Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Found 1 misnamed picture file "Boxer codex"

This file has been detected as a duplicate of File:Naturales_4.jpg. The File:Boxer_codex.jpg filename is a misnomer. There is more than 1 picture page of the Boxer Codex. I propose that each picture page that is part of the Boxer Codex (posted in Wikimedia Commons) should be renamed File:BoxerCodex_pagenumber.jpg. I propose that all the Boxer Codex images should be categorized with Category:Boxer_Codex in Wikimedia Commons. Please discuss? Zollerriia63 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. - Alternativity (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More intl name changes

Remember that discussion about why Libingan ng mga Bayani's name got changed to another? It seems somebody did the same thing to other local TV shows with Tagalog titles - and without consensus too. Check Tayong Dalawa and Pangako sa 'Yo; the one who did it screams COI too because his user labels all point at ABSCBN.

I wonder if it should be reverted to their original titles instead of another stupid push for making it internationalized. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be reverted as vandalism? Where's the Tambayan's roster of sysops to clean the mess?

As long as the majority of English language reference use the Tagalog title (which makes sense, and won't change since majority of such references would be from the Philippines), they should remain (or be moved back) to their original Filipino titles. –HTD 13:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: Of course, that depends if media starts calling it by their English names in the future. Highly unlikely, but could happen especially if it becomes a huge hit elsewhere. –HTD 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

PPS: I was about to move all of them back but there's too many of them and I got lazy (lol). AFAIK, revert the page move it it was moved only once. If anyone wants a long night, then the task is waiting... –HTD 14:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd start with those two shows. If mag-alboroto si Ifightback (If Ifightback throws a fit), he'd better make a good case here. Update: It seems it couldn't be moved back to its original place.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about (moving pages) if it was moved more than once or someone edited the original page, it can't be moved back. I've started a discussion on his/her talkpage so we might as well wait so that we can have a definitive "ruling" here, unless an admin cleans it up.

I LOLed BTW, when he moved Walang Hanggan, and it's now back to where it is. –HTD 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind if you guys make a list of the programs in question? I can try doing something about it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out Special:Contributions/Ifightback. Also if possible (in a completely different note), can someone lock the Senate of the Philippines article, an IP (variable) is changing political parties. –HTD 10:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the contribs list, like "Wow pare, andaming kinareer talaga." (English approx. He truly worked on a lot of stuff)

The moved Tayong Dalawa and Pangako sa 'Yo appeared on my watchlist last night. International titling my ass. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to restore some of the pages to its original title however it's becoming a headache for me since he moves other articles at the same time. I have encountered this user months ago when he/she keeps on adding shows with Facebook/Multiply links as references on the ABS-CBN show list. Instead of discussing that matter in a civil way, he/she immediately reported me to WP:ANI for vandalism and asked admins to block me for four weeks. Maybe this guy/girl is one of those ABS-CBN fantards IMHO. -WayKurat (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving teleserye articles to their international titles

Hi guys, I would just like to get your permission to move all the teleseryes that will or have been broadcasted internationally to their international titles to avoid confusion from foreign fans and readers like that of Korean dramas.

Check out List of Philippine dramas broadcasted internationally for the list of articles I want to move to their english titles.

Thanks (:

I'm baffled. Why do they need to be moved to their international titles in the first place if the target audience of these articles are Filipino viewers to begin with, who are mostly unaware of the "international" title? Redirects should suffice in this case to the Filipino title. (Also, where is your source for these titles?) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here, and how dare he seek permission here AFTER moving certain articles without even seeking consensus? As if the emoticons would help his cause, and seriously, all-caps edit summaries don't quite work, kid.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles can be moved iff anyone can prove that the "international title" is the predominantly used title in English language media. Since the Philippines has the largest English media in this part of the world, and they will still use local names, I don't see it. anyone can still try though.

After much thought, the English Wikipedia allows non-English sources. With that said, unless any local show gets to be massively popular (a la Meteor Garden level), a great majority of sources will still use the local name. Ergo, not all, if any, will be moved. Only those that are popular like Meteor Garden.

I also tried moving some, and it's too cumbersome. I think admin tools can make it easier, hence we'd need an admin to clean up the mess. WHERE ARE THE PINOY ADMINS? Do we still have an active one? –HTD 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to see how the moves were executed. If they were regular moves, I can move them back. If they're copy-paste moves, that will be a little more complicated. (And yes, Howard, I'm an active admin, though I rarely use admin powers. :|) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Does your admin tools make it easier for you to move pages, aside from the pages which can't be easily moved? If it does, then my laziness to revert the moves wasn't worth it. –HTD 17:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I can delete pages to make way for moves, but that's about it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no difference lol –HTD 03:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Any updates so far?--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the moved articles by Ifightback were restored to its original titles last Sunday with the help of User:De728631. As of this moment, Ifightback's account has been dormant, the last edit was his/her "request" here in WT:TAMBAY. -WayKurat (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was also warned against trying it again. Now that that drama is gone, I guess this calls for another cleanup of the articles. Katorse's story "chapters" are just horrendous. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to deal with such cruft with the not-so-succesful 1DOL series, when someone posted a rather squee-ridden episode list. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Walang Hanggan's story plot description was just squeey too and really, you have to post questions? Anyway, let's continue that in their talk pages. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should make it a rule that in-progress soap operas would only have a brief summary of the storyline's premise, until the series concludes. And of course, cut the blurby fantard crap. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to do a short premise on Angelito: Ang Bagong Yugto, but some douche bloated it back up. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that certain Filipino TV series that have enjoyed success abroad should be moved to their international titles. Like "The Promise" for instance (Tagalog: Pangako Sa 'Yo), that had attracted even more viewers abroad than at home. Cos when it comes to these series, your target audience is not just us Filipinos, but also fans from China, Malaysia, Thailand, Kenya, Uganda, etc. But that's just me. :) --RioHondo (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

List

These are the articles that are not yet being moved back to their local names:

• Rivals (TV series) -> Magkaribal

There are also changes in the WP:LEAD that insinuate that the so-called "international title" is used predominantly vs. the local title. This also has to be changed. –HTD 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional article that cannot be restored to its original title and needs admin action:

• Jade (TV series) -> My Binondo Girl
• Destined Hearts -> Dahil May Isang Ikaw

On a sidenote, Ifightback also created two articles that has almost the same contents with each other; List of Philippine dramas broadcasted internationally and List of television series produced by Star Television. Can both this article be nominated for CSD? -WayKurat (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I really wonder what was the rationale and where are the sources for these supposed international titles? Judging from his contributions, that's all he's been doing over the past several hours - and using the same lame all-caps mile-long summary. I think he has to be blocked right now because he's out of control. I've reported him to ANI to be safe.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the two articles can stay; you can add GMA shows (and TV5 shows and probably shows from other channels) too on the first one, while the second one is murkier. If the scope for the second one a list of ABS-CBN programs is identical (or it is a subset), then it can function as a redirect. But since it's a red link now, it's moot. –HTD 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've finished moving the talkpages of last two articles since the main article is now moved back to its original title--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re Philippine history

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Jones Law (Philippines)#POV phraseology which, despite the pretty specific article topic, concerns very much a larger topic area—the question of whether and to what extent the overall intentions of the U.S. re the Philippines in the period roughly 1898-1916 were benevolent, vs. imperialistic.

This discussion developed in an unsuitable location, but it is probably a useful discussion. I've seen POV opinions on both sides over the years, and I've seen the conflict between these two POVs impact numerous WP articles. Editors with something to contribute might think about joining in the discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Angelo1345 and User:Racklever

Just bringing this to everyone's attention. The first account made suspicious edits alleging Anita Linda's death, which were unsubstantiated. The second account added a link to a webs.com website (which doesn't seem to pass WP:RS) and used it as a reference (curiously enough, the said webs.com page cited the suspicious Wikipedia edits). Here's a summary of the suspicious edits:

• Addition of "death" information [1]
• Addition of alleged "reference" [2]
• More additions, unsubstantiated by any reliable source [3]

Btw, Bluemask has already reverted the suspicious edits, here.

By coincidence, both accounts have almost-identical user pages. So there.... --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask about Anita Linda. It's quite depressing to see that this is being picked up all over the web. Her IMDb page now also lists her as dead and as far as I can tell, their source is Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: it's not clear whether Angelo1345 made a mistake or purposely inserted incorrect information (his demeanor when questioned suggests the latter). In any case Racklever may have made a mistake in going along but it's extremely unlikely that he was trying to hurt the project in any way. Just like me, he got interested in Anita Linda because he's working on Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis where her article came up. Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened was that I noticed the edit by User:Angelo1345 that added Anita Linda to Category:2012 deaths. I then did a web search and found a reference that said that she had died. I added this reference to the article.--Racklever (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And this was the problem. The reference [4] is to a website that calls itself KaibiganPH News but is in fact a blog published by a 14 year old.[5] (Angelo1345 perhaps?) The "article" itself is just a cut-and-paste from the Tagalog Wikipedia article with an extra sentence about Linda's death. Pichpich (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody really wanted her dead. They even made an entry in Find A Grave. --Bluemask (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the Goodnight Sweet Prince meme, even going so far as to putting an incorrect name on the person's portrait. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RPP

There has been an IP addresses that has been changing political party affiliations in the 13th Congress of the Philippines, 14th Congress of the Philippines and Senate of the Philippines articles (such as Miriam Defensor Santiago leaving the PRP for NP, which has never happened), and insists of the alphabetical order of Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental and Davao del Sur (aside from the correct del Norte, del Sur and Oriental; see Davao Region), and doesn't want to talk about it. Perhaps by semi-protecting these pages a discussion will continue. –HTD 07:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ratings for TV articles

Just want to brought this concern here. I think this article violates WP:NOT and IMHO, this is too much fancruft. Can this be considered for deletion? On a sidenote, a lot of showbiz-oriented editors keep on adding a "ratings" section on articles relating to Philippine TV shows. I have tried to remove some of those but those editors keep on readding them. -WayKurat (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Typical case of fanboyism and rabid sense of "Pinoy pride", that's what I can say. And yes, the ratings do warrant for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what this all means but I have to agree that there are "a lot of showbiz-oriented editors" around here, as evident in the last i-dunno-how-many-pages of this talk page. If only we could get these showbiz editors to switch to more relevant writing, then we'd be more concerned on more important articles. Good for Anita Linda, she has a regularly-maintained page while an article on Teodora Alonzo is still missing. The first book written by a Filipino Librong Pagaaralan nang manga Tagalog nang Uicang Castilla has not been given an article, while several edits have already been made for Tayong Dalawa and My Binondo Girl. Lol. --RioHondo (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, there is an anon user that keeps on readding the ratings section in the Protégé: The Battle For The Big Artista Break. I tried to communicate with the anon user and suggested that a paragraph summary of the ratings should be instead added to the article but he/she is insistent on adding that overly detailed ratings table. -WayKurat (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WayKurat, can that be given some high level of protection?--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Philippine TV is different from Western TV as there are no "seasons" in the Western sense of the word, save for reality shows. That means a show has one run and ends there. A "Part 2" such as the Angelito series is like a second season and not a second show altogether.

