Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

The Bone Rocks

Some questions about this radio station article have been raised and could use some input from someone more familiar with radio in Manila.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tayong Dalawa

Just a heads-up. Article seems too fancrufty, the plot section's full of mishmash, and the character listings read like some suspense novel's jacket or back cover description. I watch this show whenever I can (the PMA angle just got me hooked a bit), but do we really need a ratings table on the article, man? --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a weekly average/high ratings table for shows that air 5x a week that lasts for less than a year (such as this one). U.S. TV shows have similar lists and I figured we should do so here, as long as it is sourced. –Howard the Duck 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Blake has come in to fix the page. Not too bad. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I revised things a bit, like removing fancruft and stuff, although I was pissed off at an anonymous editor who attacked me indirectly regarding my edits: "p**a na! fannish fannish ka dyan! pake-alam mo, ikaw ba may-ari ng site???". Blake Gripling (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone would feel the same as you do Blake...what a gross display of Tagalog-language incivility. Stupid fan, kaya nga libre ang Wikipedia eh (That's why Wikipedia's free). --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, way to go, Eagle, way to go... Pa-p-word-p-word ka pa, nagmamagaling ka pa... Hindi po kami naghahanap ng gulo dito - ano 'to, Tondo? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Pappy for GA

I have nominated Hello Pappy scandal for a GA review. ViperSnake151 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For a potential good article I find it quite short in terms of length. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
GAs were originally conceived for shorter articles that won't make the cut for FA so I think it's enough. –Howard the Duck 10:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This article as a GA is noticeably short; the standard GA's size is around 13-20 kilobytes. This particular article falls at around eight kilobytes. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be long, but broad in its coverage. Considering the subject of the article I think it'll be enough. Nevertheless, all comments must've been directed at the article's talk page, not here. –Howard the Duck 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dondi Ledesma

I have just read in the Inquirer that Dondi Ledesma died a couple of days ago (see this link). I would like to know whether he was indeed a well-known musician, because I did not find an article here on wikipedia. Magalhães (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the pinoy tendency to over-celebritize, it *is* a major broadsheet which would work as a source. (You might need another one to satisfy the 2x reliable 3rd-party source rule). If you feel you can write a nice start-class article on the person, feel free. IMHO, Wikipedia is better off with stuff and just let the white blood cells prune undeserving articles out later on. Shrumster (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dondi Ledesma is certainly notable. He's recognized in Alternative OPM musician's circles as a legend, although this is more of underground recognition than popular recognition. But then, you could say the same thing of, say, Lucio San Pedro or Lucrecia Kasilag - it's simply a factor of our geography and the degree to which the general Philippine public has access to the finer aspects of certain arts. I wish I had my old Rock 'n Rhytm music magazines from the '90s. Or for that matter, I wish I had access to Ledesma's casettes back then! Sigh. Such is the life of one who lives in Agoo, La Union. When will your reign end, o Imperial Manila? -- Alternativity (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Sometimes it is difficult to judge whether somebody is really notable by just reading the newspapers and not living in the Philippines myself. Magalhães (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, he's not nearly as notable as, say, Danny Javier. And just look at how short the Jim Paredes page is! (Er... not that big a fan, that's as far as I got before I lost steam. hehe. At least there's an APO Hiking Society page. Just gives proof of how much work we still have in front of us. Which, from another POV, is cool too. Creating new articles is FUN! -- Alternativity (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Magalhães, done. :-D I noticed there's no Mike Hanopol or Wally Gonzalez page, though. Wanna work on that? It ought to be much easier to find refs. Er... busy right now, so I'm just monitoring the pages of our recently dead rock stars, and on early Philippine history pages. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasmien Kurdi and other images

Can you take a look on User:Mrfrease's contributions. S/he has changed images such as File:Yas-2.jpg to a non-free version and has uploaded other images with public domain or GFDL tags that are not his. I have followed the trail on File:Yasmien.jpg and it seems to be a public photo on friendster [1] with no declaration of PD and GFDL use. I also found other image problems in his/her talkpage. Help from more showbiz and image savvy peeps are appreciated.--Lenticel (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The book The Fooling of America

Hi everyone. I don't know a lot about the history of the Philippines. However this book does not seem notable to me and I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fooling of America. Please join in the discussion if you like. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've added my opinion there.--Lenticel (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability issue regarding Wikis for National symbols of the Philippines mentioned by Ambeth Ocampo

Heads up,folks, Ambeth Ocampo has noted a Verifiability issue regarding Category:National symbols of the Philippines at the end of yesterday's Looking Back issue. [2], and in his Adobo article a few columns back[3]. We'll want to look into it, I think. Bad press.

Let me quote the last paragraph:

There is no argument when it comes to: our national flag, our national anthem (“Lupang hinirang,” not “Bayang magiliw,” which are the first two words of the anthem), and the Great Seal of the Republic as described in our Constitution. We have no argument with sampaguita, narra, and the Philippine eagle that have been declared national by law. But look at Wikipedia, which has become the bible of this generation. This website has fed us “unofficial” national symbols, like cariñosa (national dance), anahaw (national leaf), mango (national fruit), etc. We are in for an exciting debate on this issue once the can of worms is opened.

Articles concerned include Cariñosa, Carabao, Bangus, Anahaw, Mango, Sipa, Barong, Baro't saya, José Rizal, and Template:Symbols_of_the_Philippines -- Alternativity (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, those national symbol posters aren't lying now, aren't they? Unless we all believe that lechon (as I saw in one poster) is the national dish, this is bad press indeed. If he wanted to note a verifiability issue, there's always the template. Although I have great respect for Ambeth Ocampo, this type of noting issues with verifiability is generally frowned upon. We're supposed to be proactive, not reactive, remember? --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
True about being proactive, not reactive. To be fair about it, though, Wikipedia was mentioned as an afterthought at the very end of the second article, with the bulk of the question of validity falling on, well, only as a prime example I suppose, National Bookstore. So in context, he's really questioning the source of the assumption rather than Wikipedia, although the tone of that paragraph is dismaying.
The relevant section of the Adobo article reads:

Come to think of it, we only have two “national” things established by law: sampaguita as the national flower and narra as the national tree. Everything else, I think, was invented by National Bookstore in those gaudy postcards and teaching aids they have been selling since I was a boy. What is the national animal? Is it the tamaraw or is it the monkey-eating eagle whose indigenous name we have all but forgotten? What is the national fish? Is it “bangus” [milkfish] or that smallest fish in the world from Bicol?

