Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Lupang Hinirang old versions

They're quite interesting but I'm not sure they belong on the English wiki. Perhaps literal English translations for all of them - to show the evolution of the official text - would add relevance but that might be original research... Uthanc (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For example (sorry for the horrible translation, medyo malalim):

Lupang Hinirang (1956, rev. 1960s)

unofficial English trans.

Bayang magiliw, Perlas ng Silanganan, Alab ng puso, Sa dibdib mo'y buhay. Lupang hinirang, Duyan ka ng magiting, Sa manlulupig, 'Di ka pasisiil. Sa dagat at bundok, Sa simoy at sa langit mong bughaw, May dilag ang tula at awit Sa paglayang minamahal. Ang kislap ng watawat mo'y Tagumpay na nagniningning, Ang bituin at araw niya Kailan pa ma'y 'di magdidilim. Lupa ng araw, ng luwalhati't pagsinta, Buhay ay langit sa piling mo; Aming ligaya, na 'pag may mang-aapi Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo.

Beloved country, Pearl of the Orient, The heart's fervor, In your chest is ever alive. Chosen land, You are the cradle of the brave. To the conquerors, You shall never surrender. Through the seas and mountains, Through the air and your blue sky, There is splendor in the poem and song For beloved freedom. The sparkle of your flag Is shining victoriously. Its stars and sun Shall forever never dim. Land of the sun, of glory and our affections, Life is heaven in your arms; It is our pleasure, when there are oppressors, To die because of you.

O Sintang Lupa (1948-56)

unofficial English trans.

O sintang lupa, Perlas ng Silanganan; Diwang apoy kang Sa araw nagmula. Lupang magiliw, Pugad ng kagitingan, Sa manlulupig Di ka papaslang. Sa iyong langit, simoy, parang. Dagat at kabundukan, Laganap ang tibok ng puso Sa paglayang walang hanggan. Sagisag ng watawat mong mahal Ningning at tagumpay; Araw't bituin niyang maalab Ang s'yang lagi naming tanglaw. Sa iyo Lupa ng ligaya't pagsinta, Tamis mabuhay na yakap mo, Datapwa't langit ding kung ikaw ay apihin Ay mamatay ng dahil sa 'yo.

O beloved land, Pearl of the Orient Spirit of fire originating from the sun Beloved land, Nest of heroism, To the conquerors, You will not be killed/taken, (? pagpaslang- taking life?) In your skies and blowing breeze, like Seas and mountains Common is the heartbeat of liberty without end. The sign of your beloved flag is shining and victorious. Its sun and stars a-glowing shall always be our honor. To you, land of joy and love the sweetness of living in your embrace For it is also heaven, if you are oppressed to die because of you.

Diwa ng Bayan (1941?)

unofficial English trans.

Lupang mapalad, Na mutya ng silangan; Bayang kasuyo, Ng Sangkalikasan. Buhay at yaman, Ng kapilipinuhan; Kuha't bawi, Sa Banyagang kamay. Sa iyong langit, bundok, batis, Dagat na pinalupig; Nailibing na ng karimlan, Ng kahapong pagtitiis. Sakit at luha, hirap, Susa at sumpa sa pagaamis; ay wala nang lahat at naligtas, Sa ibig maglupit. Hayo't magdiwang, lahi kong minamahal, Iyong watawat ang siyang tanglaw; At kung sakaling ikaw ay muling pagbantaan, Aming bangkay ang siyang hahadlang.

Fortunate land, Pearl of the Orient, Land in communion, (?) with nature (?) Life and treasure of the Filipino people, Taken and retaken from foreigners's hands. In your sky, mountains, lakes, and conquered sea, is buried the darkness of yesterday's trials. Pain and tears, hardship ? and curses with ? is all nought and saved from those with a mind to oppress. Let us celebrate, my beloved race, your noble flag; and if you are threatened, Our very corpses will bar the way.

I've read an English translation of the anthem from the 1971 edition of Compton's Encyclopedia. I forgot the other lines; all I remember is Land in the morning.../Ne'er shall invaders/Trample thy sacred shore... Blake Gripling (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, lacking a WP:RS cite it is WP:OR. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The most common English translation is the English version by Camilo Osias and Mary A. Lane (which is the canonical English version and the only one to ever receive legal recognition). The Filipino lyrics can be kept; it's the same anthem with different lyrics. Many national anthems with changing lyrics keep reference to the older lyrics in their articles as well as the current one in use (like the March of the Volunteers, God Save the Queen and O Canada). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Grading scheme

I noticed that the grading scheme we use here on WP:TAMBAY is a bit different from the one used by other projects (specially on B and C classes). I think we need to re-align this with the one used by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I created Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Assessment/Grading scheme and used TAMBAY articles as examples. What do you guys think? --bluemask ^(talk) 05:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest! Although I would suggest that we don't use the A-class level. I've checked the following page: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured and for the purposes of the Tambayan, I don't think that distinguishing a separate A-class level is useful. For the example article, it's quite possible that Battle of Leyte Gulf won't even pass GA. I think our goal is to make articles GA, and them push for FA. No need for the A-class level. --seav (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment department update (October 2008)

Philippine-related articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 5 3 1 3 12 GA 8 8 9 5 30 B 100 49 101 54 304 C 8 15 25 12 60 Start 187 453 1405 1308 3353 Stub 55 228 2547 2794 5624 List 1 10 41 110 1 163 Assessed 364 766 4129 4286 1 9546 Unassessed 3 3 Total 364 766 4129 4286 4 9549

Since the last update in September, we have tagged a whopping 2335 or so articles as part of the Philippine-related articles assessment drive. There are still approximately a couple or so hundred articles left to tag in the current worklist. I plan to run my collection script again to generate a new worklist, the bulk of which will contain mostly new articles that have been created since the current worklist was generated almost a year ago.

But anyway, the vast majority of the Philippine-related articles have now been tagged and we can use the information to improve the coverage of Philippine-related articles. For instance, we should really be pushing to get all of the Top-importance rated articles to Good article level at least. Right? :-)

Kudos goes to Kleomarlo who took the initiative to tag several hundred articles in the past month. The large growth you see in the latter part of the graph is mostly his work. Congratulations! Give him more barnstars people!

--From your self-appointed Assessment Department Chairman, --seav (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakandula vs Rajah Lakandula

Alright, with the Luzon Empire fiasco done with, may I call everybody's attention to the Lakandula vs Rajah Lakandula merge proposal? My feeling is that the Lakandula article is more appropriately named, but the content of Rajah Lakandula is more canon. Why? While nobody denies that Lakan is a title rather than a name, the Lakandula article suggests that the entire term "Lakandula" is a title. I do not think orthodox sources support this claim. So there... another very bloody little precolonial merge mess. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's move the appopriate data to Lakandula and change the claims there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo

Now at FAC. --Efe (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to end up as a speedy fail. I think we should do some clean-up and de-POV in the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the nominator to withdraw the nomination. --Efe (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I guess this article leaned more into being a Sarah Geronimo shrine rather than being a proper WP article. Currently into cleaning it up... Blake Gripling (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Laro ng Lahi

I dont know if this is a category-type or an article type. Something to do with WP:advertising. Do you think this should be deleted or work upon further. We have the Traditional games in the Philippines. We also have articles for Palo-sebo and Sipa. Axxand (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant make the Category:Laro ng Lahi a blue link. Axxand (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

add a colon before the title to make a blue link for categories and images: example [[:Category:Laro ng Lahi]] for Category:Laro ng Lahi. --bluemask ^(talk) 08:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) Axxand (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted it as baltant advertisement (Actually I was just going to tag it but I forgot to fix a Twinkle tag first, sorry. I'll restore it if someone objects reasonably). This is the second time that I encountered this group putting unsourced advertisements. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections. :) Axxand (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles needing clean-up

Someone might want to take a look at these articles and help improve them. They have been tagged for quite a while now:

• Basil Valdez
• Metro Manila Popular Music Festival
• Metropop Song Festival

Kleomarlo (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Manila 5

How will we proceed with the fifth Wikipedia meetup? Jojit suggested we hold it in December. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About time that I make amends :P How about mid-/late November? When malls might be less congested. Remember, Christmas season is also shopping season ;) --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says the venue has to be a mall? ;-) --seav (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what are the alternatives other than a mall or, say, a restaurant? Someone's house? ;) hehehehehe --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a WMPH discussion over a fancy dinner once in a while. :P But seriously, we do not need to meet in a mall. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jollibee? :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Or McDo. Or BK. Well...any fast food, as long as we're not meeting up at a 7-11 or Mini-Stop :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like McDonald's ever since I watched Super Size Me. Ayaw ko rin ng Starbucks, may melamine daw. ;) Any other restaurant for the meet-up will do. --Jojit (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Greenwich have "healthy options".*

*_{Lenticel is not in anyway affiliated with Tony Tan Caktiong and his restaurants and is not responsible for any missing items}.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha...at kelangan me ganon?? :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a random thought...while browsing how much a ticket to Marinduque costs on Zest Airways, I was thinking of this: given that plane tickets have become noticeably more affordable, maybe we can afford to have meetups now in more distant parts of the country. For example, take a Zest plane to Cebu in the morning and take a Cebu Pacific plane in the afternoon or evening back to Manila. For the sake of everyone, here's how much it costs (assuming we meet on January 10):

• MNL-CEB: P686 (seat sale, all-in, departs 4:45 am or 7:45 am)
• CEB-MNL: P528 (Go Lite, all-in, departs 5:30 pm or 8:30 pm)

We can probably have a Wikipedia Takes Manhattan-like photo contest or something, then have discussions in various parts of the city. Then we can all explore NAIA Terminal 3. It would be a very good chance for us not only to get pictures of Metro Cebu, but also to meet with the Cebuano Wikipedians. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As an organizer of Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, I'd be glad to help out any event in Cebu through advice or technical assistance. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some photos during Cebu 1. Would that qualify for the contest? --Jojit (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...the concept is that we all travel there (any city) in the morning, have a photo contest and pertinent discussion during the day and fly back to Manila at night. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TGIS and Growing Up