What does that mean for ratings? That means the daily show can get an average and high for the week; for weekly shows a per episode ratings log can do; if it's too long it can be split into a per year one. –HTD 03:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy Angel University

Another editor has tagged Holy Angel University for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. If you are familiar with Holy Angel University, you may want to rewrite any sections that appear to be copied from the university's website so that the article will not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Left a note on the talk page. --Bluemask (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Manila 17

Hi guys. Who wants to meet up and hold a meetup on September 8? It's been a while since we've had a proper meetup and I guess it's time we have one. Anyone interested? :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How was it? I got there are the Sunken Garden around six, presumably you've all left by then. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We left by 4:30 because the weather was starting to get bad. :( --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of PBA Jun Bernardino Trophy.png

Recently, I have uploaded a picture of the PBA's Jun Bernardino Trophy in Commons (see photo). The owner of the picture have uploaded the picture with a CC-BY-CA license in his Flickr account. However just two days ago, it was nominated for deletion saying that the trophy itself is covered by copyright. I'm surprised with the deletion request since a picture of the NBA Finals trophy exists in Commons for almost three years but yet no one challenges the copyright status of that image or the trophy itself. I would like to request for assistance and your expertise regarding this matter. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines judge

I am looking for an active Wikipedia editor who can participate in the eliminations for Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines. We might require you of course to reveal your identity, and who can be physically present during the eliminations round which may take 4-5 hours either on Oct. 6/13, most likely in Makati (food will be provided, transportation can be reimbursed). -- Namayan (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Toyota Revo merge.

Kenshinflyer asserted that the Toyota Revo and the Toyota Kijang are distinct models, but I think it's about time that we merge it as the Revo is simply an alternate name for the Kijang. Anyone up for it? --Blake Gripling (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

South China Sea naming dispute

Since we have a Sea of Japan naming dispute article, should a companion article be created for the South China Sea naming dispute ? As it is the "South Sea" (PRC/ROC), "East Sea" (Vietnam), "West Philippine Sea" (Philippines) and "South China Sea" (internationally/HK). As the Philippines and HK are English speaking localities of the region, and Vietnam uses "East Sea" internationally in English, there seems to be enough to work from. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Over at the Tagalog Wikipedia article for South China Sea, I proposed splitting that article into 3: Luzon Sea, West Philippine Sea, and South China Sea based on the definitions given by Administrative Order 29 released by the Philippine government. --Bluemask (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The "West" Philippine Sea is a neologism ("pauso") by the Aquino admin; even local media still use "South China Sea" (e.g. "...West Philippine Sea, or the South China Sea..."). There was a local name before the Aquino admin made the pauso: "Luzon Sea", which only covers the part of the sea that straddles the PH; the sea actually goes all the way South to the Strait of Malacca. I don't think it's proper to call that part as "West Philippine Sea" (nor is it proper to call it as "'South China' Sea" anyway but it's the name that is used).

I can probably say there's a dispute once the "West Philippine Sea" gets to be used exclusively, and the government petitions the International Hydrographic Organization to change the name. –HTD 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

AO 29 mandates that in all Philippine government publications, the name "West Philippine Sea" is to be used exclusively. As I noted on the Tagalog Wikipedia, the three terms straddle different definitions: the term "Luzon Sea" is the South China Sea within Philippine territory, the term "West Philippine Sea" is the South China Sea within Philippine territory including the waters in and around Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands (basically, the entire South China Sea within our baselines), and the term "South China Sea" is self-explanatory. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I still see PAGASA refer to the sea as "South China Sea"; moreso on media (well mostly on reporting about the weather; it it's about the Scarborough issue, that's when they'll use "West Philippine Sea"). I'd still prefer the use of "South China Sea" on all accounts, even on the Spratlys/Scarborough issue, as that's how it is called, if we'd use "Luzon Sea", "West Philippine Sea" and "South China Sea" according to how they're defined, the articles will be a mess as the articles are using 3 different names to refer to the same thing. It'll be like the "Filipino"/"Filipina" condition. –HTD 05:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I started replacing SCS with WPS in most Philippine geographical articles. The next step is to modify our location maps similar to what NAMRIA is doing now. Basically, my understanding of AO 29 is that it covers only the EEZ waters including Luzon Sea and Palawan Passage. It's like the Philippine Sea is always mistaken for the Pacific Ocean by PAGASA and the media. The thing is most storms do in fact originate from those bodies of water but once they come too close to us, they should be reported as located in PS or WPS. But anyways, I admit this takes a lot of getting used to. --RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that those blatant WP:POV edits are being reverted by a number of editors. I also see that you've been warned about your disruptive edits on your talk page. I'm traveling at the moment and editing from internet cafes, so I'll stay out of this for now except to comment that neither your personal POV nor the POV of the RP government determines WP editing standards/guidelines, and that RP government Administrative Orders are not binding on Wikipedia. Generally, the most commonly recognized name for a geographic feature is used in Wikipedia articles (in this case, that would be South China Sea). In some cases (determined on an article-by-article basis per WP:DUE), it might be appropriate to add information that there is some dispute, disagreement, or common alternative naming for a geographic feature, perhaps in an article footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i realize that's the consensus view and will have to abide by it as part of wp rules. But then, when you think about it, those are just minor edits in mainly Philippine LGU articles that i edited as Luzon Sea (WPS) has in fact been used interchangeably with SCS for centuries. And it was a non-issue then, just like the Philippine Sea and the Pacific Ocean. For example: Baler, Aurora, Catanduanes and Surigao del Sur uses Philippine Sea; but Casiguran, Aurora, Eastern Samar and Siargao Island uses Pacific Ocean. And.. it's funny that you mentioned my talk page cos that's not what we have been arguing there, and that warning was for something else. It's about Scarborough Shoal and how our Chinese friends have been trying to sinify it by calling it Huangyan Island in bold, like they've been doing to other SCS disputed islands. They'd first introduce their chinese names in the opening line (e.g, X Island, also known as Chinese-name..) hoping to get the social media to become familiar with it. And once it gains enough prominence and becomes regular use, they would rename the whole thing at the expense of other claimants. (See:Itu Aba Island move.) --RioHondo (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm presently traveling and editing from internet cafes; I don't have time for long discussions right now. However, re Philippine Sea vs. Pacific Ocean, it seems clear from the WP article on the former that it is a part of the latter. Which of the two names is appropriate would depend on the context, similarly to the way one might describe the city of Seattle as being located on the North American continent, or in the United States, or in the Pacific Northwest, or in the U.S. state of Washington, depending on context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HTD and Wtmitchell on this. It's blatantly POV. I'd like to slap our government in the head for adding more nationalistic nonsense like this to the already heated dispute. The most commonly recognized name for the sea is still the South China Sea, regardless of what presidents may declare it as. This is, in a sense, stooping to the level of the POV editors who insert Chinese names into internationally recognized names for the Spratlies. Should we then also accept their renamings because we do it as well? No. Both are attempts at propaganda.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a further discussion is needed on this topic, but from another angle.

• Administrative order No. 29 says, in part, "The maritime areas on the western side of the Philippine archipelago are hereby named as the West Philippine Sea. These areas include the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo De Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal." (see [6])
• The South China Sea article says, in part, "The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 3,500,000 square kilometres (1,400,000 sq mi). The area's importance largely results from one-third of the world's shipping transiting through its waters, and that it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed."

From this, it seems to me that these two terms refer to different waters -- possibly to overlapping waters, but not to congruent waters. From this, it seems to me that the disambiguation page West Philippine Sea needs work, or needs to be removed and replaced with a topical article. That disambiguation page says,

• "The western portion of the Philippine Sea to the east of the Philippines" (is this true? The Philippine Sea article seems to disagree)
• "South China Sea, a body of water referred to as West Philippine Sea by the Philippines" (is this true? see above re AO29)

Other articles might need work as well. The Luzon Sea article, for example, is currently a redirect to the South China Sea article. AO29, however, says that the Luzon Sea is a part of the West Philippine Sea. My impression is that the Luzon Sea is part of the West Philippine Sea (per AO29), and that the West Philippine Sea is part of or overlaps part of the South China Sea. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

If they are indeed separate, as in the "West Philippine Sea" is a subregion of the South China Sea, then yes. I'd be more amenable to its inclusion. But if it's just a locally designated "new name" for the South China Sea, then no.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Miranda Rodriguez

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Los Angeles Pobladores#Filipino Pabladore?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured Photograph

Has there been any Filipino Wikipedian/Wikimedian whose photograph been a Featured Picture? -- Namayan (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, none. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There are photos by Seav that gained the featured picture status. These are... File:Ph map manila.svg, File:Ph physical map.png and File:Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003.gif. Regards, Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

These don't count as these are illustrations, not photographs. So far, there is no featured photograph from the Philippines, although I did suggest a few in the past. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

LRT-MRT changing color designations

Earlier this afternoon, I bought a stored value ticket at the MRT. They are now using a new design for the stored value tickets and it seems that the color designations for LRT-MRT lanes have been changed. Based on the ticket, the new colors for the lanes are: green for Line 1, blue for Line 2 and yellow for Line 3 (I'll upload a scanned copy of the ticket later and post it in the MRT article). I've been thinking of changing the titles for the LRT-MRT articles because of this. Are there any official announcement from DOTC that the train colors have been changed? -WayKurat (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is, but the scheme is not completely implemented. For example, LRT-1 and MRT-2 have not yet adopted the new scheme despite the announcement. This was one of the reasons why I argued against changing the Strong Republic Transit System article: until there is full implementation, we should hold off on it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is yellow line paint present at all MRT stations. The selection yellow color in the EDSA line is pretty obvious. --Exec8 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Orange Line (PNR Commuter Express) has no new line color. :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the MRT stations were painted yellow, the trains and the signage are still predominately blue. Does the LRT-1 and MRT-2 stations have change their color scheme? -WayKurat (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the exterior of MRT-3 stations, they're still blue (at least the parts that have since painted yellow inside the stations). No discernible color changes are visible on either LRT-1 or MRT-2. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act

I think many of us know already that a few days ago, President Aquino signed Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Given particularly that this law criminalizes online libel, and also given that the definition of what that is has been very unclear (Abigail Valte says our lawyers should determine what constitutes "online libel"), I wonder how people are taking it. What do people have to say about it? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(UPDATE: According to Raissa Robles, the one who inserted the libel provision in the law is, whether by chance or coincidence, Tito Sotto. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Butthurt much? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was inserted during the impeachment of Renato Corona, so I doubt that his turno en contra speeches have anything to do with it. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys do we have any moves on the matter? I'll admit that they got us with our pants down but we have to take action--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we:

1. Plan for an awareness campaign and identify ALL the lawmakers involved in this law
2. Create a wikidelegation together with other representatives from online Filipino media subgroups and go to the IRR discussion
3. (optional) fight for the revision of libel in the 80-year old "Revised" Penal Code

