Talk:Wowowee

Co-host?

Anyone know the name of the tall co-host that has been on Wowowee for the last week or so? She came in while Janelle was on vacation.
Createur 22:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tense problems?

Anybody know why this article's written in the past tense? "Wowowee was a noontime game show of the Philippines." seems to indicate the show was cancelled, but I don't see that anywhere in the page. -FunnyMan 15:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been cancelled indefinitely -- ABS-CBN has yet to say what its plans on the program are. Anyway, I think verbs should be in the present tense until the show is cancelled for good. Sharksfin 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Sharksfin: Can you give a source of the termination? I'm looking through all my search channels and have found nothing on the matter.

The whole article must be overhauled. There are some things that should be clarified and should be verified. I'll help in reconstructing this article. Visit also my blog TWBPSK Kevin Ray's Corner Blog <URL deleted>Emperork 12:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

References!!!

Guys, you NEED some serious references here. The article has some very controversial content that may be libelous IF unreferenced (i.e. Stampede, Illegal Recruiters). Please add references for those (I'm sure there are many. You just have to work a little.) or else we'll have to remove those sections for the betterment of Wikipedia. Shrumster 10:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref for the Stampede, as for the Illegal Recruiters since it's a reference to a TV show (and the date/time of the show is listed) i'd consider that referenced well enough as anyone can track down the TV show. perhaps someone can add a web reference but i don't see why it needs to be deleted.Harlock jds 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are specific citation templates for citing TV show episodes, movies and other non-website/journal/book sources. Shrumster 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref list style

Just wanted to move the discussion about the debate about the reflist style here instead of on user talk pages. As i read the WP:MoS i see that both references and reflist are valid and that reflist is commonly used in feature articles. Personally i like the style better and think it should be used here. I understand the slight issue of the text being slightly harder to read but the difference doesn't seem that great. Since they are both valid and usable we should have a quick vote to see if we can reach a agreement since it seems like we have a couple of people that support one style and 1 that supports the other. I may also get a request for comment from other admins on this questionHarlock jds 13:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I go with reflist. Yes it does have smaller characters than references/ but the text size on the webpage could be resized anytime by the user him/herself. -chris^_^ 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree with using the reflist, too. I have the same issues going in the What Goes Around... Comes Around article. If somebody has problems with reading the refs, they can simply increase their font size in their browser. RaNdOm26 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On the one side is the serious and substantial issue of accessibility; on the other is "but it looks sooo pretty...". Is there really an issue here? I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; the inclusion of the templates was relatively recent, and seems to have been sneaked in without discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

as long as it's adressed in the MoS one way ot the other then that's fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

In so far as the MoS at the moment (though, as has been confirmed, without discussion and consensus) allows both, the question needs to be decided here. I've given a reason for preferring the straightforard <references/> tag. Claims about aesthetic preferences aren't relevant here; are there any substantial reasons for preferring one of the templates? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the other advantage i see to the reflist style (and the reason i prefer it) is that it's easier to convert to a multi column list. As for the accessibility issues i don't see it, it may be my pc setup but the text size dif is hardly noticeable.Harlock jds 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But why is a multi-column list desirable?

Different browsers behave differently; on Lynx (which I often use when I'm not editing here), there's no problem at all, as it's text only. On other browsers the problem is acute. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

a multi column list allows for less wasted space on the screen and more references can fit on the screen without having to scroll down(plus it makes for nicer printouts). This isn't currently an issue on this page but I'd hope to add more references (as soon as i can find them... it's pretty hard to find them esp for a non tagalog speaker) and I'd like to have the flexibility.

As for size i don't know which browser would be a problem, I use IE and Firefox (depending where i'm at) and see a very minor difference (and i have a pretty small monitor). Even browsing on my tv doesn't show any decreese in readability and since it's not a hdtv the resolution is as bad as you can get. Visually impaired people who browse the web frequently use other tools to help them read web pages... if they can't read the reflist text without help I'm not sure they would be able to read normal text.Harlock jds 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wardrobe Malfunction

I think the suspension threats the MTRCB filed against the show should be discussed in the article. However, in my opinion, it seems that the board was rather overzealous at dealing with such untoward incidents. Willie and the crew did their best to stay out of trouble, and they're suspending the show just because of some unintentional glitch? They shouldn't suspend the show unless if they intentionally show any explicit content, as the board might end up facing a mob of irate people who love the show. Blake Gripling 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree go ahead and add it as long as you can find cites. I may look for some later.