Most of the information, especially the cast details, are unsourced and were too written as if oriented towards Filipino readers. I don't know where the anons got it, but I've watched TGIS since 1996 until Growing Up ended in 1999...and I don't recall seeing Claudine Barretto, Mikee Cojuangco, or Assunta de Rossi in there. I couldn't even find any connections when I googled their names and TGIS to see what came up. Any tambays who want to help? Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can remove the three since IMDB doesn't list them. –Howard the Duck 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that, but if the anons persist, let's do some clean-up. even the plot section for both articles looks like crap. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that 124.105.37.77's edits are no more different from 124.105.37.73 (and this one has been warned for GMA-related vandalism before. It's probably the same editor. posted unsourced tags on 124.105.37.77's TP. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Eraserheads

Hi, I was just wondering if it is wise to create a separate article about the "Eraserheads Reunion Concert" held last August 30. The info about the concert on the Eraserheads article itself may be considered messy. The concert is being considered as "one of the defining momments of OPM" and "one of the best concerts in Pinoy Music History". So, what's your say?
Edraf (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was extensively covered so I think it's good to go. –Howard the Duck 15:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting for guidance in creating the said article. Thanks! Edraf (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Eraserheads, I am currently fixing other articles about filipino bands like Sandwich, Rivermaya and Parokya ni Edgar. I am pushing for one of these articles to have a "FEATURED ARTICLE" status (especially the Eraserheads article). I think we still don't have a featured article of a filipino musical group yet. So in this regard, may I appeal for help in revamping or just fixing these articles. Music is also an important part of our culture so I think this should be one of the points of focus. Let's start with the Eheads :). Thanks. Edraf (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should focus on putting the Eraserheads article on the Good Article status first. The present article is far from GA status. Then after that, we could target Featured Article status for the article.Kleomarlo (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

MYX Mo!

I think MYX MO! should get its own article since its an annual event and it features almost all the practicing artists in the Philippines. The event can be compared to the Lollapalooza music festivals. What's your say? Edraf (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends if there are sufficient sources for all MYX MO events that were held since MYX started. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point. I can't find sufficient sources for all MYX Mo!s. The earliest I can find is the 2006 MYX MO. Edraf (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we use the pics from this site?

Hi, just wondering if we can use the pictures of Philippine senators in this site: http://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/sen14th.asp? The articles for the majority of Philippine senators don't have any picture and it would be great if we can use the pics in the site. By the way it's an official Philippine government site.Kleomarlo (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't use the images made by Philippine government to illustrate living people here on Wikipedia. There is a provision on the Philippine copyright law that one must secure permission from the agency so that the work can be used commercially. That makes the images non-free by Wikipedia standards. We can still use them under fair use guidelines but not to illustrate a living person. -- Bluemask (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

UP Sigma Rho

Anyone want to report this for full protection? Seems that older users are removing the sourced sections and adding awards to their members which might be better off in their own articles should they pass the notability standards. As an involved admin, I cannot protect it myself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, some anons and registered users Pennyless and Peggyblue are persistent in this article. As for removing sections such as the fraternity war, maybe they are ashamed that their group is involved in such, that they want to erase whatever stuff gets in here? --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to place more "neutral" info to the article. As the article stands, there might be WP:UNDUE weight on the incidents that the frat has been involved with. --seav (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the frat have other things of note aside from the incidents.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to dig up news archives and maybe even UP newsletters. But I agree, most student orgs are largely under the radar until some controversy surfaces. --seav (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Books and Scholar have no info. I got this 1970 perspective from Newsbreak and an item about corridor fighting and attempted murder.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. More incidents. I guess Sigma Rho is really notorious instead of famous. :-P --seav (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are articles here in wiki that are notable because of their criticism. Though criticism is argued upon, if an entity or a person becomes noteworthy or remarkable because of the controversy they/he are/is into, they/he may have a page here! Seems UP Sigma Rho is one of them. Axxand (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PBA team roster templates

Can these semi-protected? Someone's been changing school names into less recognizable ones (instead of "UE", it's East".) Like WTF? –Howard the Duck 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo article

All I can say is...wow, what a mess. An editor whom I strongly suspect was a returning vandal turned his attention almost exclusively to the Sarah Geronimo article. I know nothing about this singer and I'm certainly not qualified to edit it. As it stands, it reads like something from a fan magazine, lacking even basic wikis. This article seems to have been the target of well-meaning fans. The blocked sockpuppeteer even tried to nominate it for FA status. Needless to say, it didn't fly. :) Can you guys take a look at this poor article and see what you can do to help it along? Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are actually discussed above! Axxand (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so they are (blush)! Good deal. I'm glad to see it'll get some attention from someone who knows something about her and can bring it up to speed. I've left cleanup notices in the meantime which will alert other editors. Maybe I'll take a whack at it myself when I have more time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tried de-POVing it, and I trimmed down the intro, since the intro reads like a bio and is redundant in relation to the rest of the article, but I ended up in an edit war with the user you're talking about, Geniusdream. We talked to him about his edits and why we reverted them, but he wouldn't listen. I don't know a lot about Sarah, nor am I a fan of her, but I'll try sorting this mess up. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I am trying to watch the edits of Wynchard Bloom (talk · contribs) (whom I suspect is a sockpuppet) removing POV on his edits... until he stumbled on this article. The Sarah Geronimo how have three versions, the long with fan POV by Geniusdream (talk · contribs), derivative non-POV version by Blakegripling ph and now shorter but with different fan POV by Wynchard Bloom. I'm not going to touch this article for now and I will wait until the battle of the 2 edit warring is over and the dusts settled. --bluemask ^(talk) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rj Revilla

Is the subject of the mentioned article notable? It is presently tagged for immediate deletion for notability concerns. Alexius08 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure; he seems to be known, but the IMDB page about him seems to lack sufficient content. I AfD'd it just to make sure... Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Philippine eagle

Expert on this subject might want to take a look at this article. I think it copies heavily from one of its referenced site.Kleomarlo (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just rewrite then. I'll rewrite this on Wednesday. Feel free to edit.--Jondel (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Achievements

I would like to congratulate the untiring efforts of the Philippine wikipedia enthusiasts for making:

• 20,000 articles in Tagalog
• 35,000 articles in Cebuano.
• More than 6,000 articles in Kapampangan.
• 1,000 artcles in Bikolano.
• More than 500 words in Tagalog Wiktionary.
• More than 400 pages in Tagalog Wikibooks.

May we grow further and thank you for making Wikipedia the 7th Top Website in the Philippines. --Exec8 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to all for this great achievement. I think it's high time for the next phase of the Philippine wikipedias (especially the Tagalog and Cebuano wikipedia versions) to come in - that is improving its content until a significant number of its articles (at least 10-15%) would reach Good article and Featured article status. As I have observed, both the Tagalog and Cebuano wikipedias does not have a built-in quality rating system for its article, except that they have Featured articles (15 - Tagalog wikipedia or 0.075% of the total and 19 - Cebuano wikipedia or 0.05% of the total). This means that we are making more and more stub articles and churning out lesser high quality articles. So what is the direction of these Philippine-language wikipedias (and for the rest of the Philippine wikipedias)? Quality or quantity? -- Kleomarlo (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Filipino American Immigration

Anyone want to take a look at this article? It does look like an essay and might be a copyvio.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs a rewrite; the whole article seems to be plagiarised or copy-pasted from some source... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a copyvio to me, but the snippets I looked at were it is pretty close to the source mentioned in the article (see here). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should redirect this to Filipino_American#Immigration which is concise, non-essay and have inline sources. What do you think?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that. *redirects page* Blake Gripling (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Core articles

I've created a Tambayan subpage called Core articles. I've listed what I feel are the top 100 most important Philippine-related articles. It is basically the Tambayan equivalent of WP:CORE and these articles are what we should lean towards in improving. If we can get most articles here into Good article quality and the rest into at least B-class quality, then we can probably distribute these articles as a mini Philippine encyclopedia! It would be greater still if corresponding articles are found in all the other Philippine-language Wikipedias (and can then be included into the mini encyclopedia). I think distributing such an encyclopedia would be one excellent activity Wikimedia Philippines can do. don't you think?

So I'm requesting that all of you peruse the list, edit at will, and talk about the contents of the list in the talk page so that we can get consensus as to what set of articles deserve to be included into the top 100. --seav (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I redirected the Moro secessionist movements article to Islamic insurgency in the Philippines. However, that article redirects to Insurgency in the Philippines, which includes both the Islamic and Communist insurgencies in the Philippines. Someone should split the Islamic insurgency (ASG, MILF) from the Communist insurgency (CPP-NPA). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea so that we can focus our attention on improving the articles most relevant to our country. -- Kleomarlo (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aquino_time.jpg up for deletion by Damiens.rf

Please see the discussion to see why this is not being deleted. --Exec8 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already deleted. Starczamora (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Glorietta article

Can we just make the "2007 Glorietta Explosion" subsection of the Glorietta article much shorter? I think the "Final reports and lawsuits" sub-subsection must be put, or kept in the 2007 Glorietta Explosion article.

Furthermore, it seems that the Incidents part took up almost half of the article, and what's more, it contained almost all negative incidents. There might be tendency that, "huwag na tayong pumunta ng Glorietta. Nakakatakot." (Let's not go to Glorietta anymore. It's too scary). Chitetskoy (talk)

I removed the section since it is already in the main explosion article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews

There are too many promo links from History of the Jews in the Philippines. They're not even of Filipino Jews but of Filipinos who merely reside in Israel. Please do some cleanup before the section gets swamped with unrelated, therefore useless, links. Please monitor it more stringently. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.3.21 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You could remove the said links in the article and put a notification in Talk:History of the Jews in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats up with the Japanese Anime character!?