Wikimedia Philippines is the best vehicle for this. We do need a statement though: so far the chapter hasn't released anything on it. Maybe we can partner up with the other local Internet organizations, plus the NUJP for decriminalizing libel? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The EFF has also issued a statement on this - maybe they can join forces in our cause for reform. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay let's do the official statement then Sky :) We can't join other groups if we ourselves have no vision to guide us. We could start by having a main hub to discuss that. Can you create a wikimedia page and have the Tambayan coordinate from there?--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can try to draft something, though be advised that I am doing several final requirements for this semester. (There are greater things to worry about, though: like how this entire brouhaha has gotten a pretty cold reception among Wikipedians. I mean, between here and the Facebook group, only a handful of Filipino Wikipedians have responded. :|) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(indent reset) Don't lose hope. I'm pretty sure there's lots of Pinoy online writers who got irked by the change that will join us. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too, My blog and a friend's FB profile and blog stand to be affected because of what we've written na maraming tinamaan (that got many people affected).--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the community needs to pressure the chapter to say something. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just thought it would be relevant to point out the existence of 6391: An Act Decriminalizing Libel, authored by Agham Partylist representative Angelo Palmones and Marinduque representative Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco. Not having much of a legal background, I'm uncertain how the passage of such a bill would interact with the currently enacted provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. But we may want to factor the existence of this proposed bill into our discussions about the revision of libel in the RPC. - Alternativity (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we could start with a wiki article :) Visit my sandbox .--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the article up for AFC. By the way, WikiPilipinas beat us to it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what if they did? if the article's not even properly reffed and written in an encyclopedic, NPOV style, wala rin (no difference) --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Relaks lang :) I was just teasing the Tambayan. Anyways, their article did manage to cite the lawmakers involved in the Act and helped with the issue of improving awareness on the subject. That leaves us with the issue on how to be involved with the IRR discussion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed blackout

Some Wikipedians have floated the idea of a blackout on Facebook as a way of protesting against RA 10175. What do others have to say about it? (I would appreciate it if we can get everyone involved in this discussion: it's imperative that we get as many people involved as possible as such a move will have reverberating effects.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This Cybercrime law is somewhat similar to PIPA, ACTA and SOPA abroad in terms of provisions, except those three abroad bills are designed to combat piracy. The point is some of the provisions are vague, and I've skimmed through some of the provisions of Cybercrime law and some of them are vague, and is subject to abuse by powerful persons.

1. There is no limit on who is liable with the website's content -- everyone can be sued, the likers on Facebook, even the individual editors of the Wikipedia community, and even the President, Vice President, or Board members of Wikimedia Philippines, or even Mr. Jimmy Wales himself, can be sued of violations on this Cybercrime law should someone find something what they thought is "libelous".
2. Violating websites can be taken down, no court order. Somewhat our lousy politicians have been inspired by those three controversial laws abroad, and here it is, it seems that the RH Bill is just the coverjacket while something is brewing deep inside. That means if Wikipedia was found to be containing libelous content, it can be taken down immediately, no court order.
3. Access of real time data transmission. This clearly is a violation of the 1986 Constitution Article III Section 3 where we are guaranteed of private communication. No court order.

All in all, this law is FATAL to our Freedom of Speech which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and is also threatening the freedom of the Internet, and hereby threatening the existence of Wikipedia here in the Philippines.

On my note, I have just have a feeling that Internet freedom is more liberal in Singapore than in the Philippines because of this Cybercrime law. --Chitetskoy (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This addition I made recently to Defamation#Philippines might be if interest. 23:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up what's wrong with the law. And to think: the Palace stands by it. (While I agree that we should be responsible with what we say, I don't think this is the best way to approach the issue: with a poorly-crafted law.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree I agree with the proposed blackout and for all of the above agreeing statements. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But (to re-echo my comments on the Wikipedia Tambayan facebook page), if a blackout is not tenable, we should at least come up with a statement opposing the onerous provisions of R.A. 10175. --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently added to Defamation#Philippines: As of 30 September 2012,five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication. -- citing "Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens". The Daily Tribune. September 30, 2012. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's willing to do a message blast on Wikipedia to discuss a blackout? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note item #1 at WP:NOTADVOCATE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet the English Wikipedia blacked itself out in January because of SOPA and PIPA? Inasmuch as Wikipedia is not an avenue for advocacy, as far as my interpretation of policy goes this is for Wikipedia articles, and not for the actions of the community as a whole. When the community is affected by external forces, we have no choice but to act, and I don't want to see any Wikipedian, Filipino or otherwise, be affected by this law. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did that decision come about? What discussion occurred, and what level of consensus was there that brought about that blackout?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_94#SOPA_Blackout. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a wikiproject was formed and there was a consensus there, with support of Jimbo. As this wikiproject is the primary wikiproject for content regarding the Philippines, it does appear this is an appropriate place for this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The law will be in effect in October 3, 2012. Just a heads up. http://ph.news.yahoo.com/pnp-to-facebook-users--we-re-watching-you.html --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I read on Facebook that someone's calling on websites to black themselves out, but I can't source at the moment where the call's coming from. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that a black out would be the most beneficial strategy for us. At the end of the day this isn't US, it's the Philippines. IMO, we really should focus on drafting a counterproposal instead for the IRR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Both can go hand-in-hand. However, most efforts are currently aimed at overturning the law, not redefining it. (At the same time, we're not lawyers.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am in support of a black-out, if the Supreme Court upholds the online libel provision as constitutional (which can actually be). FYI a black-out could be implemented in the Philippines only. -- Namayan (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I doubt we will have a worldwide blackout similar to what the U.S. has, if only because Americans constitute the single largest group of Wikipedians. But back to the Philippines, I think we should be aware that the Supreme Court will only start hearing petitions on this next week, so a lot of things can happen between now and Tuesday. What I would like to see coming from our side though is that we have to do something, anything, which gives some sort of legitimacy to our opposition to RA 10175. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've talked with these guys in Wikimania, if ever we want a protest like January 10, they can block the English Wikipedia in a particular country. Namayan (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• No No blackout, no statement. Let's not hurt Wikipedia's neutrality (and therefore it's credibility) any more than it has already been destroyed by the earlier blackout. Where do you plan on having the real discussion anyways? Ryan Vesey 02:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the earlier blackout, this blackout is localized for the Philippines only, so the rest of the world will not be affected. Most likely discussion will take place here, since this is where Filipino Wikipedians congregate. However, as I have reiterated before, I don't want any Wikipedian, Filipino or otherwise, to be affected by this law's onerous provisions (chief among them the libel and takedown provisions).

Also, I don't see how our credibility is affected because the community decides to take a position on a controversial issue. I've said this previously in the SOPA/PIPA discussion as it was unfolding: the encyclopedia is neutral, but the community is not. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot decide something like this through local consensus. There would need to be a community wide RfC advertised in a watchlist notice at a minimum and probably held in its own page. The fact that this is only blacked out in one country doesn't change the number of on-wiki people who are affected. It would be a different matter if the Tagalog Wikipedia was being discussed (although it still wouldn't occur here). I find it doubtful that there could be jurisdiction (Wikipedia's servers are in Florida) but this discussion doesn't do nearly a good enough job at stating exactly how the law would affect editors or Wikipedia. On another note, I see comments about a statement. Are you talking about speaking for Wikipedia or as part of the Wikimedia foundation? If so, Philippe (WMF) should be contacted. On the concept of neutrality, the encyclopedia is written by the community. If the community is not neutral, there is no way the encyclopedia is and it certainly doesn't improve our credibility in the minds of readers. Ryan Vesey 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement would come from Wikimedia Philippines, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. Officially, the position of the chapter is that we wait for the community's decision before we issue a statement, and the chapter's Vice-President had sent an e-mail to the pertinent mailing lists about this legislation, so we are presuming that people are aware of it. (I sit on the WMPH board, but I am here in a personal capacity.)

In addition, I don't see how it is necessary that we seek the consensus of everyone else, when only people in the Philippines are affected by the legislation. Do understand that 90% of all page views to Wikipedia in the Philippines lead to the English Wikipedia, with the Tagalog Wikipedia coming at a very distant second at only 1.9%, so it is only natural that discussion on a proposed Wikipedia blackout in the Philippines will happen here because this is where most Wikipedians in the Philippines are, and this is where most of our audience is. Inasmuch as we are here writing a neutral encyclopedia, we are also entitled to our political views, and a number of Wikipedians are worried about the ramifications this law has on our activities. Fact of the matter is, if we've allowed (and supported, mind you) a blackout of Wikipedia because of an American issue like SOPA and PIPA, why can't we have a meaningful discussion on a blackout in the Philippines, where editors will be affected on terms much more punitive that what SOPA or PIPA could ever demand for? Imagine that: 12-17 years in jail for cyber-libel, where "libel" in our legal jurisprudence is interpreted not as intent, but rather substance?! And you want us to stand idly by while the law goes into effect starting today (PST)? Pray tell, do people outside the Philippines really care about a piece of legislation that affects Wikipedians in the Philippines, to the extent that we have to involve them in any sort of discussion involving a blackout which will only take place in the Philippines, which will most likely be discussed only by Philippine media, and whose ramifications will only be limited to the Philippines? I don't think so.

Anyway, if you want to see how the law affects Filipino netizens, Wikipedians especially, here's an article for you: Digital Martial Law: 10 scary things about the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Thanks. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to debate the merits of a possible blackout in this forum. There is absolutely zero chance that the English Wikipedia will be blacked out in the Philippines unless you bring this to a forum where it can be discussed by all editors, not just those in the Philippines. It won't just affect Filipinos, consider this and this. These get global attention. Ryan Vesey 04:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to announce it at the village pump and invite other editors to discuss the merits here, then please, be our guest and do so. But this is a Philippine issue, so there is merit to discussing the issue here. If non-Filipinos see this discussion and want to join in, then they're more than welcome to do so.

On the Russian Wikipedia blackout: I have seen no discernible impact on our part on how their blackout has in any way affected the English Wikipedia (whether here or otherwise, as I was in Poland at the time the blackout over there went into effect), or Wikipedia editors outside Russia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout. This law threatens Wikipedia's very existence in the Philippines, the same way that SOPA and PIPA did. While the encyclopedia itself should stay neutral, Wikipedia as a website cannot afford to. TheCoffee (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Improve the article first, then discuss on what to do with blackouts. –HTD 07:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is too much to ask if you can lead the charge, Howard? ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I already edited the lead; now if the people put effort in improving the article instead of discussing here that doesn't not directly benefit the article, then certain priorities would have to be changed. –HTD 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no new edits to the article. Anyway, I don't think this is a reflection of wrong priorities: both efforts can go hand-in-hand. I want RA 10175 to be as detailed as the article on SOPA, but with lots of details either inaccessible or unavailable we're constrained with what we have. (In addition, I will copyedit the article: I want to add new material but I am too swamped by academics to be able to write new material at this time.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because I did those yesterday. I neutralized (for lack of a better word) the formerly shitty and POV lead. There's no need for yours truly to edit the lead anew when I did it yesterday and the article wasn't expanded to expand the lead too.