So if I understand it right, he's blasting the source - assserting that the posters basically are lying, intentionally or not - and in the process took a small jab at Wikipedia for buying into it. While I dislike the tone of the end paragraph of the symbols column, I don't think it's particularly reactive to look into the validity of a source or set of sources which have been brought to question by a more reliable source (Is that the case with Ocampo over the Posters?). I do still wish Ocampo had a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Wiki, of course. And I'm dismayed by the offhand tone of the comment. :-S -- Alternativity (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we move those supposed "unofficial" national symbols in the "Unofficial" row of the template or we can add another row named "Disputed" to include those disputed symbols. We can also create an article about the national symbols of the Philippines to clarify what's official and not. Explanation on how the wiki works can be done by e-mailing Mr. Ocampo. We can inform him that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles including experts like him. --Jojit (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In this initial assertion, by the way, Ocampo forgot to cite the Philippine Eagle as also having been established by law as a national symbol. He does mention it in the symbols article cited above, which is was released I think two or three columns after the Adobo article, as a follow up. -- Alternativity (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the question which immediately came to mind upon reading that was, "by what particular law?" A look at the Philippine Eagle article turned up a cite of this PDI article which says, "The Philippine eagle became the country's national bird in 1995 by virtue of Proclamation No. 615 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos." (of which I have been unable to locate an online copy). I'm not sure what the distinction might be between "a national emblem" and "the national bird", but I suspect that a distinction exists. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojit, I was just thinking those were what needed doing :-) Quite aside from this matter, we've got lots of work left to do on Philippines related articles, don't we? A Pinoy Wikipedian's work is never done. Yay. And Sigh at the same time. Sigh when the sources contradict each other. hehe. -- Alternativity (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many articles, so little time. ;-) --122.248.16.2 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And where DOES one find a tutorial for editing tables and templates, anyway? I've been afraid of doing so because my editing of tables and templates tend to cause a physical mess on the page. -- Alternativity (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to Help:Templates. --122.248.16.2 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we talk to him via e-mail (I think he has one printed on his column). It is bad press but I think it would be helpful if we could learn good sources to back up/disprove the national symbols.--Lenticel (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there was a posting at the Gov.ph forums about the national symbols, and the forum admin posted exactly what Ambeth Ocampo is contesting as a response. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Which, unless I misunderstand, wouldn't pass WP:RS muster. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The post is long lost in the Gov.ph forum archives. It was posted quite a while ago, but I think it was linked here on Wikipedia somewhere. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So either way, its not really a source we can relly on, either in terms of actually being linkable, or qualifying uder WP:RS as Bill points out. Hm. -- Alternativity (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For tables, go to Help:Table -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Table and Template links, Bill and - er - 122.248.16.2. That'll be a big help for me, that point in the right direction.-- Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I created National symbols of the Philippines and edited Template:Symbols of the Philippines to settle the issue regarding national symbols. Please feel free to improve it. --Jojit (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramon Magsaysay Award

Maybe someone wants to take a crack at improving this. Nothing tragically wrong with it, but it deserves improvement, especially since it is the Asian equivalent of the Nobel Prize and is Filipino in origin. I'll see what I can do, time permitting. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Andres Bonifacio

Hi, I added the expand template to this article. We know in Philippine history that Bonifacio was a remarkable figure, we should expand his biography here by full length like what we had in Jose Rizal's article. Maybe we should include some entries involving his early life, his life among Tondo streets, his reasons why he created Katipunan (not just by the entry saying "in 1896, he created Katipunan", this may create conflict among readers). We must also emphasized his family life, his involvement in different conventions, his election to Tejeros (if I am not mistaken) which he almost shoot Daniel Tirona, Emilio Aguinaldo's death sentence to him and the letter's supposed agenda, his tragic death, post lives of his wife (I know that his wife Oryang de Jesus re-married another hero in the Revolution), and Bonifacio in popular culture. Also, I may want to point out, where does the accent on e of Andres Bonifacio came from? I do not find any references or books in Philippine history that Bonifacio have that accent. Or maybe he really did but he insisted not to use it. I think maybe we should follow the name which Bonifacio have chosen, not our own preferences of hispanization of his very name. And finally, we should expand this page so that there is an egality among the two main heroes of Philippine history (Rizal and Bonifacio).

Reply to my talk page.--I heart CE! (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was there, some Richard called User:$antander reverted it to his "last correct version" which contained the stupendous oversimplification that there were two rebel armies, headed by Bonifacio and Aguinaldo. It would be funny except it isn't. Where are his sources. I have provided mine, which are more up-to-date. Stuck in the 1950s much, Richard? I have restored the fuller version and entreat everyone here to work on it. 222.127.223.74 (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Eraserheads

Now that the band is officially over and their last reunion just finished, why don't we finally revamp / organize the article? Their contributions to Pinoy Rock cannot equal any artist in the country. The article has looked messy for a long time, especially the "2008 - 2009 Reunion" section.

Why don't we make this article a featured article?

BTW, On December, The Eraserheads would be 20 years already, if they were still playing as a band. Edraf (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Senate Bill to amend the Flag law

Filed early this year by Sen. Escudero: [4]. Looks interesting. :-) --seav (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, very few paid attention to the strict details of the OLD heraldic code, and here, now, is a revision... Would this affect the Philippine Barnstar? -- Alternativity (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it can't even if any Philippine law bans or regulates it because we don't actually operate under Philippine laws. We operate under laws of Florida and federal laws. — Felipe Aira 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still bound by national laws, therefore, it would apply (US law applies for fair use, Florida law for the WMF). However, while it is commendable that we are returning to the old coat-of-arms, some of the provisions are questionable: Senator Escudero cannot reasonably expect people to follow "old-fashioned" norms of love of country through the national symbols. There has to be some expression allowed, and it seems that the bill does the complete opposite. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OT, since it's about the subject and not any use in WP. Law seems kinda anal. *this* is where our tax pesos go? Sigh. Shrumster (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OT Sigh Ditto. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OT Grumbles related to Article III Section 4 of the Constitution of the Philippines: "Sigh..." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeng Constantino

OK, so I'll give over 9000 internets for those who will collab with me on cleaning up this article. It is reeked with POV and so much ka-artihan, and I would like to ask some help regarding this issue... Blake Gripling (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Brgy. Fatima II, San Jose del Monte City and Brgy. Fatima III, San Jose del Monte City

Are the article titles appropriate? Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but redirect them to San_Jose_del_Monte_City#Barangays_.26_Population. No reliable sources, no article.--Lenticel (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would but User:Ramz Trinidad would simply revert it back again; he "owns" those articles. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, it should be either Barangay X, Y municipality or X, Y municipality, as for conflicts. I suggest that you tell him to either put reliable sources on the article or we will redirect it due to lack of verifiability of the entries there.--Lenticel (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll try tagging these for verifiability first and see how he responds. Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of Ramz, can somebody tell him and Secaundis to practice English here? Both their talk pages are chockfull of Tagalog exchanges. I slapped a uw-english tag on Secaundis, he replied that his English is poor. That's not an excuse to liberally type Tagalog. I suggested he try his luck in the TL Wiki. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Check this one out. It seems sobrang pasaway yung dalawa (those two are hard-headed). --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if the info is verifiable, should these barangays have their own separate articles? (Yes, there goes that debate again.) --seav (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, unless if something notable or worth mentioning took place here, say a historical event or something. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
SIGH! It's really hard to monitor and regulate Philippine LGU's here in Wikipedia. They are being used as the LGU's pseudo-official website. It's full of admiration for the current officials. In as much as you want to wikify them.. sigh again.. i rest my case, (i can't even complete what I need to say) it's just so, exhausting. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Artista article cleaning spree, anyone?