I think you guys should put something else that would show how proud we are of our filipino traditional filipino clothes instead of using a "JAPANESE" anime character wearing a barong. Such an insult to our heroes who died liberating our country from the Japanese. They paid the ultimate price, only for the Filipino wiki page to be represented by a product of the Empire that tried to enslave the country. Come on guys, be creative naman. Don't Copy. Just go ask some pretty filipina (there are plenty out there) to have their photo wearing barong and saya on the site. I think most Filipinos out there would agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.251.245.78 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm down dude. Just because it's a picture in anime-style doesn't mean she's Japanese. Also, the Philippines is friends with Japan now. Your overreaction here is just ridiculous. TheCoffee (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously are not aware about Wikipe-tan. Why be angry about a character that looks so kawaii? (p.s. Don't tell me you boycott anime and sashimi as well, and abhor the use of the Tagalog word halakhak which originated in Japanese?) Starczamora (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wallowing in hate will get you nowhere and both countries have moved on.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing...Wikipedia is not a forum, this is the wrong place to discuss your views on anime. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is eligible content for this page since he is talking about our project, and how it could be bettered, in his opinion, by replacing the manga woman in our front page with a more Philippine-inspired image. — Felipe Aira 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fraternities up for deletion

Heads up guys. A lot of Philippine fraternities is up for deletion today.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Most of the nominator's objections are about lacking sources. --Efe (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion: of all the fraternities, only Alpha Phi Beta has a better chance of proving notability. It's one of the UP-based law fraternities (like Alpha Phi Omega and Scintilla Juris and Ateneo's Aquila Legis) with alumni ending up as de campanilla lawyers and, yeah, it also has its share of notable (notorious?) fraternity incidents. The others, I think, don't even have mainstream recognition. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Need help in editing Miguel Syjuco article

First...in case you haven't heard, a Filipino won the Man Asian Literary Prize this 2008, so congrats to Miguel Syjuco :)

Now, having said that...it looked like the Miguel Syjuco created and added more information on an article about himself. I'm editing the article and am looking for references all the same, but please feel free to help me out in improving the said article. Given the pulicity he garnered over his win, I'm sure that in time the article will have a good number of readers, so it'll be great if we can improve on it. Thanks --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Indonesia Approved

Good news for our neighbors: foundation:Resolution:Approval of Wikimedia Indonesia --Nino Gonzales (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's make sure that we won't go the way of Wikimedia UK when we finally organize. --seav (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikimedia UK did? --bluemask ^(talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also intrigued with what Wikimedia UK has done. Care to storytell? Axxand (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Read this Signpost article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Wikimedia UK --seav (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that their worst obstacle came from banking so we should be careful with what we choose to deposit to.-Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus among the members of WMPH who discussed the issue of capital during the formation of the Articles of Incorporation to deposit to Banco de Oro. However, Landbank and BPI were also considered. The choice of a bank isn't much of a problem for us; our problem is getting the paperwork (and money) done to actually make that account. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? --Exec8 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...we need to iron out the kinks in the By-laws, raise another P5000, get more members involved and get those who signed up involved more and meet again. If I remember the By-laws comments on SEC guidelines pertaining to videoconferencing or telephone conferencing, Internet conferencing should count also per those guidelines (that resolves the meeting issue). Our general meeting now is the annual convention. Seriously, we can do this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Sky Harbor 18 yet? I recall his birthday is sometime in the current month. :-) --seav (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am, and I have been since last week. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated Happy Birthday!!! Now we can have the next Meet-up at a strip club. Hehehe. --seav (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the others who are not 18? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fanboys edit wars redux

Just to alert our tambays on the recent edit wars of the fanboys. Remember the previous one?

• One True Love (talk · history · watch · protection log) by Wynchard Bloom (talk · contribs) and ISWAK3 (talk · contribs)
• Sam Concepcion (talk · history · watch · protection log) by Wynchard Bloom (talk · contribs) and Slemcal1 (talk · contribs)

They are funny when they give threats on each other. --bluemask ^(talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Slemcal1 was blocked. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now unblocked. — Felipe Aira 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for him. Though he really wrote big blocks in making his pitch, somehow he redeemed himself of what happened, unlike that other guy. I think Slemcal1 can be possibly put up for adoption.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no choice but to concisely defend myself. I had to write "big blocks" and include every detail so that i could persuade Administrators that I'm innocent. It was quite hard as it took me a while to realize how much complaints wynchard has filed against me. and yet he was really the guilty one. He said i was evil because he assumed i was lying about not being a sockpuppet of some other user and look how things turned out in the end. Now, that's funny.Slemcal (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense to all the armies of the Tambay who had made close contact with the fanboys above, but in reviewing Wynchard Bloom's action and the way he carries his operation, he seems a bit possessive of his work. Additionally, his sphere of activity generates cold acceptance to newbies by putting warning signs on their talk pages. He also resorts to asking for assistance with other Tambays which results to compel pressure to the person he has argued upon. Yay! Wala lang. Napansin ko lang. :) Axxand (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2008 (Phils)

Thanks Axxand for appreciating my contributions, you so good wikipedian. Your very far with the attitude of Stubborn Starczamora who's tryin his best to embarrass me on the way. Evil (Starczamora) never succeed. --Wynchard Bloom (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand what I just said above? Bit odd you are thanking me. Kindly observe pro forma politeness talking to other editors. Axxand (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse yes, I'm just thankful to you because your kind and your very far with the king of evil named Starczamora. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has a reading comprehension problem. --seav (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard Gonzales is at it again...

This time, the "cousin" of Angel Locsin accused me of sockpuppetry. Starczamora (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because your also accusing me as a sock puppet. You deserve it! Wynchard Bloom (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Starczamora (talk)

Lol ka dyan, Nek nek mo. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wynchard, only admins with checkuser privilege can prove if an account is a sockpuppet of another. Simply adding the "This user is a sockpuppet of ___" userbox doesn't make that any true other than anyone's tenuous belief; you're better of looking for an admin with checkuser privilege so that he or she can help prove/disprove this. Until then, assume good faith and don't assume/presume that any account is a sockpuppet of another unless you have solid proof backed up by a checkuser admin's findings. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

His/ Her immaturity is actually amusing. Starczamora (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah Its really amusing just deserves to the immature one like you. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please be reminded of WP:CIVIL. --Efe (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Star, I suggest that you contact User:Sarah again since she has more experience in handling Gerard. I'm not sure if this is the same user but their styles have similarities.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi to all, I just want you to clear that I swear im not really a sock. I dont know why is it that your suspecting me, on what? because i edit the page of Angel Locsin, Sam Concepcion, Sarah Geronimo? of course i edit that pages because they are famous and i admire them. If that's the reason why this wricked user suspects me, well i dont really know, he better go to a mental hospital and check up. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Wynchard Bloom is a sockpuppet of banned user Gerald Gonzalez. Sarah 05:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're quite obsessed with Angel. — Felipe Aira 07:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's so funny how he denies everything. Its ironic how he made so much assumptions about me and misguided the Administrators to knowing the truth and now look who has been proven guilty. :) Slemcal (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On assessment

Hello, How can I include an article in the Tambayan Philippines? Also, I want it to be assessed thanks. --Pampi1010 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The instruction are in here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One-sentence article clean-up at the tl wiki

You might want to assist in cleaning up One event one sentence showbiz articles in the Tagalog Wiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch this user's edits

Hello mga tambay, keep one eye open for this user and his edits; some are suspicious. I wouldn't say he's a history revisionist, but maybe he's simply mistaken: User $antander and his contributions. Or I may be mistaken as well, so the more eyes, the better. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, I'm getting a vague idea where he's coming from, ideologically speaking. (Or is it anti-ideological?). His edits mostly concern the Hispanic era, and in most edit cases I am not sufficiently knowledgable there to effectively judge whether or not he's inserting revisionist rhetoric. In fact, in some cases, he removed what I felt were revisionist perspectives that had crept their way into orthodoxy. But again, I have no particular interest in that era except where it influences the records of the pre-colonial era. In that regard, I did undo one of his edits to Tarik Sulayman, where I think his motivation was to clarify the article; the end result, however, was that the article asserted something not absolutely accepted by, and in fact negated by, current orthodoxy. (Namely, it seems he confused Tarik Sulayman of Macabebe with Rajah Sulayman of Manila.) I must seek the Tambayan's collective wisdom whether he was correct to move Rajah Sulayman to Rajah Sulaiman III, although I'm certain he was rude in doing so without prior consultation. But... we do tell people to be bold, don't we? Perhaps a set of guidelines for work on Philippine History and Culture would be useful? Hm, •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak!, I'd appreciate knowing which of his edits you find particularly suspicious. So many of his edits concern grammatical and spelling corrections and rewriting for flow that I'm not sure what to look for, specifically. (Er...I'll also take this chance to thank those who wikify and clean up my typo messes after me. I do try to be better, but such is truly not my strong suit.) -- Alternativity (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was most concerned with the Rajah Sulayman move to Rajah Sulaiman III; however, it's way out of league, as I'm not an expert historian. So I let it be. We've edit warred on the Lapu-Lapu article as well, as he kept editing referenced lines with the result that detracted from the spirit of what was qouted in the sources cited. But that's been straightened up now. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his arbitrariness is becoming quite irritating. Alternativity (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to figure out what to do with him soon, the damage he's doing is highly nuanced in terms of choice of words, and specialized in terms of scope. Mostly he seems to be de-indigenizing articles, doing things like changing "Barangay" to "Barrio", erasing nuances as he goes along. The thing is, he also does good in removing some awkward phrasing, such that every time he edits you have to wonder whether the new phrasing has introduced an inaccurate nuance already. (Oh dear. He just erased "Pakikisama" and replaced "Utang na Loob" with "Debt of Gratitude"...) -- Alternativity (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And oh, I dunno about you, but to me he smells like a sockpuppet. -- Alternativity (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Commission article

Hey, you might want to look at this article. I think the Template:Politics of the Philippines, which is used in the article, has errors causing this.Kleomarlo (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up for Culture of the Philippines and History of the Philippines

Given the number of edits and the nuanced nature of the POV of the changes that have happened in these two areas (not just these specific articles, but their extensions as well), I think we need to be very watchful. -- Alternativity (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Bautista is up for CSD

Hi, could any tambays help re-write this article? The peacock laden text would really have to go.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the notice and leave it bare then let the nominator go through AFD if s/he's willing to go through that. –Howard the Duck 05:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's no need, Bluemask is already fixing the article. Go Bluemask!--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Efe

Hello fellow tambays. We need to give our opinions here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Support indeed. Haha. How I wish someday I can get a nomination. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful on what you wish for ;)--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, my No. 79 vote was counted for him. Yeah! If Efe becomes admin, I hope, that, since I am lazy to read Wiki Rules, Efe would help me, have my legal articles corrected-reviewed, like music, and then, let Efe put my articles to be featured, even just one. Remember that I have no featured article, but my E-jay killings article had been used worldwide by jurists and even in the Ateneo Law School, which I hope I would not have enrolled at, in 1978, if only time can be clocked otherwise. Pardon my English. Just asking a favor. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The nomination passed and I am very grateful to all you guys. (I'm working on the template now.) --Efe (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did deserve it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sky. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate admins section in the Tambayan roster