We're all swamped with something but if we have time to check out if someone did an edit, surely there's time for a sentence update or two, just like what I did yesterday with the update on the SC's deferral on any action. I dunno how many people had participated in this discussion but if everyone can contribute something there instead of here, we could've educated the public on what this law is, instead of achieving, as of the moment, nothing. –HTD 14:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How are we doing nothing if we're deciding whether or not we as a community are taking a stand? I understand the need for people to know the law, but remember likewise that we are affected by it as well. Inasmuch as I'd like to educate people about the law, I don't think we can do that if we're currently languishing in jail should the government decide to enforce the law, right? After all, we're human too. But anyway, I added an overview section which I hope covers the basics: feel free to expand it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout. And yep, it threatens WP's existence... Man this is like SOPA Philippines.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix PNX (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing sinebot :( .. ANYWAYS People are already blacking out since like, yesterday... Even I (Phoenix Enero on FB) blacked out. Phoenix PNX (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not signing is not a problem: just remember to do it next time. And since you're on Facebook, feel free to join our Facebook group! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout and to all agree sentiments. --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would not it be more fitting for the blackout to cover Philippine-language Wikipedias? Starczamora (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is responsible for 90% of all Wikipedia traffic in the Philippines (the statistics are available online courtesy of http://stats.wikimedia.org), so if we want maximum impact we need to do an English Wikipedia blackout. However, I have also opened a parallel discussion on the Tagalog Wikipedia. The other Philippine-language Wikipedias may join in as well, but the decision to black out needs to be a decision of their community, and not of the Filipino community here on the English Wikipedia (even if these overlap). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm largely apolitical when it comes to the Philippine government. The wikidelegation or a [real-life] protest from the local chapter sounds like a good idea (though I won't be joining in of course, given that I'm out in the jungles). I'm ambivalent on a local blackout since it would be mostly ineffective anyway, as most Filipinos actually consult the English Wikipedia, rather than their native language Wikipedias. I oppose an English Wikipedia blackout, despite my stance on the SOPA affair. We don't yet know how it affects the enwp. And I don't think we can actually convince the entire enwp community to agree to it. We should only focus on how this affects us, as Wikipedians, rather than how it affects all Filipinos. Though they are not necessarily separate. The potential of the law for censorship of Philippine articles is quite real, but let's not go overboard just yet. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is for a localized blackout of the English Wikipedia which will not affect users outside the Philippines (unlike the SOPA blackout), so I don't think we need to convince non-Filipinos about the validity of a blackout which will not result in global Wikipedia outages for 24 hours. As I wrote in the Village Pump, Wikipedia essentially cannot continue arguing that it's in an ivory tower, isolated from the legal happenings that are taking place throughout the world just because its servers are located in the U.S. An analogous example would be Facebook in the Philippines: its servers are mostly in the United States, and the content in Facebook should only be subject to U.S. law. But why are so many people protesting the effects of RA 10175 on our Facebook culture? It's because the law punishes users: that's why Wikipedians are at particular risk of being punished for libel or whatnot because regardless of where the data is stored, the act was still conducted in the Philippines and we're still subject to Philippine law. (And personally, I think this does affect us as Filipino Wikipedians: as I've said before and as I'll say again, I want no Wikipedian, Filipino or foreign, to be affected by this law. I don't want us to be the subject of lawsuits simply because, for example, we decided to put on the article on Tito Sotto that he was being "cyber-bullied" by Filipino netizens.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was possible. Can enwp be blacked out locally without affecting access from other countries? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Namayan also confirmed this when he went to Wikimania earlier this year. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we have the article in the "In the News" section of the Main Page to reach a wider audience? Thanks for the article improvements BTW. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lenticel's idea to reach a wider audience --—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. We need to make a statement by making a local blackout of the English Wikipedia along with other local-language Wikipedias (tagalog,kapampangan, cebuano,etc..), but this will be localized, i.e: in the Philippines only. --—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. "We need to make a statement". No we don't. Wikipedia should not be making statements. Ryan Vesey 04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important that we dichotomize Wikipedia the encyclopedia and Wikipedia the community. I will agree that the former should uphold its neutrality and should seek to cover the world from an impartial standpoint. But I cannot agree that the latter should sit down, shut up and wait for the problem to go away: as I have said previously, Wikipedia cannot afford to argue that it's in an ivory tower and the situation on the ground is not its problem. Wikipedia may be a neutral ground for all of us, but editors still naturally possess their own opinions, biases, et al. which cannot be eliminated by simply being part of the Wikipedia community, even if many have tried (me being one of them). It begs the question: how do we have a Wikipedia, a neutral one at that, if every one of us is discouraged by lose-lose legislation where, either way, not only do we discourage new people from joining, but even discourage existing editors from editing because the law threatens them with fines and imprisonment for even the most minor infractions, should whoever the plaintiff be decide it be so? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just went to the Cybercrime forum at UP Law Center yesterday. The law is clearly messed up. For starters, it is 10 years outdated.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As what Harry Roque (and now TG Guingona said): "The law itself has provisions that are unconstitutional and they cannot be corrected by IRR." Likewise, the gall of Edgardo Angara to insinuate that just because something posted online goes global, it becomes an aggravating circumstance when used in cases of libel. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: After reading the Act (as I was expanding the article on the Act here on the English Wikipedia), I have discovered that the law has universal jurisdiction. Filipino Wikipedians outside the Philippines, you may also be prosecuted for violations of RA 10175 under Section 21 of the Act! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Be done on 10-11-12 starting 13:14:15. --Exec8 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The public should be more aware the we are against this such kind of laws. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If the Supreme Court does not issue a TRO. -- Namayan (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. That is if the Supreme Court approves the law, and not issuing any TRO's. Hamham31Heke! 04:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The online libel provisions affects the work of Filipino Wikipedians in ensuring that articles are fair, balanced, and neutral. --seav (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm only voicing may opinion ok. I'm either against the law, or doesn't seem to notice the law. Is the government, ok. The Philippine Government aware of what it is trying to imply? Is it capable of hacking, stalking, and controlling the network, the Internet to be exact? Like it is being done in China, and in the past in Libya, and most especially in U.K. and U.S.? Is it capable of imprisoning someone who had violated the law? I don't think it is not yet. There in no office or facilitator or whatever official there is to control the Internet, though it is said in the law that the DOJ Secretary has 'all the powers' to sue someone or even imprison if found guilty. I MEAN WHAT's the use of the protest if it will be heard on deaf ears? OK. If we have to do a protest. IT MUST LEAVE AN IMPRESSION. A LASTING ONE. But, up to this point, I can still download anything, without getting any threats or anything. I can still voice my heckler-being without anyone arguing & saying 'I would sue you.' Let's not over react shall we? If the government is really serious about this law, PLDT, Google, and Globe Telecom would be tapped for every person to be detected under GPS for violating the law. If Sotto is right, every hashtag of his #Sottoying will be sued, based on the parameters of Cyber-Gibberish Law written by those political wannabees. I just don't like the idea of blacking out wikipedia, dragging the neutrality of news like those Philippine News Agencies are doing here. BUT IF WE HAVE TO DO IT. WE MUST HAVE A LASTING IMPRESSION 4 IT to be noticed. :) God Bless and may the truth be on our side. Dominicanarquia (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to wait for the law to actually be fully implemented (that won't happen until the IRR is in place, and they're only going to start drafting the IRR tomorrow) in order to make a statement. Given that Wikipedia is, according to Alexa, the seventh-most visited website in the Philippines, any sort of protest action on our part will make noise. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree I believe that since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and disseminates free knowledge to the world, and Filipino Wikipedians were also part of building this institution, our voice to amend or even repeal the Cyberlaw must be heard not only in the Philippines but worldwide. Maybe a blackout on Philippine-related articles could be enough.

To repeat: the proposal is for a localized blackout of Wikipedia. This means that there will be a blackout in the Philippines, but other countries will not be affected. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, Strongly It's a lose-lose-lose proposition. (Lose 1) The opportunity cost is too high. Wikipedia exists to lift people up through education. They Google something, go to Wikipedia and learn something. It's instant. They will not Google the same thing the next day. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will be left permanently ignorant if we go dark for a day.

(Lose 2) And what do we get in response? Nothing. The bill is already law, unlike the previous blackout. That blackout stopped a bad thing by forcing politicians to do something right then and there. Journalist went to them and they were forced to withdraw their support; the bill died in the House. If we do a blackout, what do we want politicians to DO? There is nothing they can do. The law is already the law. It is unlikely that we can get a bill filed, passed and signed repealing the Cybercrime bill until after the 2013 election, and even then we would have to overcome PNoy.

(Lose 3) It will damage Wikipedia's attempt to be seen as a neutral, trusted source. We are not just another political pressure group.

One side but important point: the problem to me seems not to be the Cybercrime bill but the libel law itself. Regardless of what happens to the Cybercrime bill, the Libel law is still a threat to free speech (one of many). Shouldn't we be focusing on the bigger bill, the Libel law? If we change the Libel law, won't that change the Cybercrime bill?

We will leave people in ignorance, damage Wikipedia image and not impact the law. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There is a difference between this and previous blackouts. The Cybercrime Law is getting lots of press. Everyone seems to be talking about it. In the previous blackouts, the threat was unknown outside of a few internet-focused groups. The primary goal of the previous blackouts was to raise awareness. That goal doesn't exist here. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to respond on the following points:

• On the first point: Wikipedia does seek to uphold education, but I doubt we're jeopardizing our vision and mission through a one-day local blackout. It's not like just because people can't access something one day, they will no longer choose to access it: they will just access it the next day, especially if it's something that Filipino netizens have resoundingly opposed.
• On the second point: There are efforts to have the law be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The SC will begin hearing the 10+ petitions on the law tomorrow, and there are protests scheduled at the Supreme Court grounds to that effect. At the same time, there are already bills filed which seek to amend the "questionable" provisions of the law, including Section 4(c)(4). However, this is beyond the libel provision: there are many problems with the law, such as the takedown clause (Section 19), the universal jurisdiction clause (Section 21) and the data retention, disclosure and seizure clauses (Section 13-15).
• On the third point: How is it that just because Wikipedia is neutral, its editor community has to become neutral too? To quote myself from the SOPA blackout: "As far as I'm concerned, neutrality is implied to be editorial neutrality...I don't think however that "neutrality" in the Wikimedia sense is the same as how Jehovah's Witnesses claim neutrality in worldly conflict: just because we espouse an editorial policy which advocates neutrality of content, it doesn't necessarily imply that the projects themselves should be neutral in cases of so-called "worldly conflict"..." What should the community do if we are threatened by something? Sit down and do nothing?

The Cybercrime Prevention Act may have gotten a lot of press, if only because people have complained against it from when news broke out that it was signed into law last September. Under all of our noses, if I may add. Either way, I am not ready to allow any member of the community to be affected by this law. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Strongly Believe that this law will suppress of what we commonly advocate " The free knowledge". This is not only to copy on what Wikipedian did in Protests against SOPA and PIPA but on what will affect us all. Especially in the biography editor. Some policy that will greatly affect the Wikipedia as a whole are the provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 giving the government with so much power like TAKE down the site without trial. Such as monitoring the data traffic Here Below Sec. 4 (a)(3), which includes data interference, defined as "the intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses," in the list of cybercrime offenses;

Sometimes we make the leaked information as reference. So this time we must be aware.

What about editors in this case? Yes we have vandalism in somehow but we can manage to make things right. Alterarion in Wikipedia is common but got to jail seems a grave action. Not helping out skilled volunteers or editor.

-- Sec. 4(c)(4), which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on "any other similar means which may be devised in the future;" -- Sec. 12, which authorizes the real-time collection of traffic data;

I got sued already. Libel case that is before the cybercrime law. Its a personal experience already to share. My post is not libelous ( Malicious) I just tell the public on how much was the project cost and the take some photo.