I'll be happy if any one of you guys join me in a collab de-POVing and fancruft removal spree... I'll be planning on dealing with articles of various actors and actresses, and keep the teeny-boppers and noobs from messing it up... Blake Gripling (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Tambays,

The cleanup list for the project is now available! --Bluemask (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This IP editor (203.84.187.62) has been spamming cleanup templates on articles which don't need them and removing WP-compliant images on many Philippine articles. There were a few with about 9-11 templates on them. I only gave him a talk page warning once since some of them happened more than a week ago, so heads-up just in case he acts up again. --Aeon17x (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File undelete request

Requesting the Admin Tambays to undelete the following seals:

I will add fair use rationales and restore them to their articles. --Bluemask (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please add the FUR's.--Lenticel (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. FURs added. --Bluemask (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

I'd like opinions on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines page. I've gone through and done references for the Fraternities and Sororities I could find, although unfortunately some of the references are friendster pages and similar. I'd like some help building an opening paragraph about Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines. (Full Disclosure: I am a brother of Alpha Phi Omega of the United States).Naraht (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Naraht, Friendster links are not allowed per WP:EL. Take them out. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Palaris Revolt

Today, I created the Palaris Revolt article, primarily by moving content from Philippine revolts against Spain#Palaris Revolt (1762-1765). The new article was very quickly tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of http://www.pangasinan.gov.ph/towns/palaris.htm. I have not looked and do not plan to look at that. I do note that the site said to be infringed apparently belongs to the government of Pangasinan, which may impact the copyright situation. I'm mentioning this here in case someone else might want to follow up on this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed a {{hangon}} in the article, referring reviewers to Philippine copyright law#Government copyright. I plan no further activity on this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I followed it up, I tagged it again for speedy deletion. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Its an area I have little knowledge of, but... can't somebody just rephrase the article, and then add additional sources later? Can't volunteer, though. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

After I put it up for speedy deletion and subsequently kept, I followed it up and talked about the other provisions of the Sec. 176 of the Philippine IP code. Our discussion could be seen here and here. In the end we both agreed that instead of speedy deletion, we should consult with the appropriate Wiki group whether Philippine government works are under copyright or not, and if they qualify as materials that can be freely copied into the Wikipedia.

Thanks to everyone involved, we now have an opportunity to find out about the status of Philippine government works in Wikipedia. Now the question is, who should we consult about it? --Aeon17x (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As they say, text is one thing, images another (in this case, text is truly PD, images are not). This particular community has had a very rocky relationship with Philippine copyright law, as seen in a recently-archived discussion, as well as previous discussions over the last few years. Copyright law in the Philippines has become most taxing upon everyone. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(in this case, text is truly PD, images are not). --> I don't recall Sec. 176 making any such distinction. Just because they are of different formats doesn't mean how the law would treat them would be dissimilar. --Aeon17x (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There's also the matter of whether a Local Government Unit is part of the Philippine Government under the "works of the Philippine Government" phrase. For example, in the U.S. works of the Federal Government is PD, but not necessarily including works of the state and other local governments. --seav (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Philippine LGUs are considered political subdivisions of the national government, and their works are part of the Philippine government. Under the US federal system, each state is an independent political unit from the national government and only belong the the USA because they consented to join that federation. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

I have started a discussion of whether this article on what's a US military operation in the Philippines should include the entire war and whether it is appropriate to include casualty figures which are not presently sourced. Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera

The history buffs may want to take a look at this, especially as he is tagged as "one of the two greatest Spanish military leaders in the Philippines". In any case, the article appears Hispanic-centric and may benefit from an additional point of view. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Double-dead meat

With the threat of Reston ebolavirus on our shores, an article on botcha may be timely and relevant. Tambays may be interested in expanding the stub. Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is now dyk. By the way, can somebody assist with adding the date in the feature section of the tambayan's main page?--Lenticel (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, date added. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with Pasma

Heads up... Someone just made a new, NOR section in the Pasma article and edited it so many times that I no longer know for certain what to do with it... is this what rollbacks are for? I'd just copy paste to the previous version, but I have a feeling the offender will just redo his edits, so perhaps admin attention is a better option? Thanks. :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He was already reverted and given a link to WP:NOR. So far the matter doesn't need admin attention yet. If he repeats this again after two more warnings (assuming good faith that he didn't get it for another two times) then this should land into WP:AN. A rule of thumb in rollbacks: When in doubt, don't use it.--Lenticel (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Need volunteers

Tagalog Wikipedia Campaign March 2009!

Tagalog Wikipedia is campaigning for your participation in writing, editing, assessing and translating articles!
The purpose of this campaign is to expand and improve articles at Tagalog Wikipedia. Your participation will be highly appreciated by the community.

There are over 21,000 articles to view, read, review, edit, and expand, so please visit the Wikipedia Café and the WikiProject Philippines at Tagalog Wikipedia to help out!

The campaign includes seeking your assistance in:

Or just anything you can do to help us just like what you are doing there at the English Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance and regards, Tagalog Wikipedia Community

--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My head hurts when I visit there. Ang lalim ng Tagalog niyo (your Tagalog is so profound)... it makes me wish we have a Simpleng Tagalog Wikipedia. :-) --Aeon17x (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehe it's okay to talk in taglish there. Just no straight English.--Lenticel (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Duguang ilong din ba? ;-) Anyway, I recommended that at least some of the Tambays here would lend their helping hand. The Tagalog Wikipedia is the most active Philippine language-based Wikipedia and increasingly growing, including cases of vandalism. You can help especially on making policies. There is a current review on how to handle featured content. --Jojit (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are reviews for three major Wikimedia policies to be implemented on the Tagalog Wikipedia:
  • Pan-Philippine Wikipedias' Exemption Doctrine Policy, which has been stalled due to a lack of interest
  • Bot policy
  • Overhaul of the featured content system and possible mandatory FA review
The first and third points are actually the most serious ones that need review. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Panlilio

I'm not actually very knowledgable yet but on first reading, I get the impression that I ought to bring this up here, although I'm not yet certain what to do with the article itself. Is the Eddie Panlilio article now non-NPOV in that it leans towards a NEGATIVE portrayal of Panlilio? -- Alternativity (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot more lawyer-y. Who the hell thought all those cases would be relevant to the subject? *views history and sees Florentino Floro* Oh. --Aeon17x (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Er... I dunno what to say to that, Aeon17x. (I'll react on your talkpage instead...) In the interest of being neutral enough to not earn anybody's ire, I'll just ask... what do we do to improve the article? Because I don't know where to start. :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest trimming down the list of legal issues. In 'lawsuits and controversies', the 500k bribery issue and the resulting lawyer's ad against corruption can be joined together down to one section. Same with the corruption and recall sections; in fact I think they can be done in a single paragraph, since after all they didn't lead to anything yet. With Panlilio being a relatively high-profile figure for a governor it's expected that he'll get a lot of these cases, so our bar of notability should be higher than usual to maintain NPOV. --Aeon17x (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of this

Please take note of the "Activities" section, it disputes Philippine history and assumes Estrada-favoring section. Also note disruptive and unconstructive edits, warring edits done by User:Philippinepresidency over Philippine-president and vice president related articles.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In which article is this, first? --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You may look over this user's contributions--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody would like to help me?