Since we are seeing a mini-boom in the number of Filipino admins, maybe we should have a separate section in the roster naming admins who are part of this WikiProject. This is done in the Singapore Wikipedians' notice board. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it would make communications easier--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Every template that have this image is redlinked but the delete summary says it is in commons. Perhaps someone who has a Commons account help fix this. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted also in Commons due to copyvio issues. See this. --Efe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin restore the version of en.wp so that the templates will not be broken? Tag it with {{non-free seal}} and {{non-free Philippines government}} until the public domain status is established. --Bluemask (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we link the Philippine flag instead.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities no longer

What a waste of time, effort, and money. SC reverts 16 cities to town status. These need to be fixed:

• Baybay City (Leyte)
• Bogo City (Cebu)
• Catbalogan City (Samar)
• Tandag City (Surigao del Sur)
• Borongan City (Eastern Samar)
• Tayabas City (Quezon)
• Lamitan City (Basilan)
• Tabuk City (Kalinga)
• Bayugan City (Agusan del Sur)
• Batac City (Ilocos Norte)
• Mati City (Davao Oriental)
• Guihulngan City (Negros Oriental)
• Cabadbaran City (Agusan del Norte)
• Carcar City (Cebu)
• El Salvador City (Misamis Oriental)
• Naga City, Cebu (Cebu)

-TheCoffee (Talk)

I just read the article in Inquirer and was to post it here. TheCoffee beat me to this. :-) Anyway: *rolls eyes* Their history sections must mention that they where elevated to city status before the SC struck down their cityhood laws. --seav (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I should have been the first to notify all of you, but Coffee was rather fast, in reading this nightmare to Wikipedia articles. I will not edit on this. Gosh. Imagine, in just one wink of an eye, the Court erased history. But, they should have read the Constitution and the finer points, before they created these cities. How many hours did Filipino Wikipedians wasted on these cities, and how much hours should Filipino Wikipedians spend to clean these ton of articles. Maybe, group assignments. Here is the official link[1]SC Voids 16 Cityhood Laws Posted: November 18, 2008 By Jay B. Rempillo. (NOTE that the full text of decision has not yet been released on the website). Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, what do we do next? Editing? --Efe (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys are fast! I was also about to post this news here, I must be getting old ;) Just one question: Is there a possibility that someone appeals the decision of the Supreme Court? If so, changing the articles should be postponed until the deadline for the appeal. Magalhães (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The matter could still be appealed and unless the Supreme Court rules with finality or no motion for reconsideration (which is unlikely) had been filed then it should be final. Just like Shariff Kabunsuan's case where they appealed the court's decision, hence the provincial government of Shariff Kabunsuan has really not yet been dissolved. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, upon reading RA No. 7160 (the 1991 Local Government Code) and RA No. 9009 (amending Section 450 of the said Code), the creation of these 16 cities seem to be fair actually. RA No. 9009 raised the income requirement to become a city from P20M to P100M and it became effective in 2001. These 16 towns met the old requirement and so they had cityhood bills before 2001, but which were not passed when RA No. 9009 took effect. So their exemption from the new requirement had some basis. --seav (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The court's argument was simply:

• First, applying the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 to the present case is a prospective, not a retroactive application, because RA 9009 took effect in 2001 while the cityhood bills became law more than five years later.
• Second, the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the Local Government Code and not in any other law, including the Cityhood Laws.
• Third, the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6, Article X of the Constitution because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units.
• Fourth, the criteria prescribed in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended by RA 9009, for converting a municipality into a city are clear, plain and unambiguous, needing no resort to any statutory construction.
• Fifth, the intent of members of the 11th Congress to exempt certain municipalities from the coverage of RA 9009 remained an intent and was never written into Section 450 of the Local Government Code.
• Sixth, the deliberations of the 11th or 12th Congress on unapproved bills or resolutions are not extrinsic aids in interpreting a law passed in the 13th Congress.
• Seventh, even if the exemption in the Cityhood Laws were written in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, the exemption would still be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize we have a troller regarding this brouhaha: Special:Contributions/Trapskid. (And there's just been a discussion on TV about this on Umagang Kay Ganda.) --seav (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, how do we go about this? For the stubby city articles of those 16, I think we should put up a note in the lead section about the SC decision (but we don't change the status quo). For the more substantive ones, a note in the lead section and maybe a paragraph in the history section. Then the following two articles need to have notes added: Cities in the Philippines and List of cities in the Philippines. We only do final edits when the issue is rendered with finality by the SC because it appears that their decision will be appealed (especially since the decision is too close: 6-5). --seav (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Inquirer, the decision is being appealed. So better we leave the articles alone for now and change only when the Supreme Court decided with finality. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But a note about the SC decision (and appeal) should be placed to preempt those who are not familiar with the Tambayan. --seav (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please join in the discussion for article naming of city articles. It's at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities. –Howard the Duck 03:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack!!!

This dude has been going around copy-pasting these articles to the "correct title" leaving out the articles' history in a mess. Can an admin resolve this mess? --seav (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban on Gerald Gonzalez?

OK, so in response to the recent block on User:Wynchard Bloom, a suspected sock of Gonzalez, has anyone thought of having him banned from editing Wikipedia, after all those bashing and harassment from him ("this is 100 percent Wikipedian!"; "that idiot [insert name here]")? We could like, give him the certificate of pwnage and tell him to keep his hands off Jimbo's turf, right? Blake Gripling (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's technically banned: If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So is a ban tag necessary on him? Blake Gripling (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the box placed on Wynchard's User page ("This account...has been blocked indefinitely") already serves this purpose :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He/she lasted 25 days. Next time, if he/she ever visits wiki world again, I bet 10 days is enough. Axxand (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually have a bad feeling that he/ she will be back a few hours from now (under a different nick of course). Starczamora (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the administrator blocked the IP address being used by that "just a fan [insert name here]." Tambay zone may have a peaceful time, temporarily, I hope. I wish. Axxand (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to have a formal community ban proposal and discussion. He is defacto banned by virtue of the fact that no admin will ever want to unblock him and any socks he used once the original block was placed can be blocked on sight as block evading sockpuppets. Sarah 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He did came back, this time under the alias I Love Philippines. It was similar in style and in pattern to Wynchard. I LOL'd at the fact that he claimed that his page was vandalized seven times, yet he's the only one messing with it (copy-paste from other userpages, perhaps?). The good news is that Luna Santin threw the hammer on him after a few hours. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I told you he'll be back. Starczamora (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been my main topic for the past 5 days as well as other people who are affected, and he just doesn't stop. I wonder when he will come to an end? haha Slemcal (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It will end, provided that either we blanket the Philippines (or Metro Manila or any place in the country, whose area code starts with "02") with an autoblock or hope and pray for a guy like Jason Bourne to silently take out fanboys (and fugly fangirls). Or enjoy this one. Better yet, pray that gerald will wean away from his addiction. To be honest, I don't know which method is effective. -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning him on Pekepedia will produce the effect you wish to produce. Pekepedia as far as I know is virtually unheard of outside of Wikipedia circles, at least in the Philippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the point: we kick his ass without him noticing it. And it's "protected" as well. Sorry for bringing that up. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What the... we have our own Uncyclopedia now? You should have told me. Starczamora (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wanna join. –Howard the Duck 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I already did. You should too. Starczamora (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the concept of a Tagalog Uncyclopedia was all Howard's idea. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If only computers and work liked me I would've written a Gerald Gonzalez article on Pekepedia. –Howard the Duck 12:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Meron na. Starczamora (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Howard just kidding when he said he wanna join? :) Anyways, guess whose name comes first in the Tambayan roster. Hoho! Axxand (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) NeoSkyte? :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Awts! Hehe. Now it's not funny anymore! Hehe. :) Axxand (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to the Philippines. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/PhilippinesSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Makes monitoring stuff easier. Now I'm appalled by the fact that there are many new articles that should be deleted for spam and vanity reasons. --seav (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful indeed. This is the first time I saw those artics. Axxand (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bikol Wikipedia's 1st Anniversary

Ringer and I, Filipinayzd, will celebrate the first year of our Wikipedia on November 24, 2008. Last night, we met for the first time and have decided to print a tarpaulin promoting Bikol Wikipedia. Can you help us with the design? Thanks! --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You might want to check up the tarpaulin designs created for the Cebu ICT last September. --seav (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find a high resolution of Bikol Wikipedia logo. Do you know the fonts used for for "WIKIPEDIA" and "The Free Encyclopedia"? --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried checking out MS Word and the Wikipedia banner images for the fonts, the closest I could think of was Garamond...but then again, I may be wrong.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to meta:Logo template, the font is Garamond. The WMPH logo for Bikol (which would be Wikimedia Filipinas) uses Gill Sans MT (this logo already exists). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a way of celebrating Bikol Wikipedia's 1st anniversary on November 24th, it sponsored the literary and poster-making contests in the 74th National Book Week Celebration of Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges-Naga City Campus held from Nov. 24-28. Pictures to be posted probably tomorrow. We had our tarpaulin and push pins. --Filipinayzd (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Me beside the Bikol Wikipedia tarpaulin --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's talkpage