-- Sec. 17, which authorizes service providers and law enforcement agencies to "completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination" order;

What if the government turns and attack free knowledge? Because most of the lawmakers decide on favor for them? What is there is another commercial Wikipedia-like site and fund a certain number of lawmakers? Making wikipedia an Illegal?

-- Sec. 19, which authorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;" and

-- Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), specifically orders from law enforcement agencies, shall face imprisonment of prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its maximum period or a fine of P100,000 or both, for each noncompliance.

If we did the blackout on Wikipedia. This may give a somehow call to lawmakers. Since according to Alexa.com is on rank 7 on most visited sites.

Yes to BACKOUT, Even for one year.

Bonvallite (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The tide's turning, the Cybercrime Act's hugely unpopular, overreaching, and difficult to enforce. I think hold back on a blackout unless there's some resurgence, like if the government tries to actually enforce the Cybercrime farce. For now, let's just make noise on Facebook, sign the online petition on Pirate Bay, participate in the many venues that want the law amended or repealed. ZoneSeek | Talk 08:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless the courts or Congress have done something, I am not ready to say that the tide's turning just yet. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to Filipino Freethinkers, there's another law looming: House Bill No. 6187, also known as the "Anti-Online Piracy Act" (AOPA). When will this end? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the one behind that is connected to big media companies made me cringe. They couldn't just move on and be open on their works. Alas, they only care about the money, making pawns out of the artists they sign into. Another commentator compared SOPA to the Prohibition in the United States in the US back in the 1920s to early 1930s. The law was simply too strong and draconian, and it only led to people buying more booze, and in turn, American Mafia bosses profiteering from it. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'm more wary of sudden takedown, private data collection and other "invasive" clauses, which have a more chilling effect compared to online libel. We should do this once the Supreme Court acts in favor of the said law. - Ian Lopez @ 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Supreme Court has issued a TRO, but we should remain vigilant. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Imagine if we had to register a dedicated account just for surfing the Net and only for the purpose of buying cars, clothes, whatever most celebrities and politicians can afford these days. Kevzspeare (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree Sorry for being such a late responder, but I disagree for a blackout. Here are my reasons why: 1. I don't own a social networking account, so why bother? 2. It's better to have a peaceful state than a conflicting one. We wish for world peace, but is it working? Nooooo... 3. Since the SOPA/PIPA made a blackout for the whole Wikipedia (and I dread the screen, no offense because it's my own fear), it disrupted the editing activity. News are on the run, coming and going. There are always new ones. News never stay on the headlines forever since there are newsmakers and game-changers. Don't take my notes personally since it's my point of view plus my analysis of the law. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 12:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Catholic Church (3rd nomination)

I would appreciate it if any editors who know something about this denomination would participate in this AfD, or edit the article Apostolic Catholic Church if they can find sources. During both this AfD and the previous one, it has been suggested that this church has between 1 million and 8 million members, yet I have not been able to find evidence of such a claim, nor that this church has any significant number of parishes as would be expected for a large denomination. Mostly I would just like to know what the truth is about this denomination's size. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on UP Diliman Monorail stations

Hello everyone. I am considering putting up the following orphan pages for deletion:

• Philicoa Monorail Station (sic)
• C. P. Garcia Monorail Station
• Katipunan Monorail Station

However, I do not what rationale should be used. Unlike the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison MRT Station, the construction of the monorail at UPD is in full swing. If a deletion is not possible, I suggest that links to these articles be placed on Template:SRTS. - Windows72106 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Or on a separate template for UP Diliman Monorail? Seriously, i have got no clue as to how they were able to come up with those stations, or where they were able to get those station names. It claims to have 13 in total, but the source is nowhere to be found. As the route is still unclear and only a few details have been released to the public (even the DOST has not provided any detailed project info on both its Diliman and Bicutan AGTs), then i dont think we can include them yet to SRTS) For one, we do not know if it will even connect to any of the SRTS lines.) I'd say delete for now as per WP:RS --RioHondo (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The UP Office of Design and Planning Initiatives (UP-ODPI) released a map, and the UP Diliman Monorail also has a dedicated thread on SkyscraperCity: [7]. Google is your best friend, guys. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? UP? SkyscraperCity? that is so the last place i would have thought to look for stuff like news on official gov't projects lol. but yea i saw a bunch of forum websites on google search, but thought those are the same websites that gossip about pinoy artistas right lol. As for UP, yea i thought it was a good animated film. --RioHondo (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RioHondo, I mean UP as in the University of the Philippines. Why on Earth would UP Diliman be a bad source on government projects if they're the ones benefiting from this one anyway? :|

But that's beyond the point. The point is that the project is under construction, the prototype has already been tested, and the project should be ready by the end of the year or early 2013. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we merge them to their main article for now? The parent article is small enough to take them. Perhaps we could spin them off once the monorail is complete and more sources are available. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the merge. What we have so far is just a map of the proposed system from way back, presumably from the time of its conception that says little about the station layouts, design and whatnot. No news if the ongoing construction stayed true to this original plan, or if there had been design changes/station reconfigurations as what happened to many government infra projects in the past. In other words, we can never be sure with so little info. --RioHondo (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles have now been merged to the main article. - Windows72106 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent) Thanks.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Quezon Service Cross Medal Copy new.jpg

File:Quezon Service Cross Medal Copy new.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Forum group on facebook, forum like setup for more fluid and effective tool for discussions.

Hello Tambayan Philippines, hello Kababayan...

It has come to my attention that the discussions done here are via a rather, in my opinion, awkward talk page with not that much connections, etc., it just feels odd I think. I believe we can discuss more effectively in a forum system like on our facebook group, which is why I have decided to establish it.

You can find our group here at this link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/441877832502321/members/

--LakanBanwa (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, LakanBanwa. We already have a group here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/wikimediaph, which is maintained by Wikimedia Philippines, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please feel free to join that group. Thanks. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, I will still keep my page up, as I am forming a group that feels dedicated to improving, and perhaps adding more to Philippine related articles... In my opinion, a lot of them need serious work, and a lot of friends connected know a lot of interesting information and findings...--70.134.64.100 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want, you can invite all of them to the main group. Collaboration is always better when more Wikipedians are involved in the process, and since most Wikipedians are already in the main group, it would be better if we keep the community together rather than divide them across multiple Facebook groups. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Having discussions about improving Wikipedia articles on a third-party website instead of here in Wikipedia itself is misguided. First of all, not all Wikipedians have Facebook accounts. Second, this flies against what most Wikipedians are already used to. Third and more importantly, you lose the accountability that the wiki software enforces. --seav (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It also has dangers for outings. That's why I barely participate in the FB threads-don't want to risk some assholes I ran into here finding me over there. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I neither discourage people using Social Networks nor use Wikipedia talk as sole venue for discussions. These networks such as Facebook, Twitter are good venue to discuss matters that would further improve an article. Many users I know use dual identify to protect themselves from harassment. Many non-editors are good resource persons as they give insights, valuable information and feedback in articles. --Exec8 (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Filipino American infobox representatives open nomination period

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Filipino American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

May we have more nominees who are not affiliated with the military? I'm drawing up a list of prominent Filipino-Americans who ought to be nominated, but for some reason I'm on the fence since I'm not sure if they're "representative" enough. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest looking at List of Filipino Americans, and List of Filipino American athletes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Diacritical marks in Filipino/Tagalog; proper spelling of words

Every time I see them I feel like I'm in Rizal's time or something. Why even bother, nobody uses the accents anymore except perhaps non-native speakers and people learning the language from outdated guidebooks.

Also who uses "tsitsaron" instead of "chicharon" in this day and age? 182.18.208.2 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean the "tuldik"? Im not a Filipino/Tagalog editor but I remember having learned that in elementary and i'm talking about the 1990s or a full century after Rizal's time lol. Now that actually got me wondering, when did they ever stop using the tuldik? I remember there was even the pakupya like this ^, our Filipino teacher telling us Tagalog was that 'konsistent' unlike English ('di-konsistent') and Spanish ('semi-konsistent'). But anyways, so when did Tagalog ever become free of diacritics? -- RioHondo (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On "tsitsaron": this is formal Filipino. I know in informal contexts, "chicharon" is acceptable. And if Philippine passports are any measure, diacritics became obsolete around 1995. (On another note, it is precisely the use of formal Filipino that we need to reinforce. Taglish has become so widespread that people who are capable of speaking straight Filipino when discussing serious topics are increasingly becoming few and far between.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ganoon pó ba, Ginoóng Lañgit Pantalán? Bale taóng 1995 lamang nagpalít ng baybayin ang ating wika at nawakasán ang pag-gamit ng mga tuldík? Kayá palá naglaho itó sa mga pasaporte at tandang-tandá ko pa ang mga kayumangging pasaporte ko nung pagkabata at may mga tuldík ñga pó ang mga iyón, tulad ng sa "Lagdâ ng pinagkalooban" at "Mga Pagtatakdâ".. Marahil sumabáy itó sa pagbaling sa 28-titik ng Bagong Alpabeto Filipino mula sa 20-titik ng Abakada na naganáp din sa dekadang iyón. Nakapanghihinayang na lumipas na ang mga tuldík sa wikang Filipino, na pinaaalalahan ako ng bahadyâ ng sulat artístiko Vietnamita. :)

On "chicharon": i don't think anyone still uses "ts" especially since the language shift to the 28-letter alphabet that includes C, F, J, Ñ, Q, V, X, Z. What I learned in college recently was that loan words from both English and Spanish may retain their foreign spelling, so it's perfectly normal to spell dyipni as jeepney in Filipino nowadays. Besides, most pork cracklings brands advertise their products as Chicharon or even Chicharron and not "Tsitsaron" or "Sitsaron". But again, since we're in a period of transition you'll see all sorts of spelling in Tagalog. But in the end, i mean Filipino has 28 letters and Abakada is a thing of the past. --RioHondo (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The current rules state that words borrowed from Spanish are to be spelled using Abakada, while words borrowed from English and other foreign languages are to retain their original spelling. On the Tagalog Wikipedia, certain words from Portuguese may be spelled into Abakada (fila, concreto, Macao, etc.) if they have logical Spanish counterparts. Now inasmuch as we cannot deny Tagalog/Filipino changing, we cannot deny that the current rules essentially stipulate the following: keeping Abakada in its place for the vast majority of lexemes in the Tagalog lexicon, using Abakada to assimilate words which are assimilated enough into the lexicon, and that it is not normal to keep the borrowed term if the term has already been assimilated (this last point is called "karaniwang pagtutumbas": for example, it's Republika ng Pilipinas, not Republika ng Filipinas. Or it's dyipni, not jeepney). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, i got it. It makes sense too that words that have already been 'tagalized' spelling-wise shouldn't be spelled any different from how people have been used to. But those 'ts' (ch) and 'dy' (j) words are just pain in the neck tbh and i thought with the reinstatement of the 28-letter ABC, those spellings have been dropped. For instance, the Tagalog media refers to the Filipino chinese more often as chinoy these days (the tsinoy spelling is starting disappear if you havent noticed), there's also pichi-pichi (never seen it spelled pitsi-pitsi), batchoy (batsoy?) machete (matsete? i dont think so), chikinini vs. tsikinini (chikinini has more google hits) and so on and so forth lol. As for 'Dyipni' and 'dyanitor', its been years since i last saw them used in print and tv news. But anyway, i dunno whats formal or informal Tagalog, but i do know Filipino is a more 'tolerant' language. :) -- RioHondo (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know it's Sky Harbor who only keeps to trying classify Tagalog into formal and informal. :) Spelling is a matter of acceptance and general use. I always doubted that linguists should be the one to determine how a word gets into our lexicon/dictionary, it should be the people who speaks the language. We must take into consideration also the custom of the speakers of the language, to either borrow or create an indigenous terminology in their language. Otherwise we would subscribe to what Filipino/Tagalog linguists "prefer" to use in the dictionary such as kalipikasyon (Sp. calificación) for qualification (as far as I know it's kwalipikasyon based on English's qualification), as we also have kalidad for quality which I subscribe to. I could go on, but I guess this enlightened me: [8]
This also goes the same for the use of diacritics, I've hardly seen anymore Tagalog or any other Philippine languages using diacritics excepts for purposes of pronunciation, otherwise NG would be ÑG, that's how they were spelling NG until the 1920-30s if I'm not mistaken. -- Namayan (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And, apparently, our amnesia towards the idea that language is classified has led people to complain that Filipinos' use of language is anarchical. Whether you like it or not, language will always be classified. Just because Filipinos don't do it (and seem to forget that they shouldn't be using an informal register of Tagalog in formal settings such as the news or deliberations of Congress) does not mean that the notion of classification of language into informal and formal does not exist.

