone comes up with a fair use rationale that can be used everywhere. Also, can anyone here create a bot? That'll be easier. --Howard the Duck 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
ARrrrghhhh!! I had a feeling this was coming, having participated on a straw poll on fair use / copyright policy of Wikipedia. Dang... Berserkerz Crit 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally do not blame Wikipedians for this one; I blame the imperfection of the Philippines law. This is the first time I heard of a PD-NC license in my life and I personally believe this is pretty fishy. I still have a few tricks up my sleeve, so don't go deletion crazy yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What if we add fair use rationales on the template itself? That way it would apply to each and every pic tagged. --Howard the Duck 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The fair use rational applies to why are we using the image at each article. Plus, if this is going to be turned into a fair use template, then some of the images will have to be removed from specific locations. One situation that I can think of is that the seals of each city and province have to be removed from userboxes, since we cannot have fair use images inside the userspace. However, I sent an email to the Wikimedia Foundation today and they will review it on Tuesday and some of the Board Members know about the plight we are in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It can be fair use since they free. Since they're free but you need fair use rationales, fair use rationales will apply to any article, although keeping them away from Template: and User: namespaces will be good. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I will chime in on Tuesday or Wednesday when I heard from the Wikimedia Board about this. I hope we will not have to delete a lot of photos, but I believe some will have to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Can the provincial/city/municipal seals be saved? The photos can go, they can be reuploaded anyway, while the seals are hard to find. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
We have image undeletion, so in theory, every photo can be restored if deleted. I believe there is a fair use tags for seals and coat of arms, but I am not sure how that works. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(Indent reset) If all the images with this tag are deleted, this will cause major havoc to many articles that are dependent on this license. Various numbers of featured content, good articles and otherwise will suffer because their images, which are important to the context, will be deleted. This is why for some reason I regret making that license, because just over a year after making it, this is what will happen. --Sky Harbor 09:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Maligayang Pasko at Manigong Bagong Taon

Wala lang hehe. Go go go sana mas dumami pa ang mga aktibong Filipino contributors at articles. More power guys! Berserkerz Crit 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bondying

There is an article called Bondying which seems to be about some kind of character in Filipino culture, but the article does not clearly explain where the character originated. Could someone please take a look at it and improve it? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 07:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the truthfulness of that article (this was created by User:Bondying 65 (lol). --Howard the Duck 08:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I second that...never heard! Meri xmas!--Guest818(talk) 08:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, I think this is bonjing (alternate spelling), the fat adult who acts like a kid. --Howard the Duck 08:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Which spelling is used more, the article title or the spelling Howard gave? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. Because I thought it was like "bonding" (so I said it was a hoax, above), then I read the rest of the article and I remembered Jimmy Santos' comedy film. It is pronounced as "bon-jing", with "bondying" used when the Tagalog alphabet didn't have the letter "J". Here's the IMDB link. --Howard the Duck 09:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I would suggest, if it hasn't been done already, to have bonjing redirect to bondying. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I do remember that "bonjing" is more common than "bondying", but if it will be redirected to the latter, it's fine. I think I'll add this to the Tagalog Wiktionary. --Sky Harbor 10:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should ask the others. Plus, if we move it, redirects are already made. Let's give it a few days, most folks are probably away now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) This is what I know about "Bondying" (or the Tagalized (i.e. 28-letter alphabet) spelling, "Bonjing"): there is such a komiks named "Bondying", and it was created by the Mars Ravelo, the same cartoonist who created Darna and Captain Barbell, among others. The Jimmy Santos movie is, AFAIK, the most recent movie adaptation of the komiks series (I've seen it as a kid and also got to see it in TV reruns every now and then); the Jimmy Santos starrer, by the way, isn't the only movie adaptation...a Google search reveals that there are similar Bondying movies many years back. This is the same character of the "big, fat adult" who has a very infantile mental state. So this article, as far as things go, isn't a hoax...just that, it really needs a lot of sourced, badly. --- Tito Pao 13:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found and put some sources although it's about the movie, haven't found a source for the comics. Berserkerz Crit 14:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think that the confusion/ambiguity lies in the fact that the Mars Ravelo article is still a stub. If we can pin down more information about the Pinoy comics master, then identifying Bondying as his own creation should be a piece of cake. It's interesting to note, though, that if you watch the Jimmy Santos movie, Mars Ravelo is credited as the creator of the character Bondying. --- Tito Pao 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Lagalag

The succeeding is a discussion with User:Lagalag regarding his edits, which I believed should have been discussed properly in this forum first. Since all editors of the articles in question categorized/disamb Filipino to [[Filipino people|Filipino]] not [[Philippines|Filipino]], a discussion in WT:PINOY should have been made prior to such edits.