You might be interested here. The Tambayan Wikipedia was mentioned in Jimbo Wale's talkpage. Issues about confidentiality of using real names as evidences to a specific catholic school's, er let me say, dignity? Florentino floro is being suspected as Lux Lord, both of whom are blocked right now, but I doubt--think they are the same person. Sorry, I can't elaborate more as I have urgent matters to address right now. Just click the link if you are interested! Ow, namaste! ( I learned that from reading their messages.) Axxand (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro was blocked? I see he was accused of sockpuppetry and harassing "outing" they say. Personally I believe that he was sockpuppeting: eloquent style, overly formal style again, usage of foreign phrases, religious remarks. — Felipe Aira 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I "barely left" en.wiki. Do understand him, since he has the kind of wisdom that can't be picked up from the street or in a religious sermon. Hope that the community gives him a second chance, else, I'll etend my wikibreak. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah boycott. — Felipe Aira 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, Florentino Floro also studied at Ateneo de Manila.. But I am not assuming! Hehe. Axxand (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't support the idea giving my real name just because I am part of a prestigious entity! :) boycott it is. Axxand (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give Justice Floro a second chance, although I don't understand why Ateneans would go so far as to complain to disown their own alumni simply because he mentioned that Ateneo is his alma mater. If Ateneo were to complain to high heaven, then I'd say "To hell with all alumni userboxes!" --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read the talk pages you described, but yet I see the similarities of lux lord and floro's text. too flowery and full of Latin.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Has the Lux Lord account ever been used by Floro to circumvent 3R, and continue the alleged harassing to other users or was he (Lux account) simply blocked since it was used to circumvent the block? — Felipe Aira 09:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe Lux Lord account was never used as to outwit wiki to circumvent 3RR in Floro's gain. I doubt they are the same person. The Lux account's mission is to raise their academe's issue. That account is not used in any way with anyone's profit. That's my observation. Axxand (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC) -- After careful study, I think I should strike what I have said before. :) Axxand (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a serious reason to believe that Lux Lord and Florentino Floro are the same...or, at least, are too closely related. And in this case, it was Migs who inadvertently helped me determine that Lux Lord is trying to conceal this. (See my response to Lux Lord's talk page). Right now, I don't have anything that will pass WP:RS, but all I can say is that Lux Lord inadvertently mentioned a prominent doctor in town (now deceased) that I and my family---and many other people from my hometown---know. (Heck, I've even sat in some parish meetings with the said doctor in attendance when he was still alive, so I'm pretty sure that the said doctor Lux Lord claims to know is definitely from our place.) The Freudian slip is just too irresistible to pass up. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Inadvertently?" Really? :) --Migs (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk about name-dropping. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@migs: Yeah, I'd really say "inadvertently". He thinks that by casually mentioning those names no one will be able to recognize them (or as we say in Tagalog, baka akala nya makakalusot sya. Malas lang nya kasi kilala ko rin yung namayapang Dr. Bordador na binanggit nya.) There are other details that really makes me believe the connection is strong, but because these are off-Wiki information I'd rather not discuss them here. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And, let me add: currently, he has made a reply alleging that he isn't a sock puppet, in spite of and despite what I said. I can't reconcile this statement and the glaring fact that, despite his denials, he is so eager to show the slightest hints of his association with FF. Either LL and FF are the same (hmm...bakit parehong-pareho ng first letters ng pangalan?), or FF and LL are two persons who do know each other (which still means that there's an association). --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the first use of "inadvertently;" that is, I certainly intended for him to dig his own grave like that and it was not inadvertent at all. :) In any case, I really don't think there's any question as to who he is. He talks exactly the same way, except he replaced his "cheers" with "pax christi." He has the same obsessions in every account he makes (which I won't name here because it might give him evasion tips) and namedrops the exact same people and places. Given his propensity for making sockpuppets, I think the main concern now is more of making sure they're all caught rather than proving they're sockpuppets (since that seems to be really easy so far). What I'm worried about is that that given his history, he might never get tired of it and forever keep wasting time that could have been better spent editing. --Migs (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ow, I am not sure as my reply goes. It is quite complicated and I am not quite good at such. Axxand (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lux Lord was blocked because it's a sockpuppet account Floro's using to get around the block. The evidence is overwhelming, there's no doubt it's Floro. TheCoffee (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guh, so now he's editing anonymously. Too bad most ISPs in the Philippines give dynamic IPs. --Migs (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's his newest sockpuppet. Enjoy. (Can someone take care of this, he's getting tiring) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Village_Idiot_Sabant --Migs (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Google translator

Do you want to translate a word/website from English to Filipino or Filipino to English?

visit http://translate.google.com.ph/translate_t#en%7Ctl%7C

Nakakaloka, Isn't it? --Exec8 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I typed this: I went to the market to buy some vegetables. And the result is this: I went sa market para bumili ng ilang mga gulay. I LOLed to be honest. Starczamora (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I tested it as well. Yeah, still barok when I tried to automatically translate longer pharagraphs through it. But it has a featured tool where you can contribute a better translation which will help in updating and improving the system. So, we can look forward that this will become more developed in the future. - AnakngAraw (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Computers are still very weak when translating to Tagalog. The algorithm required for such process seems to be nakakaloka as of now. It's better to do a manual translation. There had been websites (mostly technical) offering automatic translation but I just cannot understand the computerized Tagalog translation. e.g. "Mikroskopyo Dungawan" for "Microsoft Windows" (lol!). Better if someone who programmed our PCOS machine do a Tagalog translator (lol!). Chitetskoy (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the independent ensiklopedyang nobody can change." TheCoffee (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment department: Worklist Batch 2

I have generated a new list of about 1,800 articles for possible assessment as part of the scope of the Tambayan Philippines. Like before, these are all generated from Philippine-related categories. Take note that not all of them need to be tagged. Also, if you see problematic articles, ask the Tambayan for help or tag for deletion. Enjoy! --seav (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. We have broken the 10,000 articles milestone! (Now the big problem is bringing them all up to standards...)

This is an index (batch 2) to all the currently potentially Philippine-related articles that are unassessed. The whole article list is broken down into batches of 100 articles.

If you're going to work on assessing a batch of articles, indicate that you're currently working on that batch by signing your name beside the link. If you're done with that batch, strike it out by surrounding the link with <s>...</s>. Please note that not all articles listed here are under the scope of the Tambayan Philippines. Please see the Scope section of the Assessment department page for details.

This index: view • talk • edit • Generated on Mon Dec 1 11:54:46 2008 (UTC) (1,887 articles)

1. 101.5 Big Sound FM to Anak (film) --Starczamora (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Anastacio Caedo to Bay Radio Tacloban
3. Bayugan National Comprehensive High School to Christ the Lord of Harvest Academy
4. Christian Coronel to DXRR  Done Kleomarlo (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
5. DXRT to Eduardo Malapit  Done --seav (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Education in Parañaque City to Francisco Villacruz, Jr.
7. Frank Rivera to Ikaw  Done Kleomarlo (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Ikaw Na Sana to Juan Paolo Aquino  Done --Kleomarlo (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Juan Rico to Kulam (2008 film)
10. Kung Fu Kids to Lynda Barry  Done --Kleomarlo (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Lyndon Remias to Menudo (soup)
12. Merceditas N. Gutierrez to Notre Dame of Marbel University
13. Notre Dame of Midsayap College (NDMC) to Philippine Science High School Cagayan Valley Campus
14. Philippine Science High School Central Visayas Campus to Romeo Munoz Cachola
15. Romeo Villalva Tabuena to Shirley Siaton
16. Shoppers' Center to Taoist Temple
17. Tasya Fantasya to University of Santo Tomas College of Commerce
18. University of Santo Tomas College of Education to Óscar del Rosario  Done --seav (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not to be used in any TV broadcast"

To whoever has been adding "Not to be used in any TV broadcast" to tons of the city/town locator maps at the Commons... Maps that I made are licensed under the GFDL and Creative Commons, and I don't have a problem with people using the images as long as they abide by the terms of the license. TheCoffee (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Map plagiarism by ABS-CBN?

OK, so is it me, or am I seeing something familiar whenever I watch the News Patrol on ABS-CBN? As I peeked at the TV during the break of I Love Betty La Fea, the breaking news showed up, and an incident involving an aircraft accident flashed right in front of me. When I looked at the map showing the crash site, it looked eerily familiar - very, very similar in style to this one by TheCoffee:

lol, plagiarism?

I dunno, but will it qualify as a case of plagiarism, since they seem to have just taken it without permission from us? If we're trying hard to abide by their copyright rules (like NOT uploading straight rips of Wowowee on Youtube, like in the case of some Filipinos out there who don't seem to care), then why can't these guys get even and give us proper credit for it? Blake Gripling (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion in the archives. _{Man, I really need to sleep now.}--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tsk... they never learn. And I thought Rated K had to pay P400,000 for a image from the Internet that they have used? Starczamora (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not fond of ABS-CBN, nor I want to defend them in any way. By the way, the image is licensed by GFDL, meaning, anyone (including ABS-CBN or GMA) can make use of that image freely. Chitetskoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

@Chitetskoy: There are still requirements. GFDL states that the original authors must be given. A simple "Courtesy of Wikipedia" is, IMO, suffice to satisfy the requirement. ABS-CBN does not even acknowledge the source. --bluemask ^(talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm right, ABS-CBN is not even the only one that uses Wikipedia maps without credit in news reports. I saw a few incidences on GMA, and once on IBC.(Yes, even the government, who gave us the problem of Section 176 of the IPCP, does not give credit to Wikipedia maps they get for the sake of news reports.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Net 25 uses it too. –Howard the Duck 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And so does ANC (ABS-CBN owned cable news channel). I've noticed it on a news about Maguindanao just two weeks ago. — Felipe Aira 05:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that ABS-CBN had always using Wikipedia materials without permission from Wikipedia. That's the another violation of ABS-CBN not only to the copyright of Wikipedia but also to the Intellectual Code of the Philippines. ABS-CBN must be sued for these violations.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and this is not the first time ABS ran afoul of WP, let alone us tambays. Check Archive 17 Thread 59. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the incidences involving the media's use of Wikipedia maps trace back to ABS-CBN. However, it's not just the media who use the maps without permission...even LGUs too! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Contact the station regarding this issue, anyone? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

These violations made by the TV stations in the Philippines (commercial or government TV stations) must be stopped through low court injunction so that these television stations would stop using Wikipedia materials without credits. For God sake, Government stations and LGU itself also uses Wikipedia materials without credit means that they violate also R.A 8293.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And who will sue on the behalf of Wikimedia and the images' authors? Perhaps when Wikimedia Philippines is already established, the chapter could make this as one of their focuses? It is the chapters' mission to promote Wikimedia, I believe this is part of promoting, protecting, protecting it's contributors. But maybe not sue first, but Wikimedia Philippines would only communicate on Wikimedia's behalf. If ever that we should plan to represent Wikimedia, we should get permission first since the chapters are only to promote not to represent. Yet this would be a plus point for the chapter when it gets established since this is newsworthy. People read/watch news, and know about us if that's the case. — Felipe Aira 10:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Felipe, What if the media outlets would not heard us?--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to give a perspective. I've been able to successfully contact ABS-CBN News Online regarding copyright infringement on the website. So the companies do listen, and they listen carefully (especially since a photographer sued The Manila Bulletin for copyright infringement [MB counter-sued, BTW]). But take note that ABS-CBN News Online is a different company from the broadcasting arm. --seav (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Different, but related. They do have contacts with the other arms, I guess, but what did they say? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