Please check my grammar, hehehe. It's my critic paper in UP Diliman discussing Inferno of the Divine Comedy and Snow by Orhan pamuk. I know that this is not included the scope of this Tambayan, but I need modest response as soon as possible. Thanks. You may find it here. Thanks again!--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh I suggest that you have a non-Tambay admin delete this and transfer it to a private blog on which we can freely communicate. Aside from not being in the scope of the project, you might be exposing your work freely to your other classmates. Every text that we send here would be GFDL compliant and people can easily lift sections of your work as long as they mention where it came from.--Lenticel (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It's good. Thumbs up.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet argument on Tayong Dalawa

Those fanboys are at it again; some guy made the following comment in the article's talk page:

Why remove the Trivia, the character description and everything???

If you really care about fan-like creations, why not go to the GME Kanguso pages?

Joaquin Bordado, Codename: Asero, Luna Mystika, Darna, Bakekang

If nothing changes in those pages, you've only proven yourselves as stupid kanguso intruder pricks whose trying to ruin the Kapamilya pages!

Come on, guys, if you don't have something nice to say to each other, then express your nonsensical rivalry somewhere else. Wikipedia does not host any Internet arguments...

Any thoughts on this, Tambays? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded there. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, this is more exciting than the actual show. --Aeon17x (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Manila 5

An idea... If there are enough of us interested, how about Manila 5 during/around/after iBlog5? Details are at their site. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem articles

I'd like to ask contributors their opinion on a series of articles, some of which are more and some less related to the Philippines (but are all written by the same editor). While a lot of work has clearly gone into them, they're really awful and shouldn't stay in their current form for much longer. Should we convert them into stubs, or is there much of anything that can be salvaged? Here they are: Francisco Combés, Enrique of Malacca, Carlo Amoretti, First mass in the Philippines, Mazaua and Andrés de San Martín. - Biruitorul Talk 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles have been brought up a few times on this noticeboard before. The biggest problem is the possible WP:OR issues contributed by the editor you mentioned. --seav (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I took a gander at the Enrique of Malacca page this afternoon...and to be honest, I was not sold on the way he wrote it. There's lots of hyperlinks and 'go to book X page NNN' as if he does not know how to ref his sources. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the most glaring violation, but it's clear the man is totally unacquainted with WP:MOS. While articles don't have to be perfect, keeping this stuff around in its present form tends to damage the integrity of the project, so I would favour converting into stubs for now. - Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I had already initiated a conversation with him at his talk page but he has yet to respond to my latest reply. I'm not a history buff so I'm personally not monitoring these pages closely. --seav (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I already gave AN the heads-up on this. Enigmaman's looking at a complete rewrite...and if vincent resists, it can only mean he's trying to own them all --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel his articles are not NPOV. Both sides(actually the other side opposed his arguments) should be equally presented. --Jondel (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Luzon Empire remnants still with us (uh... that didn't sound right)

Oh, for goodness' sake, I hadn't realized the (insert four letter word)ing "Luzon Empire" fiasco was still alive and with us. See Manila#Prehistory_and_indigenous_civilizations, folks. If someone wants to fix it before I can get to it personally, be my guest. In the meantime, I'll tag it as facts disputed for now... :-S -- Alternativity (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The WP:NOR discussion has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard/Archive_4#Luzon_Empire_and_Ancient_Tondo, and there's another relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Luzon_Empire_vs_Ancient_Tondo. -- Alternativity (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The first link is the smoking gun that I want. Deleted the unverified source.--Lenticel (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted images uploaded as public domain

This time by this guy. At first I thought I'd do it all myself and started with tagging Kim Chiu and Baron Geisler pics for missing image permission, then when I realized how many there are I thought it might be better to share the load and post it here so you can help out sorting this mess. --Aeon17x (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather annoying. Why can't they just go to some mall show or concert and take a pic of Kim the hard way, rather than being an epic fail by stealing from the internets and claim it as public domain? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha! I'm suddenly imagining wikipedians going to malls with signs saying "Smile! I'm putting this on your Wikipedia profile!" :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Manila 5 or PhilWiki Chat 8

What do you think? The Wikimedia thing is already stalled for 2 years now... --Exec8 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do something about it, I guess. I don't have any cash for me to donate to the cause, but I'll be of much help... Blake Gripling (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest another online chat one to two weeks from now. I also strongly suggest that we put the objectives and links to past discussions here first. --Lenticel (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we revise the By-laws based on the old feedback as much as possible first before meeting up. --seav (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Work on the By-laws have stalled. Although I'm amenable to re-writing them in a way that would be compliant with the format called for in Philippine-style by-laws, we need to convene everyone first. I suggest a discussion sometime within the next 2-4 weeks, hopefully. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

PhilWiki Chat 8

Date: March 28, 2009 (Saturday)
Time: 8:00 PM
Platform: Yahoo Messenger

For those who haven't participated in the past sessions and like to be added in this session, send response @ User_talk:Exec8 or send an email message at pinoywikipedia@gmail.com. --Exec8 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, 8:30pm is Earth Hour. --seav (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you schedule it on the upcoming holidays. --Jojit (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
So 9:30pm will be fine for me. Thats one hour after. --Exec8 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The chat will go ahead as scheduled. It will run until Sunday at 1:00 AM --Exec8 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Robi Domingo

I tagged the section lovelife so that it must be removed, it is a useless section and may act as a stream of intrigues, and thus neutrality will be in objection.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; why can't them teeny-boppers shut up and keep their obsession under control? And oh, I removed it for you. Might still need a round of cleanup, I guess. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate conflict on Ferdinand Marcos