As I have repetitively told you several times before, Namayan, I don't disagree with the fact that people should be a determinant of how language should be shaped. What I disagree with is that we should go around pontificating that only the people are right, and that everyone else is wrong, especially if what people are doing is patently wrong (i.e. Taglish, unless the KWF takes measures to regulate it and ensure that English terms enter the lexicon in a manner that does not dilute the value of the language). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, wrong, kwalipikasyon is derived from cualificación, which is used in a slightly different context than calificación. Cualificación refers to intrinsic merit, experience, or skill (e.g. job qualifications). Calificación is something more like evaluation, assessment, classification, testing, rating, or grade (e.g. exam qualifications). Their meanings overlap and calificación is often used for both senses, but they are different words.

The same thing for es:cualidad and es:calidad. Cualidad is used more exclusively for the meaning of "intrinsic quality", the thing that makes someone or something different from another. Calidad is more for "importance", "[comparative] value"; though its meaning can overlap with cualidad when referring to things, in which case, calidad is more frequently used.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also as far as diacritics go, I prefer to use them when possible, e.g. basâ, "wet" is indistinguishable from basa, "read" without diacritics. Especially for Bisaya words which Tagalog speakers usually don't speak, and are often pronounced incorrectly if diacritics are not present (e.g. bala, "bullet" is different from colloquial balâ, "stupid").-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically I should even use that there... it's correctly Bisayâ. lol -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys have Lope K. Santos to blame for the demise of the diacritic. And for bastardizing the Tagalog language as ive read somewhere. That's true, until 1920s-1930s the Tagalog alphabet consisted of 32 letters including ñg and ng. Then suddenly, bang! we were back in the ice age with Abakada. Abakada would have been successful if Juan dela Cruz became Huwan dela Krus and President Quezon became Keson. But that didn't happen, so Juan and Pacquiao got even more confused. For a Greek, it would be like Κάρολος Παπούλιας but going by a different name Karolos Papoulias. But anyways, bringing back the diacritics would be a big help especially for our tv journalists who Ive seen struggled with their teleprompters all the time. Some common misreadings: basa (read) and basâ (wet), bukas (tomorrow) and bukás (open), nahuli (got caught) and nahulí (late), Grace Padaca and Grace Padacâ lol. As for ñg and ng, Batangas is Batangas and not Batanggas (same goes for Pampanga and Pangasinan. While Binañgonan is Binañgonan and not Binanggonan. Same with Balañga and Pañganiban (supposedly). --RioHondo (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I too have an intense dislike for the Abakada. I think of it as spelling according to an illiterate tribesman. Even Malaysians and Indonesians aren't that prudish when it comes to letters, and they've largely retained their ancestral languages while also adopting the Roman alphabet. Rizal proposed replacing C with K, but it was government language commissions backed by the American Commonwealth who went overboard and basically erased anything that remotely resembles Spanish in favor of a half-arsed attempt to bring back what they thought was how Filipinos were 300 years ago; while at the same time disguising loanwords to look more "native". There are modern alphabets today that originated from deliberate invention (Cyrillic, Katakana/Hiragana, Hangul), but they made new systems of writing, not simply forbade the use of certain letters.

Another thing about the loss of the old alphabet and Spanish speakers is the current ignorance on how Spanish words are actually pronounced. Not a lot of Filipinos, for example, know that Castilian V is pronounced /b/ as in B not English /v/.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remember here that phonetic writing systems, and alphabets in particular, are supposed to be representative of the actual sounds of that language. The only reason why we even have the additional eight letters of the Alpabetong Filipino is to account for additional sounds with words that are to be borrowed and assimilated into Filipino, partially as a means to address the grievances of non-Tagalogs (i.e. Cebuanos, et al.) who think that Filipino is nothing more than rebranded Tagalog, and so proponents of Filipino decided to "distinguish" one from the other by arguing that Filipino has additional sounds, when in fact it does not. The vast majority of lexemes in Filipino, and in many Philippine languages, still adhere to the 20-letter Abakada (or, if I were to be pedantic, the 17-character Baybayin, since 'e'/'i', 'o'/'u' and 'd'/'r' are homophonous, at least in Tagalog): few Philippine languages (i.e. Kapampangan, Aklanon, Ivatan, etc.) have sounds which go beyond the standard 20. Words from Spanish, English and other non-Philippine languages will always undergo sound shifts in the local language in order to conform to the sound inventory of the language in question: that's something that we cannot change simply by adding more sounds.

Abakada, to its credit, is very phonetic, akin to Malay and Indonesian, so I don't think Abakada is "prudish" in that regard. Both languages in fact "bastardize" loanwords from other languages as well if we were to go at it: stesyen (station), bas (bus) and teksi (taxi) in Malay; and jendela (janela, window), resleting (ritssluiting, zipper) and gereja (igreja, church) in Indonesian prove that both languages are likewise guilty of "nativizing" borrowed words. Even if we were to maintain original Spanish spellings in Spanish loanwords, people will still pronounce them according to the sound inventory that they possess. So even if kuwalipikasyon became cualificación in a reform of Filipino orthography, people will still pronounce it as the former no matter how you write it.

Also, as a closing note, the Balarila ng Wikang Pambansa included the three modern diacritics which have since been dropped in modern Filipino, so accusing Lope K. Santos of dropping diacritics and returning the Philippines "to the ice age" with the Abakada does no justice to the fact that Abakada is a far more phonetic system than the Abecedario would ever be. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, is he your relative? I think the issue with the Abakada according to some Filipino historians and linguists was the fact that there existed a national language called Tagalog (idioma tagalo/lengua tagala) that possessed an already elaborate and complex grammar and rich vocabulary. It was a product of centuries of refinement that took in all of Filipino history and culture--the indigenous as well as the colonial which have become part of the Filipino identity. Then your great grandfather came to erase all that :D You see, whenever i travel to a foreign country, the first thing i notice are the names of places, of people, the signs and other writings in the airport. I analyze their spellings and i guess like for most people, this is how they first learn about the language and culture of the nation they're visiting. In the Philippines, your impression of a mestizo culture with names and words like Ninoy Aquino, Zamboanga, Cebu, Sampaguita, Lanzones, and Vinta suddenly changes when you start seeing the local orthography that bans those very spellings. It's this "dualism" that has made both foreigners and Filipinos themselves confused about themselves. You see, no other nation suffers from this kind of identity crisis, not being able to spell your name in your own language. At least the Indonesians and Malaysians can write "jendela", Cirebon or "Najib Razak" without a great grandfather telling them it's supposed to be dyendela, Tsirebon and Nadyib Rasak.

As for phonetic systems, i can hardly call the Abakada Tagalog "ng" and "mga" as phonetic at all. Plus 'ts' and 'ch' are two very different sounds in Tagalog, (at least in the civilized refined settlements product of centuries of evolution, they have figured out the difference between the two, as well as p and f, ng and ñg, etc.) Don't forget the words Carabao, Molave, Abaca, Cogon, Sampaguita, Calamansi, Pancit/Panciteria, Carinderia, Narra, Guinto, Chinelas (chinese sandals), Vinta, Tanguile, Guijo, and Tanigue originated here and have been in use for centuries until, of course, some bastards tried to pass them off as "Spanish" and "foreign" and came up with their "true spellings" like a step backward in evolution. You see if only the Tamaraw was discovered a century earlier, it would have been called Tamarao like the Carabao. But this is where you see the Abakada ruining even standard Philippine nomenclature. This Lope K. Santos guy is a real idiot fantard im telling you. hehe! :D --RioHondo (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RioHondo, but I am insulted at your comments. To insinuate that I am defending Abakada's merits on the utterly preposterous claim that I am somehow related to Lope K. Santos does no justice to the fact that I have done my homework on the issue, and apparently you have not. For example, the current Ortograpiyang Filipino does not ban the spelling of loanwords in their original form: in fact, the current guidelines specifically state that only words borrowed from Spanish should be written in Abakada, and everything else in its original form.

If you are incapable of assuming even an iota of good faith, I suggest you don't involve yourself at all. The nerve. :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the "few" characterization, which is perhaps a subjective observation. Few in terms of the number of speakers perhaps, but not in terms of the number of languages. Philippine languages aren't quite as homogeneous as that. The Lumad and Central and Northern Luzon peoples for example have the native V and F sounds (Ifugao, T'voli, Manuvu, in addition to those you have already mentioned). The Moros (including the Tausug, Bajau, Maguindanao, Samal, and Maranao) and Visayans have the native J (even if they are still orthographically represented as DY when transcribed using Abakada), Sh, Ch, and even /x/ sounds. Not to mention the difference in vowels.

Even Baybayin was not restricted to a specific number of letters, and indeed sounds, as you have implied. It was only the Tagalog version of numerous Brahmic derived scripts present in the pre-Hispanic Philippines. The Butuan and Kawi equivalents, for example, were based on Old Javanese, which had letters for /v/, /θ/, /tʃ/, and /dʒ/ (some of which are still reflected in the surviving Butuanon languages, which are sadly dying out). And even the limited letters in Baybayin are no indication of limited phonology, in the same way that the absence of vowels in standard Arabic does not mean they only talk in consonants. Much of Baybayin was contextual/subjective, as the case of the D and R allophones (which can extend to L in other Philippine languages, cf. lanao, ranao, danao, "lake" in different southern Philippine languages reflected in proper names like the different lakes named Danao in Visayas, the Maranao people, and the Lanao provinces) and the dropping of consonants with no attendant vowels. Same with romanized transliterations, as evidenced by how languages like Kapampangan are still spelled today.