your edits in changing Filipino people to Philippines

You seem to have changed all articles involving Filipino people to Philippines. Please explain your rationale why, or fill out edit summary as best as you can. IMHO, the edit is not minor. Also, the correct wiki link is Filipino people, not Philippines. Unless you can give a valid rationale for your edit, please revert all your previous edits or they will be reverted for you. --Guest818(talk) 07:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah that's a lot of articles edited from Filipino people to Philippines. Berserkerz Crit 19:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I know...what a waste of time and energy! which could have been better used expanding the edited articles, a lot of them stubs. --Guest818(talk) 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Every Wikipedian contributes in his or her own little way. That’s the Wikipedia I’ve come to be acquainted with. Please stop debating on how individual users should devote their own time to bettering WP, or pursuing any other endeavor, at that. —Lagalag 19:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between the people of the State and ethnic Filipinos all over the world

I admit I ought to have filled out the summary fields to give my reason for the changes. I hoped, particularly in the case of politicians, to make it clear that these people were answerable to the Republic of the Philippines, whose people voted them into power. These public officials are necessarily tied to the State (the same goes for government technocrats), and thus I found it logical that “Filipino” in those instances would link to Philippines. The articles about Kim Jong-il, Junichiro Koizumi, etc. do the same. The changes I made were not arbitrary. I hope you understand. —Lagalag 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and your rationale. However, let me point out that, the changes were made to ALL Filipino articles, not just, as you claim, politicians. Also the actors and actresses, etc. were changed from [[Filipino people|Filipino]] to [[Philippines|Filipino]]. Inasmuch as all editors of the articles in question made those categories or disamb for Filipino, the edits should not have been made prior to a discussion in WT:TAMBAY where everybody's input, including all the editors of such articles, can bring in their inputs. I hope that a concensus on this matter is reached and that it is resolved in a proper forum such as WT:TAMBAY. --Guest818(talk) 16:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If we were to tabulate a count, then it would be easy to revert when required. --Ancheta Wis 18:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Even our userboxes say: This user is [[Filipino people|Filipino]] , or of [[Filipino people|Filipino]] ancestry, not [[Philippines|Filipino]] For consistency, we should stick to the first...--Guest818(talk) 18:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed per Guest818. Berserkerz Crit 19:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Guest818, please understand that I used politicians merely as an example, as the distinction is clearer there. I apologize for any misunderstanding that might have caused. As for ancestry, I believe you are missing the point of what I am trying to communicate here, as ancestry is a completely different matter. When talking about one’s ancestry, one should of course refer to a people, and not a State. It would be absurd for me to say I am of German ancestry when “German” here merely refers to Germany (as I could merely be born there to Egyptian expat parents) and not ethnic Germans. Simply put, one cannot be a descendant of a State.
Either way, I’m not pushing towards a decision in one direction or another. All I am hoping to convey here is the difference between a State and a people. —Lagalag 19:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, you did not push, nor are pushing...you just went ahead and changed ALL articles that all other editors disamb in the same way without proper documentation in the edit summary.--Guest818(talk) 02:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, and when was that, after this discussion here started? Pwede ba, huwag kang magpapabalik-balik. Tapos na ’yon e: That’s why we’re here in the first place. Stop clinging to the thing we have already begun to try to resolve here. I admit I made some mistakes, and I again apologize for that, pero parang naghahanap ka na lang ng away e sa halip na magfokus sa itong nagaganap na diskusyon dito. It’s like when one brings her husband to counseling and instead of focusing on trying to build their renewed future together she gripes about his past refusal to pay his share of session fees. Tell me, ano’ng productive doon?
I also wish you wouldn’t feel the need to exaggerate and accuse me (or anyone in the future, for that matter) of changing all articles (or of similar magnifications), though I myself know they were many. —Lagalag 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Case in point #1 - which one is politically correct?: Francis Escudero is a Filipino politician or Francis Escudero is a Filipino politician. (He is an elected official and tied to the state!)