An anonymous user, User:24.57.16.163 changed the birth date of former Philippine president and dictator Ferdinand Marcos from the established September 11, 1917 to September 11, 1912, citing the source "Justice Jose P. Laurel penned the ponencia (in People vs. Mariano Marcos, et. al, 70 Phil. 468) and was concurred by chief justice Avanceña and justices Imperial, Diaz, and Horilleno". This change (dated February 21, 2009) has gone unnoticed, and has led to inconsistency in the article (The introduction part saying he was born in 1912, and the "early life" part stating that he was born in 1917, but contained a citation that was exactly the same as the statement used as a source to push his birth year five years earlier.) What should be done? - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A single document that is NOT a birth certificate is not enough reason to drastically change the subject's birthyear. Starczamora (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Starczamora. Besides, nothing in that People v. Marcos decision said anything about a 1912 birth date. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be reverting it back to 1917 in the meantime. - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated uploading of copyrighted images of Philippine presidents

By this guy. So far he has counter-reverted me and I don't intend to hit a 3RR on him, so can someone else with more experience please handle the situation. Thanks. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is sufficiently warned but seems to have stopped for a while. Should he continue, I suggest that you make a case in WP:AN as non-free content is a serious issue.--Lenticel (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We can claim fair use, especially on File:Joseph_estrada_official_portrait.jpg, since it's Erap's official presidential portrait. TheCoffee (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We are not to use fair use images if pd ones are available. I think a lot of these official portraits were deleted before because of that.--Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The mentioned image is problematic. First, WP:NFCC requires attribution, the cited source does not say who owns the copyright (or who first created the image) or proof that it is really the official portrait. Second, if the reason for uploading is to show what the subject looks like, the image will fail since there is already an image with free license exists. --Bluemask (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up that the same user is at it again with the Philippine presidents, and I doubt he has sufficient justification to claim fair use under the present standards. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images and gave the uploader a final warning regarding images. Can someone with an active Commons account help with removing the images on that side.--Lenticel (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Gimme the links and I'll tag it there. –Howard the Duck 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran into the images in question on Flickr, and it seems that he released them under CC-BY-SA. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That is called flickr-washing. --Bluemask (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)::
It has to be dealt with at Flickr first, or someone to convince a Commons admin that it is not free (hence, not suitable for Commons). –Howard the Duck 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the Flicker-washed images, specifically those from Macapagal and before, are considered PD under Philippine copyright law. Images are protected by copyright for only 25 years from the date of creation or publication. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Photographic works (class K) are protected by copyright for 50 years from the date of creation or publication. [5]--Bluemask (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you go Howard:

  1. File:Presidendterapestradaportrait.jpg
  2. File:Presidentdm.jpg
  3. File:Presidentcarlospgarcia.jpg
  4. File:Presidentfvr.jpg
  5. File:Presidentramonmagsaysay.jpg
  6. File:Presidentquirino.jpg
  7. File:Manuelroxas.jpg

I don't know if I got it all though. By the way per Sky perhaps not all of them have fair use issues but still the uploader has called them "his own work". --Lenticel (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup Cebu 2

Tambays, I'm suggesting a 2nd Cebu meetup. I'll be in Cebu City on May 3, 2009, Sunday. I have also posted the invite at cebwiki's Tubaan. Hope this time around Wikipedians can really meet in person :=) Jordz (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'lld like to go. --Exec8 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will there be someone picking up Manila-based Wikipedians if they decide to go? --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hope someone will do it. Exec8, can you execute it? :). I'm already in the Visayas starting late April 2009. BTW, the Cebu 2 meetup page is already online Wikipedia:Meetup/Cebu 2. Please put your inputs and suggestions there. Jordz (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibong Adarna (mythology)

I tagged inline verifications on the introductory page of Ibong Adarna (mythology), the paragraph that says "Jose de la Cruz" was the author of such book. There has been a dispute who the real author was, and I can't believe that Huseng Sisiw is considered as the author of the book here in Wikipedia, without inserting any direct reference/s or so. And please, if we could ever expand the article regarding Jose de la Cruz, we can help each other hand by hand. Thanks.

I said so in reference with the Tagalog equivalent tl:Ibong Adarna, it says that Jose de la Cruz was the author. My literature teachers said that there has been an on-going dispute. Thanks again.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly familiar with Philippine litt. but I do suggest that you ask your professor about his source so that we could add that to the article.--Lenticel (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Samgel27

Hmm, it seems as though this guy gives me the creeps that he's a Gerald sock. What do you think? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

he's inactive right now but keep an eye on his contribs. He does have high similarities with Gerald.--Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It is Gerald and was blocked indef.--Lenticel (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PBA team roster templates

An anon has been changing school labels for these templates. For example, when referring to University of the East, instead of using "UE", he changes it to "East." This not only absurd but goes against WP:NC so I suggest an admin the full-protect the templates since it seems he has spawned a new registered user. And he doesn't respond to queries. The templates are:

–Howard the Duck 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

PhilWiki Chat 9

Date: April 4, 2009 (Saturday)
Time: 9:00 PM
Platform : Yahoo Messenger.
Agenda : LGU Project, Wikimedia Philippines, future meetups

--Exec8 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive now here, courtesy of my blog. Runs from the start until the end. - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Technology Hub needs expansion

Fellow tambays, please help expand the following articles:

You can look into articles:

--Exec8 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Zorro problems

Quite a contradiction in Zorro (Philippine TV series) - is the series set around 1800 or 1900? Lead star Gutierrez is quoted as 1900, but I suspect that may be an error on the web source since 1900 would be the American period already. I'm inclined to believe it's 1800 even though I haven't watched it so far. I intend to fix the article up a bit but this stops me dead in my tracks, lol. I just removed the 1800 date but marked the 1900 date as dubious. Uthanc (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Improved the article a little more with refs from iGMA. Does anyone know if this is even set in the Philippines? Uthanc (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They used the term "Yndio"/"Indio", a pejorative name used by Spaniards (peninsulares and insulares) to label the indigenous people in the Philippines. –Howard the Duck 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nomination

User:Jojit fb has been nominated for an upgrade to bureacrat status. Please kindly participate at Tagalog Wikipedia. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general)

With the dearth discussion at that topic, this is my third time informing the Tambays of the discussion; there is quite a lengthy proposal and I think it's not that objectionable. If there's consensus I'll be moving (I think I'll need the help of somebody here) city articles according to their new article names within mid or late April. –Howard the Duck 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We need input from more people. The proposed changes will have a drastic effect on how we title articles on the cities and municipalities. Silence means that you don't care either way. --seav (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Philippines By-Laws

Are there any new suggestions? Visit the site --Exec8 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to suggest a complete overhaul of the current by-laws to comply with the proper format thereof. The template may be found here. In addition, I opened up a new section as to how this should be tackled. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of how fans are fascinated with Wikipedia

Look at an article mentioning the Associated Broadcasting Company and see if there is anything related to "now known as TV5" next to it. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Shrumster (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

debate program in tambayan philippines

we should start a debate project here, discussing about the current events in our country and in the world. 210.5.78.4 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. --Jojit (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
this is not a forum nor a debate program Hokainsultin (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ninoy Aquino#Assasination