And yes, of course, there will always be a shift in pronunciation when words are borrowed. But there's a difference between a shift naturally acquired, and a pronunciation artificially imposed by orthographic "rules" that doesn't even correspond to the actual pronunciation. Chicharon, while not exactly the Chicharrón of the original Spanish, is naturally derived and is already phonemic. Tsitsaron is artificial and phonologically atrocious, nobody pronounces it like that, except perhaps very small lisping children. In the same way, we may not always pronounce English "Jeep" exactly as Americans pronounce it, but the J has always been a /dʒ/ sound even among the most illiterate, not the dipthonged "dy-".

Thus the 'nativization' criteria seemingly has more to do with the degree of perceived foreigness in relation to Tagalog rather than actual pronunciation or native acceptance. Almost as if they just decided that J and Ch looked too strange and "European" and thus dropped it. I distinctly remember my Filipino teacher in elementary explaining to us very seriously how "airplane" and "jeepney" are bad but "erpleyn" and "dyipni" are acceptable Filipino. Ugh. It wasn't surprising that those who consistenty got high marks in Filipino also did miserably in English (they tended to be the kids who would make their speeches in awful cliché-ridden Tagalog while still acting all uppity about how everyone else had either a "colonial mentality" or were too "lokal"). And you wonder why more Filipinos today can't even spell.

And it's never been about how close the alphabet is to the pronunciation. It's simply a question of linguistic revisionism trampling all over linguistic heritage. And let's face it, the old Tagalog orthography was simply more aesthetically pleasing, whereas Abakada is painfully and deliberately primitive.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Walang Hanggan (TV series)

Well, now that the soap ended, could someone either help me or try to cobble up a decent plot summary for it? I did remove some blurby text from the synopsis, but being that I didn't watch the whole story (well, don't ask me about it, I'm not all into this cliche they call teleseryes), I don't think that I can do the dirty work myself. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Leme see what I can do, although the ratings section seemed too crufty last time I checked. I'm trying to rewrite the synopsis as well right now, based on what I know about the show - I'm gonna make sure none of those idiot fantards cruft this up. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha yeah, I did come up with trying to do the same with Tayong Dalawa back in 2009, based on what I know about it. It's just that I barely knew about what happened on the recently-concluded soap. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys for real? Who even watches those tv shows, those cliche they call teleseryes? You're right. Nobody. Except those idiot fantards. Oooh, did you say you were you gonna edit it since you've been following the story? Touche? Why bother? Just leave the editing to them idiot fantards and federaciones over at Timog, Q.C. --RioHondo (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait. I'm not a fantard as you say haha, but I'll do it. Have known the show since the first episode. I'll try to edit the whole thing on my spare time. Though I'm not yet putting the construction template cause I'm working on another article. -- FDJoshua22 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Call for articles for Tagalog Wikipedia

We are renewing a campaign to have more contributions of new articles for Tagalog Wikipedia. Come join us in this effort of expanding the content of tl.wikipedia.org. Thank you in advance!

We are encouraging interested Wikipedians to contribute articles that are related but not limited to Science, Physics, Biology, History, Military, Art, Technology, History, Medicine, Engineering, Architecture, Music, Dance, Literature, etc. - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RA 1425 : Rizal Law

Hi. Does Republic Act 1425 formalizes naming Jose Rizal as the national hero of the Philippines? --Exec8 (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Rizal Law doesn't mention this. I think it's on another law. Check out National hero of the Philippines where Rizal wasn't the only one of the "national heroes". –HTD 13:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RA1425 begins as follows:

WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a re-dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died;

WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, we remember with special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have shaped the national character;

[...]

That other WP article, however, cites this source, which says,

[...] Even Jose Rizal, considered as the greatest among the Filipino heroes, was not explicitly proclaimed as a national hero. [...]

That source does not mention RA1425. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, the whereas clauses in RA1425 (and all whereas clauses in other laws if they exist) aren't part of the law per se. You can't invoke the whereas clauses when citing the law. It's like the preamble in most constitutions. –HTD 09:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for Philippine Law

Please help in making this infobox or template Here you can find What it used to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Philippine_Law_Infobox

With this Please fine tune on this Template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_legislation

Please HELP to have this.

Bonvallite (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Buendia MRT Station

Within the span of a year, I have twice removed two sections labeled "Historical Event" and "Etymology" (describing a humorous but non-notable event) originally added by 119.94.237.224 in 2009. However, these would be reinstated only a few days later by User:Pagere (see this and this). I have removed the sections once more today and warned the user on his talk page.

Upon closer inspection of his contributions list, all his edits focus on adding to the said sections and placing them back on the article when removed. Would this be enough justification for revoking the said user's access to editing? - Windows72106 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexy Philippine actresses

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rey "PJ" Abellana

Hi all,
Rey "PJ" Abellana has been proposed for deletion as it doesn't have any references from reliable sources. I can see plenty of coverage, but mostly in Tagalog. (ps: is " '80s heartthrob" really Tagalog? ) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Malacañang Palace title

Last May 1, the article "Malacañang Palace" was moved/retitled to Malacañan Palace disregarding Wikipedia's rule about the naming of Articles (WP:Article names#Common names) which states that, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." So even though "Malacañan Palace" is the official name, "Malacañang Palace" is the appropriate title as it is the more popular title as supported by proofs given by the several editors in the talk page. But whoever moved it disregard this rule, even though several editors are against the move. Both names are correct, neither name is better than the other. Even if you check today's news nobody uses "Malacañan Palace", it is always "Malacañang Palace".

Another reason why I opposed the change to "Malacañan Palace" is grammar. As I mentioned in the talk page in Tagalog, when words (usually adjectives) ending in the letter 'n' or a vowel, is followed by a word that starts with consonants, like 'p', we always add suffixes '-g' or '-ng' or sometimes '-m' to relate the two words. For example, 'gahamang pulitiko', 'pitong gatang', 'talambuhay'. If the first word ends in consonants other than 'n', we insert the word 'na' or in between the two words to relate them depending on the use, e.g. apoy na mainit, tigib na damdamin, etc. Therefore, using Malacañan Palace is just bad grammar. I am sure that any Filipino speakers would say that Malacañan Palace does not feel natural when spoken. As a Tagalog speaker, I feel insulted like I'm being forced to call it "Malacañan Palace" even though it is not natural for me to call that way.

The reason I'm including this in the talk page is I'm seeking some support from fellow Filipino Wikipedians, after I reverted it back to "Malacañang Palace", somebody moved it back to "Malacañan Palace" giving no reason for doing so, disregarding Wikipedia rule I mentioned above. I don't know what could somebody with administrator level do to prevent the page from being moved again. Or maybe, could you please give any opinions or advise regarding the matter? Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Malacañang" palace is far and away the most popular spelling, unless you'd consider "Malacanang", which is could be argued as the most prevalent of all, but can also be blamed on laziness of typing in extra keystrokes to produce the letter "ñ", or of ignorance to the said letter. –HTD 03:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add a note to the discussion. I believe the user who moved the title is Manuel L. Quezon III, the current USec for the PCDSPO. ("Gareon" is his usual online username.) His reasons for moving would certainly have some historical basis, but I think we should follow Wikipedia's policies and thus the name with the "g" should remain. --seav (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not helping if the official Facebook and website both spell it with a "g" in the end... –HTD 13:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"The "Malacañang" palace is far and away the most popular spelling, unless you'd consider "Malacanang", which is could be argued as the most prevalent of all,..." I would make the argument, especially given that "ñ" is not an English letter or sound. English is full of borrowed words (see "boondocks" and "typhoon") and it is a feature of English that it (we?) do not keep accents or change spellings. Not on the "e" in Mexico, not on the "u" in uber, and arguably not on the "n" in Malacanang. However, it probably is not worth the fight. I am not a stickler for using always common names when the official name is so close. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if there's been a law in English defining "Malacañang" as the official residence (see the discussion on whether "Sangguniang Panlalawigan" is English). If there is, it's English. It's sorta like Pokémon vs. Pokemon: the mainstream media most of the time uses the name without the accent but those that specialize in manga, animé (or is it anime?) and video games most of the time uses the accented one.. –HTD 13:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I do suppose we have to take the nuances of prevalent practice into consideration here, the specifics having being explained in the article itself: "Beginning in 1986, the distinction was made between Malacañan Palace as referring to the official Residence of the President, and Malacañang as that for the Office of the President. The restoration of the designation "Malacañan Palace" was reflected in official stationery, and signage, including the often seen backdrop in the press room modelled after the White House sign. In practice, the heading Malacañan Palace is reserved for official documents personally signed by the President bear, while those delegated to and signed by subordinates bear the heading Malacañang." I am unsure whether this means we ought to prefer "Malacañan" or "Malacañang" in this case, but I think this traditional distinction is the main determining consideration in this specific case. - Alternativity (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What! The president has a bear and it can sign letters! (Sorry couldn't resist. :) I have cleaned it up. I love some of these errors that creep into Wikipedia articles over many edits.) I note that even the DFA screws up both the tilde and the g, see this press release [9] which has as an opening sentence "30 April 2011 - The Philippine Consulate General in Hawaii reported that President Benigno S. Aquino III conferred the Order of the Sikatuna with the rank of Datu Award on United States Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) at a ceremony at the Malacanang Palace on April 25." --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

SuperFerry/2Go/Negros Navigation rewrite

Giving that the ferry industry has had a bit of a re-alignment in recent years, I am thinking that we need to realign SuperFerry, Negros Navigation, 2GO, etc. Your thoughts are welcome at Talk:SuperFerry.

Agree. I think that this companies of Aboitiz Transport System have bought by Negros Navigation. Including the Supercat and the Cebu Ferries. The NENACO have 98% of the common shares of Aboitiz Transport System (ATSC). So the NENACO re-brand it and name 2GO Travel.I suggest that the new page should be 2Go Group Inc. Thus have division of 2Go Freight, 2Go travel, 2Go Express and 2Go Logistics

• http://www.2go.com.ph/GROUP/PressCenter/
• http://islandsentinel.com/2011/01/04/official-joint-press-release-from-negros-navigation-and-aboitiz-transport-system/
• http://www.cebuferries.com/PressCenter/view.asp?ID=279
• http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/290411/nenaco-acquires-aboitiz-transport-105-million

Bonvallite (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC) One question I am going to try to answer is this: is 2Go really owned and controlled by the Chinese government? Can foreign entities control internal-water shipping companies? --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer here maybe helpful http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/12/01/10/aboitiz-oks-sale-shipping-unit-negros-navigation

Bonvallite (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. If you go to Talk:SuperFerry you will see my specific recommendations. I think that we should keep the conversation in one place and I think that is the best place. Please comment there. For instance if you like my suggestion re how to title the 2Go Travel page. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect list of winners at the Metro Manila Film Festival article

Hi. I would like to request assistance in double checking the list of winners for the Metro Manila Film Festival article. I've noticed the incorrect entries while checking the 1994 Metro Manila Film Festival article. It listed Roy Vinzon and Kimberly Diaz as the winners for the best actor and best actress award respectively. Almost most of us at least heard of the "switching of winners" scam during that time and both these celebrities were not involved with the scam. Someone added this incorrect information in 2007 and no one bothered to correct this one. -WayKurat (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