Case in point # 2 - Manny Pacquiao - nationality = Filipino or Filipino --Guest818(talk) 19:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I can understand where you are coming from. I did some browsing, and perhaps the initial paragraph in Romano Prodi might serve as a loose model, referring to both Politics of Italy and him as being Prime Minister of Italy. In the case of Philippine politicians, Politics of Italy could be replaced with Filipino people, or even Politics of the Philippines. What’s your take on that? —Lagalag 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point loud and clear. Since I have expressed much of my opinion on the matter, I would want the other Filipino Wikipedians to give their inputs as well. --Guest818(talk) 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What about this? Bea Alonzo is a Filipina actress? Or Bea Alonzo is a Filipina actress?--Guest818(talk) 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe in that case, a link to Philippines would illustrate two points: That she’s part of the Filipino people, and that she is a Philippine citizen. Linking to Filipino people on the other hand would only illustrate the former. —Lagalag 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I purposedly used Bea Alonzo as an example because your edit changed: Bea Alonzo is a Filipino actress to Bea Alonzo is a British actress... See here - Her bio shows she never acted in Great Britain. Where is the consistency here?--Guest818(talk) 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that, and, if you’ll notice, I added that little bit of information stating that she is currently active in the Philippines and not the UK. —Lagalag 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the resolve on this is, after a thorough discussion here in WT:TAMBAY, the point I would like to put across is: WE need consistency and consensus. I thought we already had both with Filipino people.--Guest818(talk) 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I have earlier put up Romano Prodi to illustrate that references to both State and people can coexist in the initial paragraphs of WP articles about people if and when necessary. —Lagalag 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Lea Salonga is of Filipino ancestry but she does not permanently reside in the Philippines. Therefor a link to Filipino people would be more appropriate than Philippines.
Re Bea Alonzo: A link to Filipino people would illustrate the same but not necessarily specific points: That she's part of the Filipino people but may or may not be residing in the Philippines or a citizen of the Philippines (maybe naturalized in America or elsewhere or maybe even a dual citizen). Berserkerz Crit 20:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Bea Alonzo's biography shows she was born, raised, resides and is acting in the Philippines. It just so happens that her father is British. It doesn't warrant the change from Filipino actress to British actress.--Guest818(talk) 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I concede that I may have goofed up on the wording, and that a better one could have been crafted. —Lagalag 21:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, there are standards or guidelines that are strictly followed with regards to biographies of living people. We cannot afford to just lightly "goof up" about it. Writers/editors are urged to be discriminating & extra careful about information and their source! Refer here --Guest818(talk) 01:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you reread my post. —Lagalag 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys, listen up. From my understanding, Filipino usually refers to the ethnic group. However, Philippine is another adjective which, as far as I can tell, refers to the state itself. So one would refer to GMA as the "Philippine president" although she is a "Filipina president." But the "Philippine" one is more important in this case. Let's say that ex-Governor of Hawai'i Ben Cayetano became president of the US; he would be a Filipino president but not the Philippine one.

As far as actors are concerned, I would say use Filipino. We can even use Philippine citizen for people who are citizens of the RP but aren't technically ethnically Filipinos (i.e., a Frenchman who somehow gains citizenship in the RP). Anyway, do a Google search and you will see that there are more hits for Philippine President than for Filipino president. --Chris S. 05:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, in all instances of "...Howard is a Filipino duck...", "Filipino" should link to Philippines. --Howard the Duck 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Filipino ducks aren't verifiable. I've always considered you a Peking duck. --Chris S. 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Noooooooooooo! I'm not Chinese! lol... --Howard the Duck 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation Filipino people - Summary for concensus and consistency

etc--Guest818(talk) 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Philippine politicians but Filipino for the rest. --Chris S. 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Cris, do you mean [[Philippines|Filipino]] [[Politics of the Philippines|politician]]? or [[Philippines|Filipino]] [[politician]]. As for Filipino = [[Filipino people|Filipino]] right?--Guest818(talk) 08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither. I mean Philippine politician. Or even better Philippine politician. --Chris S. 08:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I’d like to keep an open mind and see how this develops, but Berserkerz Crit’s and Chris S.’s suggestions taken together seem sensible. —Lagalag 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of "barangay" parameter in Template:Infobox Secondary school

Is it really necessary? --Howard the Duck 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Yes to Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School and NOT to infobox secondary school. Wrong topic above. { PMGOMEZ } 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School is going to be deleted so further development to the infobox is contrary to consensus. All development should be directed to Template:Infobox Secondary school. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Going to be deleted IF "iss" can do what "iphs" does. In this case, it would be stupid to include barangay in ISS but notable to include in IPHS. { PMGOMEZ } 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Just accept that IPHS template is already covered by the ISS template and more. Let's use this page for healthier and worthwile discussions. IPHS has already been discussed and a consensus was reached. Please kindly respect the decision reached. Berserkerz Crit 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
          • 1) WP:NPA. 2) I accepted the consensus and the consensus was delayed delete. In simpleton terms, unless ISS is improved to include the features of IPHS, it will stay. Read up before making statements like the one above. Thank you. { PMGOMEZ } 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You keep accusing people of WP:NPA then do something about it. (I dunno where to report such things, I know for sure that it's not WP:AN/I.)
            • The reason why I said the adding of barangay parameter in ISS is because the IPHS is as good as dead, there for all development should be directed to ISS. Developing IPHS is contrary to consensus of delayed delete since you'll be saving your own template via delaying tactics. --Howard the Duck 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No