Shouldn't this merit its own article? Assassinations of notable public figures, such as Benazir Bhutto, have been covered in a separate article. Why should this be any different? - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to help out if time permits, I have access to the Agrava Commission Fact-Finding report, which would be a rich source. For those who may want to help out, apart from the various contemporaneous news account that are online (Time Magazine, the New York Times paid archives), you may also want to see this, the 1986 Supreme Court decision overturning the initial acquittal of the soldiers, which contains an interesting narration of what had happened during the first trial. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Other assassinations are split off into a different article because their content became too long to fit in the main article. In the case of Ninoy it hasn't reached that point yet. TheCoffee (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on Francis Magalona

He just died of leukemia a while ago and the article is getting a lot of edits. --seav (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching the changes in the Tagalog version of the article. There are incidence of vandalism and I'd semi-protected it. I hope we do the same at the English version. I also edited the Spanish version. --Jojit (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping watch on tl.wiki as well. Quite incidentally, Francis Magalona's wife, Pia Magalona, is a Wikipedian, though I don't know if she's still active. Maybe she can help out if she is. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, she has just a few edits and most of them are media uploads. --Jojit (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Of which they are images of her husband. I wouldn't be surprised if she took pictures of the funeral and uploaded them to Wikipedia if she was active. :P But still, if she knows the ropes, why not? --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset) I've added a request on RFPP for semi-protection. There's a lot of anons editing the article and it's quite difficult to discern which edit is constructive or not.--Lenticel (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks.--Lenticel (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's also been adding crosses to his name where it appears in other articles, to indicate his recent death, quite notably in The Eraserheads. I know that's not supposed to happen, but I haven't the heart yet to remove them myself. Not yet, anyway. Somebody more dedicated to the task of wikifying want to beat me to it? -- Alternativity (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Letter of condolence to Pia Magalona from the Filipino Wikipedia community

I just thought of an idea: who wants to give a letter of condolence to Pia Magalona from the Filipino Wikipedia community, seeing that she herself is a Wikipedian and we're all Filipinos? I'm being random, but it could work. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. I support the motion without volunteering to actually write the letter. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. From many Tambays to a Pinay Wikipedian...it's appropriate. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support. Since she's also a Wikipedian, and due to the fact that Francis is so dear to us all. Besides, we have a duty to treat fellow members as brothers and sisters, and support them in their problems and stuff as much as possible. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. A commendable suggestion. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. I can't think of any good objection for doing it. Bring it on! :-D --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Yes! Yo! I support. Do we have to bring the letter personally to the Magalonas or post it to Pia's Wikipedia Talk Page? Or both? --Jojit (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Fine idea, but approach with some circumspection. She made a rather sensitive (though perfectly understandable) edit to FrancisM's page the morning after his death. Just make sure the letter won't leave her feeling awkward in any way. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. I think we can do both; post on Pia's talk, and a letter. Her husband put much effort to reach out to us online despite how much the real world is holding him back. Now it's our turn to reach back. --Aeon17x (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Seems kinda nice. Know them personally, hehe. just kidding.--23prootie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Er, Im one day late. -- Axxand (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Is sky volunteering to write it? :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because I suggested it does not imply that I will write it. I'm still busy with exams, you know. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Just asking, sky. Hehe. I'm busy too. Shouldn't be editing. Tsk tsk. I'ma callin for volunteers out there! We could all edit it if you like, later. But for now, lets just have one drafted. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft letter

Ms. Pia Arroyo-Magalona
Wikipedia Contributor

Dear Ms. Magalona:

On behalf of the Philippine Wikimedia Community, we wish to express our deepest sympathy to you upon the passing away of your husband, Francis Magalona.

During Francis' many years in show business as a rapper, actor, singer-songwriter, director, host, and photographer, he distinguished himself among the greatest of his generation with his pleasant, enthusiastic manner and patriotism in his works. He was a valued Filipino, and you can be justly proud of his contributions. His friends and fellow artists remember him with respect and admiration and he will be missed by all.

We extend my condolences to you and your family. We hope that time and memories will help lessen the burden of your sorrow, and that you may draw some measure of comfort knowing that others care and share in your loss.

Sincerely,

Jojit Ballesteros Wikipedia Contributor on behalf of the The Philippine Wikimedia Community

Comments

Ok, edit it as you wish. --Jojit (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The letter is a communal thing. It should use "we", not "I", but the letter's okay. :D --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't use the word "death". The passing away of a person is a celebration of his life. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 08:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; it would be more appropriate to use euphemisms rather than frankly stating about the person's demise. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, I think, is the one place where we dont want to cite facts already known to her. It's probably better to simply acknowledge the greatness of the man and acknowledge that our lives have been touched by him. Hm. I gotta give that some more thought. -- Alternativity (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
We should address the letter to the whole family, not just to Ms. Pia Magalona. Although, we do not know if the rest of the family edits here in wiki, it's the family we are addressing not just one person. The loss of Francis is not just for Pia, but for Maxene and Saab, and his other kids. Secondly, let us change the "on behalf of the Philippine Wikipedia Community" to "on behalf of the Philippine Wikipedia Community and the Tagalog Wikipedia Community. Let it be a collaboration of the both Tambay and the Kapihan. Thirdly, let us get to the point. I think there is no need for the second paragraph.. Er, I just think. :) Idk, let us make it more dramatic.. or am I being so exag? Axxand (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The term Philippine Wikipedia Community encompasses all Wikipedia-based communities that are Philippine-related. We can change it to Philippine Wikimedia Community to include all Philippine-based Wikimedia projects. --Jojit (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oks, no problemow! Axxand (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I had changed the draft letter based on some of your comments. If there are no more comments, I will post this tonight on Pia's talk page and on Francis' multiply site. Our community has a multiply site and that account should be the one to post it. Nevertheless, I will post it initially through my own multiple account if I could not contact Exec8, the maintainer of our multiply account. --Jojit (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simple and sweet. Send it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
When you say "on behalf" a PERSON is actually speaking for a group. However this letter is being sent by a group, well at least that's what the signature says. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggest "fellow artists" instead of "co-artists". --Anyo Niminus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to "fellow artists". --Jojit (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Exec8 hasn't replied yet so it will still be "on behalf" because I'll be sending it on behalf of the community. I will send it in a few minutes. It will be too late if I have to wait for further comments. --Jojit (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I personally sent a message to the Multiply site (first suggest the Presidential Medal of Merit, posted on .gov.ph forums 2 days before the formal announcement), I express my support for the move to support this move. --Exec8 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep watching the page...