El Presidente

I'm expanding the article, but I'm trying to do the cast list like other film articks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help with pointing out historical inaccuracies like what was done in Argo?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but the WP article says that it depicts Aguinaldo meeting with US officials who "approach him with offers of support and recognition of a new Philippine Republic amidst the Spanish-American War." As you're probably aware, there is considerable disagreement in that regard about who said what to whom, when, where, under what circumstances, and with what authority. Some of this is touched on in History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Philippine declaration of independence and establishment of Philippine governments and Philippine–American War#Aguinaldo's exile and return, wherein sources with info on that are cited. also, I note that the two sentence paragraph in the article which begins "With US troops closing in, ..." spans more than a year. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit it as you go, I'm just recalling what I saw in the film. And there's a lotta negative press flying around too.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who don't know, the movie's partially based on Aguinaldo's memoirs, Memoirs of the Revolution, so it does not surprise me that at some points the movie would discuss things from a very pro-Aguinaldo point of view (to the point that the movie's villification of Andres Bonifacio became a hot topic among local columnists). In addition, it would be appreciated if willing Wikipedians can keep the Tagalog version up to speed as well. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hello, You may want to visit Wikidata and explore. We may use them in our future infoboxes especially the LGU ones. --Exec8 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lea Salonga

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lea Salonga#Infobox image. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sanga-Sanga (island)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Sanga-Sanga (island)#Requested move regarding the page "Sanga-Sanga (island)." Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiVoyage Request

Good evening! On the Wikimedia Incubator, I have requested for WikiVoyage in Tagalog and Filipino. Here is the link. (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Requests_for_starting_a_test#Request_for_Wikivoyage_.28in_TAGALOG_and.2For_FILIPINO.29) I hope that you'll be able to help me. Thanks! -- Merrick Lee (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a request for this yet on Meta on Requests for new languages? That request is more important than opening a request on the incubator, and I'll support it should such a request be filed. (In addition, I hope we all remember here that as it currently stands, the community's position is that Tagalog and Filipino are the same language, so I don't see why we need separate Wikivoyage sites in Tagalog and Filipino.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding reversion by Gilmores2012

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lea Salonga#Infobox image. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010 has been relisted twice already. Needs more eyes. –HTD 02:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been relisted anew, so any new opinions would help. –HTD 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan in baro't saya

I'm just a bit surprised by the anime that showcased the traditional "saya"... shouldn't she be more "filipina like" without big blue eyes and without that Japanese symbol on her hair clip? Just a thought.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.6.17 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan was designed by a Japanese Wikipedian, so it's reasonable to expect that she'd look Japanese, and that she's a Japanese figure wearing Filipino dress. (Also, the "Japanese symbol" is analogous to the 'W' symbol for Wikipedia in languages written using the Latin script.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I think your suggestion reeks of misplaced nationalism. With that logic, Bill Clinton shouldn't have worn a barong during his visit to the Philippines at one time. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack Again

Hi. Just a heads-up. Personal attack on me again at Talk:Lakandula. Also, the anon edits are disrupting the flow of the talk page such that it's difficult to keep track of edits. These attacks have happened repeatedly, I've reported it before and action has been taken before, but the anon just keeps going. Any ideas where I could go to look for a more permanent solution? The edit apparently occured here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALakandula&diff=522860051&oldid=517313881. - Alternativity (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps an indefinite semi-protect is needed here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I noted that far too many Philippine city/municipality articles have content directly copied from other sources. This is copyright violation and against fundamental WP policy! When I can prove it, it will be removed (in many cases where I can't find the source, it is still obvious that the text is copied from somewhere else, but I'm being reasonable to look for proof before removal). So a reminder for all WikiProject Philippines members to avoid copying and remove all copyright violations when found. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You might as well post your concerns here as well. And can you tell us exactly as to which pages are in need of copyvio removal? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just look at any large city or municipality article without references, like Rodriguez, Rizal, Carmona, Cavite, Valencia, Bukidnon, New Lucena, Iloilo. 4 examples of 4 different provinces, but there are many many more. I just know, based on seeing such content elsewhere on the web, that this content is copied. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not very hard to detect copyright violations in Philippine-related articles. When an article goes from painful broken english to all of the sudden, neat grammar and big words, thats when you know a copyright has been violated. :D Reminds me of when you take someone out from Eat Bulaga and place him in the Senate Lol.--RioHondo (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• How true. Another big indication is the overly promotional tone! But unless I can find the source and prove it, I have to give the benefit of the doubt. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I have been making a lot of changes recently to Bantayan Island as well as Bantayan, Madridejos and Santa Fe municipalities. As far as I am concerned it is the other way round - going from broken to good English is an indicator of original material (by me). The official websites are usually a jumble of legend and unimpartial / unsourced material, not to mention confusion between physical geography and municipality, but they do serve as useful pointers for real research (same as researching your family tree). I'll be back there soon for proper primary sources rather than desk research.

btw aren't official websites in the public domain? John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Thu 07:03, wikitime= 23:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, all websites are not public domain, unless explicitly stated. But you are right that many PH official websites use very poor English (makes it also easier to catch copyright violations because the errors are copied too!). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Official websites are in the public domain per Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Remember that the law says that "no copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines...". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Senate and COMELEC website both have copyright notices. –HTD 04:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Which, frankly, is illegal. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
        • In fact, practically all government websites have copyright notices. gov.ph is the sole (and probably most important) exception. –HTD 05:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Exactly. "no copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines..." This refers to the national government only, not provincial or municipal. Therefore websites of all municipalities are copyrighted. But the problem is not limited to government websites. Content from all kinds of sites is being copied. We have to encourage editors to put more effort into writing their own work and educate them how to do it properly. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Not quite. Local governments are considered part of the Government of the Philippines: this is not the United States where you have 50 seemingly-sovereign states and a federal government holding them together. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Local governments are incorporated, that means they exist independently of the national government. For example, if a town goes bankrupt, the national government is in no obligation to bail it out. –HTD 11:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
                • Is all the government work including photos and other media consider a public domain? On second thought if Yes, Then if some government website including GOCC that have copyright notice override the national law? This discussion is very important. Bonvallite (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • This is similar to incorporation of LGUs; as long as these GOCCs are incorporated, it is up to them if they'd allow their work to be in the public domain. They're not overriding some laws as the corporation law gives some leeway on how corporations manage their affairs.
                  • As for Section 176, while Wikipedia is non-profit, it specifies that any license should not have any conditions(?) As there is a condition in using these works, they should be under fair use regulations and aren't in the public domain.
                  • Now if you're using works by the government for profit (such as a government photo of say, Anne Curtis on your blog with ads on it, making you earn from your blog), that's illegal. Another example would be selling copies of the constitution with annotations for profit.
                  • I guess these "copyright notices" in government works mean that you'd have to ask for their permission before the works can be used. Although that's a very liberal interpretation of such notices, considering copyright notices for the most part might be illegal, if the essence of such notices are stripped, the only thing that is left is for you to ask them permission to use it for profit. If you're building a shrine of Anne Curtis at your house using works from the government, in theory they can't sue you.
                  • Note that the cited law didn't put the government's work to the public domain, it just said they shouldn't be copyrightable; the question now is if making them not copyrightable is in essence putting them in the public domain even if it's not explicitly stated. Courts have been very liberal in interpreting laws so if anyone sues a government agency for putting copyright notices in places where there shouldn't be one, the court might rule in their favor.
                  • As for US comparisons, I think I read somewhere that PD only goes to works by federal government (as in it was specified there). –HTD 08:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Every site has a copyright notice. You can't assume that it is not valid. In fact, you have to assume the opposite: even if there is no copyright notice, you have to treat it as copyrighted! But because copyright notices on government sites are being ignored, they are also being ignored on other websites. Like I said before, all kinds of websites are being copied. Copying is really a lazy form of editing. Don't try to find shortcuts. Do your research, write your own paragraphs, add references, and insert it into an article. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not a mirror site! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if the copyright on websites refers to the work of the government or the work on some sub-contractor, or even the programmer of the website. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This could very well be the case if work was outsourced. –HTD 13:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of local government copyright, allow me to cite Anyo Niminus (who is a government lawyer), who mentioned this in 2009 (source: Archive 21):

Philippine LGUs are considered political subdivisions of the national government, and their works are part of the Philippine government. Under the US federal system, each state is an independent political unit from the national government and only belong the the USA because they consented to join that federation.

I'd take his word for it, as far as I'm concerned. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Anyo Niminus is still occasionally active on WP. Maybe we can get him to find proof in an official document that can be referenced. I will leave a message on his talk page. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• In unitary state and regional states (which the Philippines is, since there's an autonomous region with expanded powers, but it only compares to that autonomous region and not on the others, so it is almost unitary), the powers of the "federal government" and the "state government" are merged into what we call national government. Now does that means that the powers of the local governments are derived from the national government, or are they independent from it? How does the Local Government Code and the Philippine experience come into play? –HTD 15:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am not Anyo Niminus, but allow me to try and answer this as a political science major with knowledge of public administration and local government. In a unitary state (as the Philippines is), all powers of local governments emanate from national government. Article X, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides that local governments shall be under the supervision of the President, and while they are granted local autonomy, this shall only be in accordance with the powers reserved to them. It's clearer for autonomous regions: powers not expressly reserved to the regions are vested in the national government (Article X, Section 17).

This is in contrast to federal states (i.e. the United States) where, as mentioned in the archive I cited, are sovereign entities in themselves, and are only subjected to a higher government because they consented to be subject to that government. The Local Government Code decentralizes and, to an extent, devolves authority to local governments, but such devolution does not imply the transfer of sovereignty to that local government, nor does it imply any sort of recognition of these LGUs as having some sort of inherent political authority. The powers that LGUs have in the Philippines, including that of the ARMM, are still derived from the authority of Congress, and are therefore still "handed down" (and may be taken away) by the national government. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

Virtually all Philippine government websites (except for the Gazette) have copyright notices, despite Philippine copyright law specifically excluding government works. Should we remind the government about government works being public domain, or at least to clarify their stand on copyright in government works and websites? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See #Copyright violations above. –HTD 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I know. As such, I've merged this and made it a sub-section of the earlier discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, would this be a good idea? Contacting the government to clarify about their stand on copyright on government works? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As stated by Bruce Hall on December 26, we're not sure if the websites were solely the works of the government per se; if they were outsourced elsewhere, they're not "works by the government." –HTD 12:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, this is (to my knowledge) the same case as US government websites. What's different with Philippine government websites? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We dunno if US government websites are outsourced or not. Most local websites except news websites (w/c would ironic if they do) are outsourced from somewhere else. Refer to the discussion above for more... –HTD 12:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. government websites are by and large not outsourced, and if they are, there's no provision in U.S. copyright law that suggests those websites are copyrighted. The reverse is observed in Philippine copyright law. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The point of my previous post was to point out that we shouldn't assume to know things. For example, NBA.com isn't done by the NBA per se, but by Turner Sports (the people behind NBA on TNT), with game previews and recaps from the Associated Press. Other websites may have similar setups that's why I said to play the ignorance card (or, don't think about what they do). –HTD 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Some government websites mention who maintains the site, so in theory it should be easy to determine whether the government outsourced the work or not. For example, the Commission on Audit, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Civil Service Commission have clear indications of their websites being maintained by the IT departments of their respective offices. But, then again, this practice is inconsistent. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)