Please, sign your name with four tildes, as in ~~~~. Anyway, would the board's action qualify as gross hypocrisy? Blake Gripling 08:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to this section links to a blog. Does anybody know if the suspension really did happen? The reference link only stated the event and mentioned a possible suspension. According to The Philippine Daily Inquirer, they will go a possible suspension. I've been looking for a reference where it actually states when the suspension really happen. I don't watch the show religiously so I don't know if it does really happen or not. Also, is this the only time this show was suspended (if it were)? I saw several episodes where Willie would say that MTRCB will suspend them again. TJ Reyes 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving

Should we move Show format and contents up to Wilyonaryo into a new article? I find these sections very long. Mark j 09:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd rather cut out unneded detail than create a new articleharlock_jds 10:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

anyone else have an thought about this? in hindsight it doesn't seem significant enough to get it's own article.harlock_jds 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather move that controversy involving one of their games to a different article. I have slimmed down alot of that portion, giving this article an almost 80% rewrite to be more sensible - so think it's better slimmed down like this? ViperSnake151 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

As mentioned on the Tambayan, I am starting to cleanup articles in relation to the project (most notably ones for TV programming that in some cases make no sense, sound promotional, or are not written in proper English. I've worked my magic here, and I may continue working on this if time permits or if we get more refs/citations. Thank you. ViperSnake151 18:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

enumeration and vivid description of each contest segment is NOT necessary per not directory. I feel these are the only notable sections:

4 Previous Wowowee co-hosts

4.1 Remote broadcasts and world tours

4.2 Philippine remotes

4.3 World Tour Stops

5 Wowowee's special shows

5.1 Alay sa Kapamilya

5.2 Pangarap at Tagumpay, Mga Kwento Sa Likod ng Wowowee

5.3 Wowowee honors overseas Filipino workers (OFW) in Lebanon

6 Controversies

6.1 Wowowee tragedy: Philsports Arena stampede

6.2 Illegal Recruiting Scandal

6.3 Willyonaryo Controversy

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

†Bloodpack† 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But note: All the other game show articles have information on how the game is played! ViperSnake151 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wowowee Willyonaryo Controversy

I split it into a new article for y'allz.

Good idea Y/N? ViperSnake151 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Epic Source of Information Get

http://wowoweetv.com/

It's a fansite, but it's got ALOT of new info. So I ask you, would this pass WP:EL especially if it provided alot of good additional info? ViperSnake151 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The main issue i think people would have is video's on the site which may run against the restriction of "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."... I wouldn't have the issue but if someone else did i wouldn't be able to argue against them. harlock_jds 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos?

I think maybe if someone could make it to a show and maybe get a picture of the set with maybe a game in progress just so we can clearly "depict" the show freely using free images and give international readers who don't get TFC, or wanna see what it "looks" like an idea of the insanity that is ABS-CBN's most popular show. ViperSnake151 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think screenshots will do for now, since taking pictures inside the studio is absolutely not allowed. Starczamora 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, never mind that, but the person who runs that site I linked to DID take pictures at the World Tour episode in Las Vegas (which he claims was a pretty frustrating experience), but obviously that's different. I'm actually going to see if I can him to maybe contribute a picture from the Las Vegas stop for us, may be unlikely but still, worth a try :) ViperSnake151 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted screenshots about "Willie of Fortune", "Pasalog", and "Wilyonaryo".Starczamora 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind even further. We got the image that I truly wanted here, the obligatory Willyonaryo incident photo. ViperSnake151 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Willie of Fortune and Questune

Are these two games the same? I watched a clip about Willie of Fortune and the host mentioned "Questune" on every song as described in the "Questune" part of this article.Starczamora 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From what it "originally" said before I worked my magic, Questune, Bigat 10 and Pasalog were "all" under Willie of Fortune. But, according to that new site I found (which is pretty much except for Wikipedia, one of the most comprehensive sources of information for this show in English), it says that Willie of Fortune is the part where the contestants introduce themself and show off their talents and such, and that it, and every other game from the first half is seperate (yet still technically involving and eliminating from the same contestants), yet the elimination round and all that for Merrygalo is listed as "one game". We truly need clarification on this. ViperSnake151 15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Why was the whole article vandalized? How come Joey de Leon became host of Wowowee? 'Marian Rivera', could you please explain what you have done to the whole article 'cause the article became a scrap of junk. If this is for intentionally ridiculing the concerned program then you should be disciplined for what you have done.

Zxyggrhyn (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you find a sign of vandalism, you could simply UNDO it on your own. As much as we are trying our best to make Wikipedia articles as encyclopedic as possible, we cannot control people who have ill intentions about WP. This is why we encourage more to people to take part in making Wikipedia a good source of information. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Intro/Lead does not adequately summarize the article.
2. Many sentences are too long and have overuse of commas/semicolons.
3. Virtually the entire article is a violation of Wikipedia:No Original Research.

2. Factually accurate?:

1. WP:OR problems throughout, as already mentioned.
2. Sections with no sources at all include (implies all sub-subsections within subsections as well): Format, First Half, Bigtime Pera O Bayong, Discontinued games, Guest Hosts, Previous Wowowee co-hosts, and Wowowee's special shows.
3. The sections that currently have some citations and sources could use additional, better ones.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very short subsections about topics, as opposed to a larger analytical paragraph format is given. At the least bad formatting, at worst makes the reader think these sections are skimpy.

4. Neutral point of view?: Questionable. Especially due to lack of sourcing in the Controversies section.

5. Article stability?

1. Not stable, lots of active editing from anon-ips, and new users.
2. Complaints about vandalism and inactivity about it on the talk page.