... although I know we're all watching it. Just reiterating the request as I fear the influx of vandals when the page ceases to have protected status in a few days. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec! had it protected again. in line with safeguarding it, I also went to the AKRHO page and erased Francis M's name from their list of celebrity people. Pia already said he was never one of them. Somebody might put it in the Francis M article again too.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've put up a notice on the AKRHO talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis M and Alpha Kappa Rho

While the article has a lot of stuff, most of it is unsourced and written by anons and people who could actually be members of the group. Possible COI and EL violations (because of the various chapter URLs). Tags on it have not been addressed. I tried removing the Francis M item, but somebody reverted it. Please check. Thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can SOMEBODY please tell this SPA to stop putting in Francis M? It seems bingi siya (he's deaf) to what I've been doing. He hasn't even tried to consider what I wrote in his beloved frat's talk page, and the shmuck practically tells me to get lost and tinker with other stuff. I consider that a case of sheer incivility, an attempt at owning the article (hence the user warning I gave him), and unwillingness to seek consensus. Pag hindi ako nakapagtimpi (If I can't hold back much longer), I'll report his ass to AN. He's doing nothing but disrespect Francis M's family. I won't let this go until he stops putting it in.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a bit early for AN. Since it's mainly the two of you reverting each other, I suggest you two go to third opinion first before proceeding to that. He may just need more explanation on Wikipedia's policies such as verifiability and ownership of articles and how we should follow them.
And lastly, cool down a bit. I just saw your revert in the FrancisM article, that language won't help your case at all. --Aeon17x (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, pero I've been watching this for weeks, and it took me much effort to seek out what Pia Magalona said on PEP. I will not be dictated on what I should or should not edit, as he has done to me twice. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As much as I hate being cited for 3RR, that SPA is really testing my patience. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Traffic stats for the article

From an average of about 160 visits a day to his article before March 6, it skyrocketed to 113 thousand visits on March 6, before tapering off to several tens of thousands in the succeeding days. Check out the stats page: [6]. --seav (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG...andami niyan (that's a lot), man! Such is the power of Wikipedia, the views just hit the stratosphere when a person becomes real famous or dies. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the Tagalog version is the fifth most viewed page (or the third most viewed article) for the month of March 2009. --Jojit (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Sigma_Rho

I raised an issue regarding the appropriateness of adding the awards of obtained by the frat members in the article. It is not shown whether they are directly related to the frat itself so I think they're unnecessary.--Lenticel (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The same user has been actively posting frat/sorority-related information in places where arguably inappropriate, such as here.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd support listing awards and achievements by the alumni while being frat members in the frat's article but not on the alumni lists. –Howard the Duck 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion in WP:FRAT suggests that awards should be best left in the article of the notable member and not on the frat article itself. I want to have consensus on the removal of non-notable members on the frat pages as well.
Have no problem with this. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the list issues raised by AN and Howard, I suggest the removal of the frat membership in the alumni list.--Lenticel (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Needing attention

Perhaps we should improve Philippine articles concerning current events like Timeline of Philippine History, 2009 in the Philippines and 2009 Sulu kidnapping crisis. --The Wandering Traveler (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A short paragraph for Ferdinand Marcos#Martial law and the New Society

May I request someone to write a paragraph or two about this section. Most of the details here were not fit to be under Marcos' article and have been transferred to their respective articles (1976, 1980 and 1981 amendments under here and the general orders under here). For the meantime, I will copy the one from the History of the Philippines article. - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By removing the unnecessary parts. I was able to reduce the size of the article from 72 KB to 61 KB. - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ilocos Norte

Hi, I created new template {{Ilocos Norte}}. I want to incorporate all the municipalities of the provinces of Ilocos Norte according to their districts. Seems that second to seventh class municipalities of all Philippine provinces were "downgraded" by means of they do not have infobox, no classification, etc. Please update them, and I will do the updating of all templates regarding Philippine provinces. You may help editing as well.

The Wandering Traveler (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First impression: I don't think the new format is a good idea. --seav (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I like it if it's implemented well. I'd caution on adding the seals due to Philippine government laws that don't have copyrights but still needs permission to be used. And ditch the regions except for ARMM. –Howard the Duck 12:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I am asking for your help to do something like putting the classification of municipalities to make use of these templates in the near future, so that articles regarding Philippine provinces are not so short. The Wandering Traveler (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think income classifications are that important, especially on navtemplates. I'd rather group them per legislative district. There's also a discussion about naming these LGUs that might affect this proposal. See one of the ssection above for the link. –Howard the Duck 13:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the old format. Grouping towns by congressional district is not better than grouping them all alphabetically-- the only time people have to think about district grouping is when dealing with congress stuff, which is not as often as people view the towns simply as one group under the province. Better to simply put a link to Legislative districts of Ilocos Norte. Also disagree with putting red links to articles for history, government, people, radio stations, economy-- that would encourage shotgun creation of these articles, when I'd prefer people improving the quality of the main Ilocos Norte article. TheCoffee (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are these templates standardized (look all alike) anyway? I do prefer the old ones but without added 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)) the seals. –Howard the Duck 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I originally made the province templates, User:Dakilang Isagani put them into the current format. I think there's some copyright issues with including the seals since they're not completely public domain. TheCoffee (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think classifying them by legislative districts or income classification is a good idea either. That information is best suited to be in the municipal/city info box and not on the provincial template. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I still prefer omitting the HUCs and ICCs though. Something like this:
And ditching the word "city" on the "city" group, like how redundant can it get? –Howard the Duck 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just my two cents worth, ICCs I guess deserve to be in these templates, for the mere fact they are "components", but in actuality politically independent. Hmm.. I'm just making it more complicated. Haha. Anyway I agree, "city" can be omitted, except for Quezon City. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
They're in the {{Philippine cities}} template anyway so they have their own navboxes. Or maybe regional navboxes. –Howard the Duck 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
So saying LGUs of (province name) is enough? Since non-component entities are excluded anyway. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. –Howard the Duck 11:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We're having a problem

The GA review for Hello Pappy scandal is demanding English references, and its being refused to pass until we do. We can't even have Tagalog references in articles about the Philippines? ViperSnake151  Talk  12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely there must be English refs out there? –Howard the Duck 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
How about a link to Google Translate? They have an option for Tagalog. TheCoffee (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I translated the quote in the reference section. Starczamora (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Its ironic that the article on a scandal involving a show is more higher quality than the article on the show itself! ViperSnake151  Talk  17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, you know what's ironic? That articles on the scandal and the show, created entirely by non-paid people working as a hobby, are better in quality than the actual show itself. :P Shrumster (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Shrumster! - axrealmdotcom (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[neutrality is disputed] --Aeon17x (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
@Aeon17x: Well, this is a talk page, so you can expect to see some NPOV stuff here anyway :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Land area reference

Does anyone know where I can find a source for land area of LGUs? Specifically I'm looking for the land area of provinces and regions. TheCoffee (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me send you official data used by DBM to allocate IRA. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 09:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/lbm_2008-57new.htm203.87.201.134 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time this afternoon going around and finding tons of conflicting sources with different figures for area... but since this one seems to be complete and actually used by the government for important stuff, I'll go with this one. Thanks! TheCoffee (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unease (and a bit of picture PR)