They took the offending material off their pages. A live newscast is a different ballgame altogether. And they could claim fair-use actually. --seav (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we actually have a fair use clause in our constitution. — Felipe Aira 10:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in the constitution, but in the Philippine copyright law. --seav (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Few hours ago, ABS-CBN through TV Patrol World use again the Wikimedia materials without credits. This time, the map of Casiguran, Aurora.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow we really need to establish WMPH. This really has got to stop. Maybe we should have a noticeboard about this for a while not only about the locator map violations but all image violations done here in the Philippines so that when WMPH starts its operations about these matters we'll know where to start with. — Felipe Aira 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another one (http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2322). I found it while finding municipal maps for Maguindanao. Yes I am already at Maguindanao right now so expevt the finality of my map on the second week of December. Next would be Zamboanga peninsula and the Basilan, Tawi-tawi and Jolo islands. The end. Finally. And also do you know any image that shows the political map of Maguindanao and those provinces. Many towns were created/splitted lately, and the locator maps that we have are pretty obsolete. — Felipe Aira 03:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recently seen ABS-CBN use my Camarines Norte locator map when they were reporting about the flooding in that province. ABS-CBN is definitely the most egregrious offender. --seav (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

People I created this noticeboard for copyright violations. I hope you like it. (WP:TAMBAY/CV) Report copyvios that you find there. — Felipe Aira 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A moment of your time

Could somebody glance at this diff a second and make sure it's constructive, and not vandalism? Choess (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is vandalism. It translates to "vaginal penis," whatever that is. Starczamora (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Basilan

Please take time to look and fix this article. Found this while assessing Philippine-related articles. Thanks -- Kleomarlo (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First mass in the Philippines

I know we've mentioned this here before but I really think we need to concretely tackle the problem of First mass in the Philippines and related articles. Vicente seems to be doing WP:SYN, though I'm not sure. --seav (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And oh, Vicente may also have a WP:COI here since I've noticed that this user has inserted his username as a person in that article. --seav (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, lot of it seems like syn and/or or. The coi thingy seems easy to fix. Just kill the name from the prose. Not necessary at all since it has nothing to do with the subject. And since a lot of it seems unsourced, nix as well. Shrumster (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check this out

Please take a look at Gloria Riomales article, I think it has multiple issues that should be fixed. Thanks -- Kleomarlo (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion. Also, I searched for her in Google and was surprised to see an Asian Journal article with a few paragraphs about her that seems to heavily paraphrase from the Wikipedia article. Note that the Wikipedia article was created in 2007 but the AJ article was published just last November. We have a potential circular sourcing problem here.--seav (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok... the Asian Journal article did not heavily paraphrase, it heavily plagiarized. Can anyone check if there are any other articles from which either the Asian Journal article or the Wikipedia article have come from? --seav (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PhilWiki Chat 7

Since the community is in hibernate mode for a while, lets sit down and open a chat window.

Date

November 30, 2008 (Sunday)

Time

7:00 PM til 12:00 AM Philippine Standard (1100-1600 UTC)

Platform

Yahoo Messenger.

Topic

Anything about the community.

For any questions, just pop me a message --Exec8 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be there when I have some spare time... Blake Gripling (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Count me in since December 1 is a holiday. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

'ey guys, wanna join, no idea how. A little help please? :P Shrumster (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start it now. Add me felipe_aira@yahoo.com.ph so you could get an invite. — Felipe Aira 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

People it's already 8 what happened to you guys. — Felipe Aira 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was in an important commitment + stuck in traffic (due to shopping season). I'll send felipe with some contacts so that he can preside on a conference in the future. --Exec8 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was late also but we were able to continue the meeting. Here are the participants: Exec8, Jojit, Delfin Dakila, Scorpion Prinz, TheCoffee and Emir Mendoza.

Topics discussed:

1. Alternative bank for WMPH like BPI, PNB or Landbank;
2. Commitment on establishing WMPH;
3. Registering Wikimedia Philippines again in SEC;
4. Other matters concerning WMPH like having a lawyer;
5. AnakngAraw should join WMPH;
6. Manila 5: Tentatively on January 2009 at CCP if there are enough Wikipedians who wish to participate and it will be a venue for electing officers for WMPH;
7. Copyright issues of images;
8. Manila Skyline image as featured picture;
9. Google translator;
10. Problems on Tagalog Wikipedia;

--Jojit (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

--I tried to join, as mentioned at Tagalog Wikipedia's Kapihan. Actually created a YM account and tried to contact Felipe's coordinates above. - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the transcript? — Felipe Aira 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I came, too late. My bad. :-S -- Alternativity (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

census information

Does anyone know where I can download or access information about the Philippine Census 1995, 1990, 1980, 1970 and earlier? I am looking for population information for all municipalities and cities. I did find this website, but it requires a password. thanks, Magalhães (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a spreadsheet with population data as far back as 1995. TheCoffee (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Hopefully somebody has access to population data of 1990, 1980, 1970 and even earlier. I have sent an email to the professor mentioned as a contact person of the above mentioned website to see whether I can get a password. Magalhães (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion about barangays

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Barangay_redirects. I'd like to get opinions from you people who have discussed this barangay issue many time over the past several years (whether for or against) to check it out. --seav (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seav (talk · contribs)'s mass deletions of articles.

Can someone please help out in dealing with Seav, who unilaterally decided to mass-delete articles on Barangays by making them redirects. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer. Err, is there really a need to have separate independent pages? Pls work with us, we've had issues like this before. One important issue is that of notability. If Seav dowen't do this , it is likely someone else will. Besides, redirects are not deletes. Let me see. Pls assume good faith.--Jondel (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)--Jondel (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether we need separate independent pages is a good question and that question is answered by discussing these issues at its proper outlet. If people go around redirecting articles because they feel that they're not notable we will have anarchy here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus was to keep. No matter how stupid it is they should be kept. I'm thinking of ways to convince other people that barangays of all sizes were virtually worthless. That's a better way to deal with this madness. –Howard the Duck 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you being extreme in wanting to Block SEAV? Remember, every time you edit, a statement at the bottom of the edit informs you that your edits will be mercilessly edited by other editors. Pls understand that there is thin line between being bold and anarchy. So how do we distinguish between being bold, unilateraly moving editing or moving and anarchy? Being bold is to encourage you to write. There is an unwritten rule in wikipedia of being harmonious, of which wikipedia is famous for. Also try to imbibe the spirit in which the rules were made. Lawyering, and heavy disputing will make things so complicated. Its best to understand to understand why the rule was made and assume good faith. See WP:AGF. Ps understand that Seav, is one of the pioneers here in wikipedia , not to mention, the pinoy wikipedia group.--Jondel (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! We can't have one editor go around unilaterally redirecting articles that he decides are unnotable. A person redirecting articles sans any sort of discussion is not being bold, he's just violating multiple wikipedia policies. If you were interested in spreading harmony you might want to go to all the editors that worked hard on the barangay articles and apologize to them for the insult they received by having their articles summarily redirected. I assumed good faith the first time I reverted. I asked him to stop his unilateral redirects and he refused. I can no longer assume good faith. Sorry, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, discussions on the notability of barangay articles have almost always led to delete votes, and in turn, a general consensus that they are not notable. While it can be conceded that some articles have been kept (most notably Barangay Pulong Buhangin in Santa Maria, Bulacan), the keep votes on some articles does not serve as enough justification to claim that consensus has changed enough to merit the inherent notability of barangays. If I were to justify Seav's actions in one sentence, I'd say he's merely obeying consensus as agreed upon by the community. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this consensus? Does Seav have proof of such a consensus? I have evidence to the contrary. Check out this graph that I tracked down from these archives:

Barangay	Location	AfD status
Pulong Buhangin	Santa Maria, Bulacan
		keep
Pandayan	Meycauayan City, Bulacan	delete
Hilabago	Dagami, Leyte	merge to Dagami, Leyte
Tumalip	Licuan-Baay, Abra	delete
Cabaroan	Bacnotan, La Union	merge to Bacnotan, La Union
Pugalo	Alcoy, Cebu	keep
Tetuan	Zamboanga City	no consensus/keep
Tumaga	Zamboanga City	no consensus/keep
Sapangbato	Angeles City	no concensus
Santo Angel (Ilog)	San Pablo City	merge/redirect
Salangbato	Famy, Laguna	keep