6. Images?:

1. Image:Tfc wowowee.jpg -- First image has an okay fair use rationale on image page.
2. Image:Pasalog.JPG -- Image page does not specify source of the image. Does not specify which article the image is used in.
3. Image:Wilyonaryo.jpg -- Image page does not specify source of the image. Does not specify which article the image is used in.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening Songs

Old songs are better and more upbeat like "ibigay mo baby" rather than "giling-giling".

For "hep-hep" portion, Pokwang does a good job, Mariel doesn't fit in this portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.69.27 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this all Filipino Wikipedians can do about this article?

Frankly, when I typed wowowee and hit the go button, I was expecting an article detailing the impact of Wowowee in the Philippines in general but all I saw are topics about its games and some certain events (like that armed forces stuff). These are trivial matters, seriously. You should focus more on its history, its objectives, impacts and other SIGNIFICANT facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.31 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had a rather nice article for it earlier last year, but then it got well...you know. ViperSnake151 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I signed in now. (I'm that IP user). Here's the thing. I'm a Filipino and I don't want Filipinos thinking I'm throwing something rubbish against them. For years that I have edited Wikipedia (well, I'm not a major contributor. Just two articles and below a hundred other edits), Filipino Wikipedians, I observed, are over-obsessed in contributing contents which are not highly needed in an article. They make numerous tables, just like what this article has. A table of all Philippine noontime shows? Common. Is that needed? In my opinion, these tables which occupy significant space but contains insignificant information is inappropriate. Then there are lists in this article, and all entries are in bold. List of dancers? camera staff? Guest co-hosts? Are these encyclopedic materials? They are not. Focus on content, people. Focus on verifiable content. Put more text than tables, lists, pictures, etc. Put more information into it.. informations which readers like me will like to know in first read. And just after you've done something like this should you nominate it as good article. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I made the table of all the noontime shows, it looks like a major daypart in their country, much like how we have one for every single national morning show in the US. I am trying to get the article on the Hello Pappy scandal up to GA status. Alot of this article is incidental fancruft that isn't verifiable or reliably sourced (though for some of it, the show could be cited as an example on its own). ViperSnake151 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:AmericanMorningNewsShows and the table you created has major differences. First, Template:AmericanMorningNewsShows looks neat and its intended purpose is for readers who are getting information about American morning news shows an ease in navigation. Perhaps it will be better if you create it just like that example you've mentioned. But by just imagining it now, I know that an infobox like that will not look great in the current status of this article. As I had said, there should be more text in the article. Placing an infobox which is completely wrapped around texts, just like the articles included in the example you've mentioned, looks more neat, no? Well, just saying what I feel about it.

I also like to expound a little bit about the "more text" and "bold" stuffs I'm saying. I've been a involved in newspaper layouts since high school and one thing a newspaper layout artist should know is how to balance bold and non-bold texts, which we call gray block or gray area. Having too large gray area is a no-no. That's why you can see long articles being split up into sections with each section having a subheading in bold. However, crowding subheadings in a certain portion of the paper is a no-no too. This article is like this latter condition. The lists alone which have texts in bold are already destroying the layout of the article. But even if you disregard those lists, there is still a "crowding" of subheadings (or sections or subsections) after those lists. On my laptop right now, I can see FIVE subsections in one view (World tours, Alay ng Kapamilya, Pangarap at Tagumpay, Mga Kwento Sa Likod ng Wowowee, Honoring Overseas Filipino Workers, Armed Forces of the Philippines Join Wowowee). What does this mean? This means that each of these subsection is poorly discussed and has little amount of texts (or gray area). This "crowding" of subsections can be solved by putting more text or enlarging the gray area. But you may also merge multiple subsections into one to reduce the number of subsections. Yeah, I know that this is supposed to apply for newspapers only. But I also got many real encyclopedia here at home and they seem to follow this layout practice. News websites on the other hand, to reduce the crowding, opt to reduce the width of the column at which the article's texts are put. Wikipedia is not like that, I know. But I have seen many Wikipedia articles out there which managed not to be crowded with too many subsection headings. And I suggest someone initiate the move to reduce the crowding of subsection headings in this article. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on your comments, Esta, you were right about some Filipino WP users who just put too much of the juicy-but-fat stuff, rather than the less-juicy-yet-healthy content expected from an encyclopedia. Kung ito nga lang ay yung collaborative edition ng Britannica Online, malamang ay reject kaagad sila. And the fact that some of them will try to fight back and disrupt the more established editors just to emphasize their fannish points do piss me off, like what User:Gerald Gonzalez does, as well as an anonymous IP editor who attacked me indirectly regarding my edits in Tayong Dalawa: "p**a na! fannish fannish ka dyan! pake-alam mo, ikaw ba may-ari ng site???". I don't want to bite the noobs here, but the fact that you newbies try to act so immaturely makes us veterans here lose our patience at you. Thank you for spawning an Internet argument. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How many days did MTRCB suspend Willie Revillame?

You guys should include it in the article. And was it an official suspension, or a vacation, or something else?