  1. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 07:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Berserkerz Crit 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Mithril Cloud 02:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. There are provisions for extra fields in the ISS box. Why not use those? --Sky Harbor 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. I do think the barangay should be mentioned, but there are other places where it could be mentioned. It could even be wikilinked to the municipality name: i.e., Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. --Chris S. 08:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Barangay could be notable especially in Manila, but not so much in the provinces, as the school may be more the landmark than the barangay itself. --Guest818(talk) 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion

Help re Imago (band)

The stub article I created was deleted in just a day. How quick. Is there an admin here among us? I need a consult. T_T Berserkerz Crit 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You might like to check Wikipedia:Administrators or this.--Pinay (talk•email) 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Because you failed to assert why the band is notable. A lot of bands have myspace pages, so just having a myspace page doesn't assert notability. However, I would suggest adding more information to the article or it will most likely be sent to AFD by the person who restored the article. (As a side note, I am an administrator). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Admins are so choosy here. Several things have to be deleted and are backlogged, yet they can't use the AFD in this case. --Howard the Duck 07:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had a hard time finding internet sources for Imago (band). Most sites are about some other stuff named Imago dang. I'll wait for the reply of the admin who deleted the page then I'll think of the next step. Berserkerz Crit 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yey glad to tell you it was undeleted. =D Berserkerz Crit 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion polling in the Philippines

After having gone through Social Weather Stations, Pulse Asia, etc., my interest on a new article with the above title is perked. What does everyone think? Is it notable enough? The coverage will include pre-election polls for several election years including the upcoming 2007, exit polls or day of the election polls, etc. Please comment. --Pinay (talk•email) 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do other countries have equivalent articles? --Howard the Duck 07:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Some are more specific such as Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008...--Pinay (talk•email) 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This gives more examples. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is very relevant, esp. with the coming 2006 elections. It will be interesting to see how past opinion polls looked like (like the tables/graphs in Canada, Peru, etc.). Also, we have ready access to Social Weather Stations and Pulse Asia media releases.--Pinay (talk•email) 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's notable enough. Filipinos are fond of opinion polls, where every issue is polled right after to gauge public support or lack thereof. And politicians refer to polls to support their chances. Exit polls are also referred to by newspapers and columnists for the veracity of the actual votes. From what I can see Polling is very much part of the Philippine psyche. Berserkerz Crit 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Philippine universities, colleges, highschools

Just checking: Can a Philippine high school article be separated from its mother university or college since their admin and traditions might be different? Also, most notable graduates are not the same since some go to a different college/university?--Guest818(talk) 17:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Howard the Duck 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Hengchun earthquake

I think we should add info on the Taiwan earthquake article indicating how it affected the Philippines especially to the business process outsourcing and call center industries. How were you guys affected? I couldn't even access Google at all yesterday morning. --seav 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you still in Japan, Seav? --Pinay (talk•email) 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Back here in Manila. --seav 05:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
We're also affected, right? PLDT's DSL has been acting weird for the past few days. --Mithril Cloud 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's include all effects on Philippines in the article, too. --Pinay (talk•email) 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the rather late reply, but I definitely have to agree that it did affect the Philippines. Our office actually suffered a massive Internet downtime (full disclosure: I'm working in a BPO) during one of the aftershocks (I think it was the 1am aftershock), and the aftershock did effectively killed our Internet connection for about a half-hour. It was very, very frustrating, really =( --- Tito Pao 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies

As I was scanning the Government of the Philippines portal, some of the articles, as I noticed, are duplicates of existing articles. They include the following:

And some need to be moved, especially all articles with Philippine in the name, yet with (Philippines) after their name, which I think is redundant.

If I can enlist the help of my fellow Filipino Wikipedians, that would be nice. --Sky Harbor 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SWAdair is helping out. --Pinay (talk•email) 09:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please help me finish Portal:Government of the Philippines/Topics -- Kevin Ray 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
From User:SWAdair - I scanned the portal and fixed three that I found could be renamed (no article already existing at the non-redundant name). The difficult cases will be where an article already exists by the simpler name. In those cases I guess a merge and redirect will suffice. If you merge then you can't delete the article you merge from, for GFDL reasons, so merging requires redirecting the source article. If no merging is necessary (i.e. the target article already contains the information present in the redundant article) then the redundant one can simply be deleted. It might be a good idea to create a naming conventions section at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. SWAdair | Talk 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done editing before 2007 --Exec8 15:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ETambayan_Philippines_Archive07_97e2.html"