This does not represent any sort of consensus in support of the mass redirects of barangays. If anything, to the contrary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They are unnotable, most of them. — Felipe Aira 03:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, if there's any consensus, there's no consensus whether to delete brgy. articles. Ergo, no consensus = keep. –Howard the Duck 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"go to all the editors that worked hard on the barangay articles and apologize to them for the insult they received by having their articles" I'm going to have to point out WP:OWN here. Shrumster (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? I was responding to Jondel's comment regarding harmony. Who is spreading more harmony, the editor who goes redirecting articles that a large number of people have worked hard on or the editor who sticks up for the large number of people that have created barangay articles only to see their hard work get dumped in the trash by one editor making unilateral notability determinations? If you find the former editor to be more harmonious than the latter editor, please provide a better way for the latter editor to stop this mass violation of WP policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was (and still is), no matter who edits what, nobody owns articles. So everyone is free to play around with them/edit war if you want. Theoretically, it all works out in the end. And it doesn't matter if a dozen or a thousand editors work really hard on a particular article. If what they add is unsourced, insignificant, crufty stuff, then somebody will eventually come along and trim that stuff from the article. And there are always ways to keep relevant stuff in. Since the said articles aren't being deleted, go into the history and grab whichever text you need and add it to the main articles such as the towns/cities where those barangays belong to and try to work your info in. If they stick, then they belong. If they're cruft, well we all know what happens to that here on WP. Shrumster (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so your point was - WP:OWN. Off-topic, but a point nonetheless. The topic was "harmony". I don't know if you've ever created an article, but a peron's natural instinct is to be proud of an article that he or she creates and be hurt when it is summarily deleted into a redirect by one editor acting alone. You can quote policies, guidelines, and essays from today till tomorrow, but it doesn't effect a way of civilly dealing with editors who worked hard on an article and are proud of their work. There are real people with real feelings behind the computer screens that are creating this encyclopedia. There are better way of dealing with real people than to provide them with WP:OWN wikilinks when their work is deleted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor's feelings don't matter in the grand scheme of things here. And I already gave you an alternative to just ranting and reverting - if your work truly deserves to be in articlespace, put it there. Dude, I'm a fervent content-generator for a ton of Gundam and Warhammer 40,000 articles...many of which don't exist anymore. That's the nature of fighting the notability battle here in WP. You can work for hours and hours on an article, perfecting every little detail...and later on, there it goes. The WP way has always been live with it, or leave it. And you keep stating that articles are being deleted when in fact, they are not. You can access the history, you can re-insert whatever relevant text you want retained wherever you think it may be appropriate in. And if you think you can actually bulk a barangay article up with sourced articletext, you're welcome to do so. And I disagree - policies, guidelines and essays are civil ways of dealing with editorial conflicts. Much more civil than trying to get someone blocked and/or banned. Shrumster (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So then we'll agree to disagree on this off-topic subject. Unlike yourself, I think that editors' feelings matter a great deal in the grand scheme of things since this encyclopedia is volunteer-built. If something you worked hard on gets dumped in the trash by another editor and it has no effect on you - lucky you. Most editors, if not everyone besides for you, are not desensitized to that extent. But I ask you, to whom wikipolicy is of archimportance, is going around and redirecting 30-odd articles without any sort of consensus and then refusing a request to stop in compliance with wikipolicies? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop insinuating that what I did was a gross violation of whatever policies you haven't even mentioned. As I said in Talk:Salangbato, there's no policy/guidelines/essay that really precludes me from merging/redirecting articles, especially if they remain unsourced and stubby after months on end. Also, nothing is deleted: they're still in the article's/redirect's history. And you don't need consensus to redirect one article (unless there's been a previous discussion not to redirect that particular article). Why should I need consensus to redirect a bunch of articles (all of them with no discussion about whether to redirect or not, which implies that there's no consensus yet to either redirect or retain the status quo?). You've already sought help in AN/I (a very high-profile discussion page) and also here, and I see no one agreeing with you that what I did was such a misdemeanor you point it out to be. I've already stopped plain redirects and moving towards merging so that no information is relegated to the history. --seav (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating that what you did was a gross violation of wikipolicies, I'm saying it straight-out. Playing lone-ranger and redirecting 30-odd articles without any sort of consensus is violates the fundamental aspects of this encyclopedia, which is built by a collaborative effort. But if you need a specific wikilink on point here goes:

“ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.

”

(emphasis added) Help:Merging and moving pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, the barangay articles had been stubby, unsourced and has no hope for growth. If all human settlements are notable, lets just let Wikipedia keep these trashy articles. –Howard the Duck 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with Brewcrewer that Wikipedia is built on a collaborative model where by extension all editors' contributions are supposed to be respected, we'd have to delve back into why these articles were created in the first place and, especially, who are the persons who created them. Outside the Filipino Wikipedian community (those who are in it and those who want to be in it and do so constructively), the typical wiki editor who makes articles on this or even Filipino showbiz personalities (not meaning to stereotype) usually do so in an attempt to make their articles' subjects notable in the first place, and, in certain cases, is an assertion of WP:FAN upon the article (such as in the recent case involving Gerald Gonzalez). In the Philippines, Wikipedia, other than blogs, Friendster and Multiply, is seen as one of the easiest ways to get a message across, and this is why we have to deal with anonymous vandals and complainants on the Tagalog Wikipedia on a regular basis. Notability in this respect is no longer merely a question of "Does this place exist?" and "Where is this place?", it also begs the additional question: "Is there enough stuff on this topic that I can use to properly expand it and make it into a full-fledged article from the stub where it currently stands at?" Most of the time, the answer is "no", and there are only very few examples of barangays that have enough literature on them that can even merit a full-fledged article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is how I stumbled into Wikipedia as an anon in the first place. But not all fanboys change. –Howard the Duck 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly say that one person objecting the merges so far makes it automatically controversial. And if you check out Talk:Barangay Sapangbato, Angeles City, an uninvolved editor thinks the merge is warranted. --seav (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right, but you have to read the whole sentence - "or your merge ends up reverted". And please, your link from Talk:Barangay Sapangbato, Angeles City is laughable. The discussion was only initiated after I kicked up a storm here and at ANI. The linked discussion was exactly what I was begging you to do before going on your redirect spree. If the consensus there results in a merge, god bless. That's the way things are supposed to be done around here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations and I would like to apologize for my reverts. Though I still disagree with you in some other points, I agree that some of my actions are not appropriate and will try to refrain from doing so in the future. --seav (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's call a truce. In case you hadn't noticed I didn't re-revert most of your redirects. Although I disagree with the way they were done, I can't fight over articles that fail WP:V. But I request, that any barangay article that has any source, even an external link that can conceivably be considered a source, be kept unmerged and unredirected unless there is a specific clear consensus to to do so. Can we agree? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this. (Also, you probably didn't notice, I specifically avoided touching extensive articles like Buena Suerte.) As for the others, I'll propose merges first unless they are short and completely unverified, and I'll add notes regarding the merges to the talk pages of the affected articles (and not just rely on edit summaries). --seav (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've compiled all the barangay AfDs that I can find into this page. Looking at the page, there's no consensus what to do to barangay articles, actually. --seav (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a Philippines section to List of neighborhood listings by city, listing some of the 136 cities, 1,495 municipalities listed in the List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines there, and creating List of Barangays in XYZ articles modeled after, say List of neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey, List of Bronx neighborhoods, etc.? That done, we'd be able to compare, say, North New York, Bronx with, say, Villa Riachuelo with, say, Tumaga on a more apples-to-apples basis.

Also, wasn't a bot let loose some months ago to add skeleton articles on various places found in some geographic databases, and wasn't there some consensus-based rationale for doing that without regard to notability? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've begun the work suggested above here. If anyone has a suggestion or thinks that this is a bad idea, please let me know with a comment either here on my talk page. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Except for the odd exception here and there, I think this can be automated from the List article since most lists of barangays are under the #Barangays section, so I don't think we need to create such a list by hand. --seav (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC

It's the odd exception here and there that complicates automating it, of course. If you'd like to automate it so as to flag those odd exceptions I'll be happy to stop doing it by hand—and have stopped. The odd exceptions I've encountered in the articles I've seen so far, in the portion I've done here, include:

• Tagbilaran City#Political Subdivisions (instead of #Barangays]])
• Malolos City#Population and Barangays (instead of #Barangays]])
• Barangays in Cebu City (separate article)
• Kidapawan City#History (Barangays named but not in list of format)
• Davao City#Geography and Physical Characteristics

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the city articles are the ones that have the most exceptions. The vast majority of the municipality articles I've seen fit the standard #Barangays rule. --seav (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hukbalahap and Hukbalahap Rebellion

Do you think we should merge this two articles.Kleomarlo (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Merge/Redirect--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Go ahead, although Hukbalahap's history section needs trimming and cites. The rebellion article may contain items already discussed in the other article's main section.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WMPH By-laws update

Okay, so I decided to remove a lot of dust on the WMPH by-laws in the run-up to Christmas break. I'm commenting on provisions left and right. The updates, basically:

• The term "regular meeting" will be renamed as a "meetup". Basically, all WMPH-sanctioned meetups fulfill the special meeting requirement. Meetups not sanctioned by WMPH would have to be clarified.
• I'm re-investigating SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 2001 to determine the validity of electronic meetups through Y!M or IRC. I really suggest that we use TeamSpeak, since it uses VoIP (and, according to the NTC, if I remember correctly, VoIP counts as a form of telephony).

Well, let's hope for the best. Please do comment. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So when are we going to migrate to this program? I suggest that we only use this one official WMPH meetups since no one has this, everyone's using YM and Windows Live, thus this will make participants to the meetups fewer. — Felipe Aira 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

TeamSpeak should only be used for Board meetings as of now. The MC does not cover regular meetings; only meetings of the Board. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

German rock band Scorpions

I just saw this[2] - Wikipedia was blacklisted by the IWF, did'nt see it forthcomming. Blocked, so to speak. Just wanna tell yeah, the ghost seems eerie. Have your say on this. Wikipedia Foundation responds to IWF over child pornography allegations[3][4] --222.127.223.70 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Floro is this you? :O –Howard the Duck 06:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, doesn't look like him, probably an anon from elsewhere. The other contribs from this IP address doesn't look like the typical FF edit. At least, for now :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech Debate[5]. This is the first time that blocking and blacklisting happened in Internet history.[6] If you spend 10 hours here, if you spend 15 months here, if you create 20 articles, and if you add or did 7,000 edits, you are rarely on the spotlight. One edit in a good article here is overshadowed by 500 edits. You are lost, forgotten. In Wikinews, if you create an article and it is published, Oh Dear God, it is one feather on your cap per published article. It is utterly hard for a Wikinews synthesis editor-reporter (against accredited editor on original reporting) to have an article published. On the average, an editor writes 10 articles but only one is published. Once published it is never for Afd, never. And it is locked in time on editing. I had been stalking this guy, and even if you had'nt seen dwarfs, it's amazing to be there. All of you are invited to register in Wikinews. In just 6 days this stalked guy had made a Wiki record or 3 articles published and this never happened there.[7]

In Wikinews, it takes a day to create a newsworthy article, in English Wikipedia, it takes some hours, but it is not deleted but instantly there. News is not news here, but newsworthy, meaning, top of the line. The nightmare in Wikinews, is, if you had created an article and while writing it for 6 hours the same news is uploaded or created by another, you are gone wild gone. It had been a blessing that the elves had been blocked here in 22 NOvember amid the blocking, blacklisting of Wikipedia English nude article the first in history, and it happened historically just one weeks-wiki-weeks after November 22. But that is destiny; there are many Filipino editors here who worked so hard to leave footprintts, but more often than not, edits are vandalized, reverted and cluttered. In Wikinews it never happens. When you create an article it is either published or deleted. And you must be the first. Pacquiao news article had been made by a stalker minutes after the 8th round, and alas, it is a historic uploading, since Pacquiao has only 2 articles in Wikinews. Welcome to Wikinews.[8]--120.28.138.243 (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayun, I'm afraid that answers Howard's question :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody give me a cookie for smelling a typical Atenean miles away. hahah. –Howard the Duck 04:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That should be four cookies...but I think you already know that? :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Make that a whole bag of Wiki-Chips Ahoys. hehe. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap, Frontpage, Featured[9]

