Talk:Maid in Malacañang

Hello

Can I ask if Heaven Peralejo is included in the cast or not, as her name is not cited in different news articles about this film. Recently, an IP user added her name in the cast, but after I opened the link that the user had cited, it appears that actress' name is not there. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The runtime

I’m sorry but the movie isn’t 90 minutes… it’s about 114 minutes… Ashroamswiki (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Search Engine Keywords

Most people are searching "Maid in Malacanang" and not "Maid in Malacañang". Can we add Keywords replacing ENYE (ñ) Spanish character into English Alphabet N (n) because computer searching in Database will give different output or result. Rybaxs (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rybaxs: In most search engines, diacritics are ignored. It doesn't matter if ñ or n is used. Chlod (say hi!) 03:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I see, Thank you @Chlod.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

remove the word "fiction" on the first paragraph because its base on a true story and real history of the marcos family 130.105.154.59 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

About critical reception

@Chlod: Online polls are not equivalent to a critical reception. IMDb is not considered as reliable source due to its user-generated content, and I believe that ClickTheCity and Letterboxd is also on the same realm. There exists a number of reviews on the internet about the film, both negative and positive from reliable sources. I'm planning to add them. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@GinawaSaHapon: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Critical reception: Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (When referencing Rotten Tomatoes, reference the score from All Critics, not Top Critics.) There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing; prevalent styles of summarizing or use of templates are not required to be followed. WP:AGG goes more in-depth, but is an essay. Anyways, that's not the primary concern in the first place; it's that your edit has no citations proving the existence or verifiability of the such a review. Content without citations have no guarantee of staying on-wiki and attempts at adding unsourced content is immediately removed during patrolling. This is moreso the case with reviews, as it involves quotes from living persons. Be more mindful of adding references; recent changes patrollers might not provide a more pleasant experience and revert with little explanation. Chlod (say hi!) 00:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chlod: I'm on mobile, and honestly forgot the source. That's my bad. However, I still stand by the fact that IMDb, ClickTheCity, and Letterboxd are all unreliable on the grounds that they are user-generated. I'm not contending Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes - in fact, I am planning to add them as well. I'm just adding first all of the critical reviews published on reliable sources (currently listing here: Inquirer, PhilStar (incl. UST's The Flame), Rappler, and The Manila Times, possibly Davao Today and Bulatlat) before those two, since I'm researching as I edit the page right now. GinawaSaHapon (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

I would like to remove the "Distribution of tickets to schools" as it has deadlinks and a single source bias. Did anyone already fact checked this? Thank you. Javeskie (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Philstar, Yahoo News, and Bilyonaryo corroborate the allegation that Xavier Schools was given free tickets. I've added all of these in per WP:EXCEPTIONAL to strengthen the claim. If anything, the latter should be tagged for using user-generated content as sources (and includes a dead link), but I've kept it in the spirit of neutrality. Chlod (say hi!) 04:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

After reading it again this time, the revisions are now good.

Both sides are presented, with reliable sources that will not go down for a very long time. Javeskie (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

@Phconcept Hello, I added the unreliable source tag in light of the fact that the box office numbers have not been reported or confirmed independently by sources who fit Wikipedia:Reliable sources. My concern lies with how Daryll Yap does have a vested interest in presenting the film as a success given that he is the films director. We are also unable to independently verify the true number of ticket sales generated by the film itself. However, given that this article is not a BLP and there seems to be no other source that rejects the 750 million peso figure I think it is fine to keep it as is but to at least note that the figure may not be entirely accurate.

Also if you had read my edit summary regarding the removal of the Ilocaknows source I also noted that it simply links to the Daryll Yap post which the article already uses as a source and thus seems redundant. So I really don't see a reason to even add it back. Firekiino (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

How Is It Fictionalized

I highly doubt this film is fictionalized, since I saw the footages of the events during the martial law and the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos. I also find some parts of the film to be based on what happened in real life. So, how is this film fictionalized? 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about box office gross source

I've removed the source and the entry from the meantime until we reach concensus if we should include it on the list. Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap as a source, and Darryl Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting (like what happened to the Alan McMasters article, that claimed to be the inventor of the oven toaster, and news sites citing Wikipedia as a source, but it turns out it was a prank) I always want to maintain neutral point of view and this is in no way made with any political motive, I believe Wikipedia takes this certain matter seriously for it's credibility, so discussion on the talk page is needed. -–A6397 ^{T A L K!} 23:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Another reason is since it's an unverifiable claim, the IMDBPro analytics (although it's not reliable too but has no conflict of interest because it didn't come from the producer or director itself) states that the film grossed $500,000 worldwide.-–A6397 ^{T A L K!} 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The PEP source was reliable enough; why was it deleted? The deleted claim of ₱750 million may be restored using this reliable source. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The PEP.ph source, which is also an entertainment tabloid like Bandera, didn't verify the numbers, it mentioned a "reported P750 million", also on the other article from the same site, it mentioned that the film "allegedly earned P750 million (kumita umano, translated from Tagalog)", so we can't really verify if the provided value is correct. Also, since I've mentioned that the data might be a circular reporting example (the PEP source came out after Yap mentioned Wikipedia as source, that led to other news sites reporting it afterwards). I really hope there is another source without conflict of interest with data not from Yap's press release that mentioned Wikipedia as it's source. -–A6397 ^{T A L K!}