Unlike here in Wiki English, where it will take you mountains and millions of votes to have your first article featured, in Wikinews, IF and only IF, you win the race against time, to win PUBLICATION of your one article, then it goes on featured front left page, and if is sensational, it goes on top right like this: US Supreme Court dismisses appeal on Obama's citizenship[10] See My List[11]. Perhaps, this may convince the ANI and some upright admins here, that blocking may, by supervening events or contributions to the Wikiprojects, be considered null and void, in view of the injustice to readers. I am just a little fan of the elfin things, and amid your Filipino folklore/rich mythology, that we, aliens do not really comprehend, we BELIEVE there are many unexplained things in this world, and some of these are rage, anger and bitterness. REMINDER, in Wikinews, once your article is published, no one can vandalize or edit it (without an admin's review of publication). In Wikinews, no editor ever successfully published 5 articles in a week, a dwarf record, so to speak. SioPao may be a good choir member, but will the Lord of Seen-too-nado, ever hear ye, hear ye, if hypocrisy reign in your spirit. It's Christmas, and there was a Choir contest there, did you join? Holy crap. --124.106.80.18 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're Wikinews' problem now. Stop bothering Tambayan. Also, none of the Wikimedia projects are about "winning". --Migs ([) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Butuan City

Why is the population of Butuan City included in the total mentioned for the province on the Agusan del Norte article? In the Butuan City article it says that Butuan is a highly urbanized city. I thought that means it is independent of the province? Magalhães (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The same question for Iloilo City and the province of Iloilo: The article of Iloilo City states it is independent of Iloilo province, yet it's population (418,710) is added to that of the province (1,691,878). Personnally I feel that if a city is independent the population should be excluded from the province population, but if it is added it is probably wise to clarify this by adding a footnote. Magalhães (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was dealt with several months ago? We've even had new regional maps just for this. –Howard the Duck 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly not: According to the census 2007 the population of Agusan del Norte is 314,027. In the infobox of Agusan del Norte it mentions 552,849. That figure includes Butuan City. The same issue can be found on the Iloilo article. Magalhães (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this was only fixed in region articles, not elsewhere. Since HUCs outside NCR are relatively few I think this can be easily remedied. –Howard the Duck 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check on these articles

Found these while assessing Philippine-related articles. Some have multiple issues on them such as notability, etc.

1. Kyla Lapus
2. Laguna College
3. Lex Ledesma
4. Lexi Schulze
5. Liza B. Martinez
6. Lopez Centre already cited.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Lou Salvador Sr. Memorial Award
8. Louie Espinosa

Kleomarlo (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kyla Lapus is a self-promotional article. User:Kyla lapus made it...and I'm surprised nobody among the previous editors on the article's history page did anything to pursue its notability. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Louie Ignacio is a major player in the Kapuso Network, I'm a fan of the network but not of him so I don't mind his article getting deleted.--23prootie (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I can assert the notability of Ignacio as a director GMA's programs like SiS, Mel & Joey, and most especially Pinoy Idol, where he got really bad flak in my opinion. Starczamora (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My take:

• Lex Ledesma - looks like self-promotional
• Lexi Schulze - can't veriy the thing about her being a radio DJ, as I'm not much of an FM radio junkie :P
• Liza B. Martinez - looks like self-promotional
• Lopez Centre - I have one word for this: WP:RS
• Louie Espinosa - notability problems here. And what's this with him being "the next vice mayor of Makati"? :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean Mandaluyong? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it is Mandaluyong :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Protest

Why is Tambayan so Anti-Celebrity cause I don't get why articles on Nora Aunor, Manny Pacquiao, Vilma Santos, and Juday, German Moreno are rated mid-class articles. Just because they are for the consumption of low class, poor masses of the slums and provinces, most of whom probably have no access to computers, it doesn't mean that they are not important to the nation-building of this country. Eh kasi namanmay mga artikulo diyan ng mga huwes ng panahon kopong-kopong na high-class article.--23prootie (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusing people of elitism is counter-productive. See the importance scale for details of why editors chose to rate those articles as they did. Mid-importance articles "usually round out or complete a list of topics of Philippine-related subjects". TheCoffee (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually would like to suggest a separate sub-wikiproject for Philippine celebrities since there are a lot of them.--23prootie (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have a Wikiproject for Actors. I think that alone is enough. Starczamora (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the rating but there are just clearly people who represent a certain era or decade that should be seen as highly valuable Jose Rizal for example. Now, I'm not saying that all celebrities should be upgraded just people like the ones above who definately did great contributions to this society.--23prootie (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just feel sad that things like Himala are being disregarded when during their time they were what put this country on the map. I also feel that some politicians rated high-class are overated.--23prootie (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest that you give a hand at the assessment task force. We simply a handful of editors sorting 10k plus articles so we mess up sometimes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

@23prootie: the ratings refer to both the quality and the importance of the article, not about the Tambays' opinion of the subject matter.

With regard to quality, the ratings indicate how well-written each article is. In this regard, any article, including articles about celebrities and showbiz people, can reach GA (if not FA) status given enough time and effort, as long as each edit to the said articles will help reach the desired assessment level.

With regard to importance, the deciding factor (imho) is the importance of an article's topic as a source material for reference/secondary research. A researcher from another country with a more general inclination, for instance, would be more likely to read up about Rizal, Bonifacio, Quezon, Ferdinand Marcos and Ninoy Aquino than German Moreno, Manny Pacquiao, Marky Cielo or Rosanna Roces, and would certainly look up information about Philippine history than the synopses of Himala, Bubble Gang, or any Kapamilya/Kapuso soap. Also, the A-class (importance) assessment would mean that an article would be something that will likely end up as a topic in educational textbooks; it is unlikely, for example, that Parokya ni Edgar will displace Nicanor Abelardo and the Bamboo Organ in history textbooks.

In no way should the assessment be construed as the "elitist" opinions of the Tambays against the "masa"/"populist" editors. It's not that we're biased against showbiz articles, it's just that #1 they're not (yet) well written enough considering the guidelines, and #2 we're trying to build an encyclopedia (or, in more general terms, a source of general reference) here, not a showbiz magazine; Manny Pacquiao is not greater than Rizal, period. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the forte of the researcher, if its a military historian who focuses on the Philippine Revolution they might not make sense, but if it is a theatre/drama/arts researcher who focuses on the entertainment culture of the Philippines during the late 20th century / early 21st century then there really worth the time. I mean they're like Vincent van Gogh or Emily Dickinson during their time when they were treated as quacks. They're probably even like the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which to me is probably really worthless in 900 but now it is one of the most important artifacts in our history. These articles are like wine and maybe a lot of time should pass before we realized their worth, maybe they should even die (Marky Cielo). I can guarantee, though, that Himala is one of the greatest masterpieces in the Philippine Arts during the 20th century. International film critics can attribute to that.--23prootie (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And your comments on Pacquiao vs Rizal is same as Julius Ceasar, Montezuma, George Washington and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are more important than Mozart, Dante, Plato, and Balagtas.--23prootie (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Atsaka naiinsulto akong tinatawag akong makamasa o populista dahil hindi naman ako ganun, gusto ko lang sanang may say, kahit kakaunti, yung mga walang say dito dahil mahirap sila, di sila sanay sa kompyuter, o may trabaho o pamilya sila. Di ba't ang intensyon naman ng Wikipedia ay gumawa ng fair, neutral at balanced articles, e kung kalahati ng populasyon ng Pilipinas e walang masabi dito paano pa matutupad iyon. For the record, I'm an arts/culture/religion editor not a "masa" editor, pweh--23prootie (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think assessing is worth the time anyway. –Howard the Duck 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may add to tito pao's comments on the showbiz assessment, we're also on guard against fanpeople who want to spice up articles of celebrities. Such activities, like the ones made by that infamous editor and his who-knows-how-many socks, are what prevents certain articles from reaching GA or FA status. My two centavos. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with assessing showbiz celebrities, if you're not happy with the assessment, you can edit it anyway. Just bear in mind the criteria set forth in the quality and importance scales. I disagree with the "elitist" comment though. Kleomarlo (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that some celebrities actually should be rated as High or even Top. I actually rated Dolphy as a Top-importance article since IMHO, he's one of the foremost Filipino actors. Mid-importance is actually the default anyway. A ton of articles about endemic plants and animals in the Philippines are rated Mid-, if not Low-, importance and I don't see any biologists protesting. Please put everything into perspective. --seav (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Anyway, this is Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the quality of an article, feel free to improve it. Maybe an extremely well-written article on an obscure subject might even bump up its importance in the minds of some assessors. Shrumster (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for my elitist comments, trust me that's not what I'm trying to prove, but I just felt annoyed that Manny Pacquiao was rated low despite his achievements. To me, that's kinda hypocritical, espescially when you watched his matches.--23prootie (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just elevate the rating if you feel the current rating is unwarranted; as the WP cliche goes, be bold. Cheers! =) — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 09:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kguirnela on this one. The "importance" parameter refers to the Wikiproject involved (i.e., Philippine-related articles). Elevate the importance if you feel the articles if within the wikiproject deserves it. Example: An article on the winner of Pinoy Big Brother might be of "Top" importance in relation to Big Brother articles, but might be "Mid" in relation to Philippine-related articles (or "Low" if notability is only based on him/her being the winner of a reality contest) and might be "Low" in relation to all biography articles. If anyone objects on the change of importance (by reverting for example), it can be discussed on the specific article's talk page. --Bluemask (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And before you want to debate me about Himala, you should know that it's kinda like the Children of Men of that time.--23prootie (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With the case of the endemic species, maybe its time to create separate sub-wikiprojects for a certain topics , like say Philippine celebrity wikiproject, plants, animals, politics, and so on and so forth...--23prootie (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind the importance assessment: just work on the rating assessment. –Howard the Duck 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!!! -- Kleomarlo (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)