I'm inclined to nominate for FPC (the picture version of FAC for those who don't know) or VPC (the picture version of GAC) two pictures of influential Philippine politicians which were uploaded recently, but I'm extremely uneasy over their chances, and would like to seek opinion first before doing so:

From the commoner's point of view, and considering the technical aspects of the FPC criteria, I'm ready to give both pictures a sure pass. However, the aesthetic criteria is a little bit harder to judge. Before I forward both pictures to picture peer review (or not), I hope to judge their chances by the response elicited here (I have a hint the latter has a better chance than the former). --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of them stand a chance at FPC. The Loren image is too small, she's off-center, partially obscured by the hand sticking out from the left, and her face has that distracting shadow pattern. Bayani's image looks technically good, but the composition is nothing special, he's just standing there with a bit of a slouch. They might have a chance at VPC though. TheCoffee (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC-ed) I added two more to the shortlist after digging through Commons: Francis Escudero and Rodolfo Biazon. As I said before, opinions do count. (Speaking of BF, that picture was a coincidence) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2000 Philippines Census broken link

In tl.wiki, The Wandering Traveller found a broken link that is used for the 2000 Phil. Census in the municipality articles called "http://www.t-macs.com/kiso/local/". However, the site doesn't exist which is weird considering at least 1400 articles link to it.--Lenticel (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked this up at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (a site that archives old web pages, found at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php ). A snapshot of the site (before it was closed down) can be seen here: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118180351/http://www.t-macs.com/kiso/local/ The site was written in Chinese (I think).
Relevant links:
--Mk32 (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, why would a Chinese site have Philippine info? Perhaps we should replace all entries with the archive.org link to avoid linkrot.--Lenticel (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Back when I generated all the municipality articles, I put that in the external links since it was the only site I could find that had complete information about population and barangays at the time. TheCoffee (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I delete these links whenever I encounter them (usually in the context of removing spam).. --seav (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So should we delete these on sight then?--Lenticel (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support deleting those links. Of course, we cannot provide a deleted web page as external link or reference. Plus, we should not provide Japanese–web page reference on to a Philippine-related articles (does it mean that foreign people know more than we do). The Wandering Traveler (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Hanging Parrot

Hi, anyone have a reference and/or lieteral meaning for the tagalog name for Philippine Hanging Parrot - Colasisi? Better still, anyone have any other names or folklore/customs for it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

well it's a slang term for mistresses and kept women since the birds are used for entertainment/company and nothing else. I manage to gather a few online sites on that[7],[8].--Lenticel (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also a game which is called Kulasisi ng Hari (the king's colasisi) but I can't find a decent complete source online (stupid Google books Snippet views).--Lenticel (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a reference: The Tagalog name Colasisi for this bird species is mentioned in the following book (which is the best book available about Philippine birds):

  • Kennedy, R.S., Gonzales P.C., Dickinson E.C., Miranda, Jr, H.C., Fisher T.H. (2000) A Guide to the Birds of the Philippines, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Magalhães (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I need some help here...

I know this isn't obviously in the scope of Tambayan, but can anyone lend me a hand on cleaning up the article about actress Shirley Temple? After an artista cleaning and de-POVing spree, it's about time that this article needs a hilamos or two. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ted Failon

It has been relatively quiet so far, but that might change, so this might be worth keeping an eye on. I did some work on the shooting, but it could stand to some improvement. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

here's a reliable article that's useful to cite the bio info in the article. (i want to do it myself pero inaantok na ako.--Lenticel (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a more POV source but it covers bio stuff that the first one doesn't. It also seems to attracting vandals lately.--Lenticel (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This section must not covered the tragedy only, the section must include personal life of Failon. Otherwise, it should be titled as "Family tragedy" or "Wife tragedy". The word tragedy on the article is so general that non-Filipino users may take it as Failon's personal tragedy, not his wife's. The Wandering Traveler (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just rename it to something more encyclopedic. "Tragedy" is an inherently POV term anyway. Shrumster (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PhilWiki Chat 10

Date: April 18, 2009 (Saturday after Easter)
Time: 8:30 PM
Platform: Yahoo Messenger
Topics: Wikimedia Philippines setup, Future meetups, LGU Project (Naming conventions, Census data), Proposals to amend Intellectual Property Code due to Internet piracy[1] [2]

Be there! --Exec8 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New participants are encouraged to send an email with their yahoo ID to pinoywikipedia@gmail.com. --Exec8 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert war

Keep an eye over at the Philippines article. It is currently under a revert war. I don't know how to intervene. --Bluemask (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest WP:RFPP.--Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed some of the users who have edited the Philippines article might be sockpuppets of User:$antander. $antander has already been previously warned about edit warring on many Philippine-related articles. The user also had sockpuppets which were already blocked indefinitely. I suspect that Users "User:San Fernando Valley", "User:SanCarlosFilipinas", "User:SraQJN", and other anons who are involved the revert war might be more sockpuppets of $antander. (Try looking at their edit summaries and compare them to those of $antander and previously-confirmed sockpuppets. They usually consist of something like "Corrected article" or "Removed NPOV".) Is there anything that can be done about this? The user had already been previously blocked. (See here). --Mk32 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
drawer cleaning seems to be in order if this is a repeat offender. I suggest that you contact the previous blocking admin.--Lenticel (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been cleaning up on several of User:San Fernando Valley's edits on other articles (like adding diacritics when they're not used, and using barrio to refer to barangays). --seav (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
But, apart from Philippines, User:San Fernando Valley and User:$antander don't edit the same set of articles and their edit summaries don't seem to me to be very similar. --seav (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, User:San Fernando Valley's edits regarding barrios and diacritics is most similar to User:Pardocebu, who I mentioned here before. Then again, Pardocebu almost exclusively edits Cebu-related articles, while San Fernando Valley edits a wider range of articles and barely touched any Cebu articles. --seav (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, take a look at what San Fernando Valley added to his/her user page:
Note the misspelling of the word "neutral". Note also that the user wants to REMOVE "nuetral point of view" (I assume he/she means remove POV, not NPOV). That's the exact same kind of edit summary that $antander and sockpuppets have been using to justify their edits to articles. With the exact same misspelling. Also, whenever San Fernando Valley and $antander are asked about their edits, they either 1) ignore the question, or 2) revert and put an edit summary that may look something like this: Removed vandalism, identified as Personal Point Of View, NPOV etc. Do you have facts to support your statements?.
In any case, would anyone know how to report a sockpuppet account, even though the master account has been previously blocked?
--Mk32 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: seav, now that I've looked at Pardocebu's edit summaries, it seems VERY similar to those of $antander (who also once stated in an edit summary that he/she is from cebu). One thing I have observed about the said user is he/she always gives short edit summaries that claim that the user had "corrected" the article.

  • Corrected information ($antander)
  • revertback to last correct version
  • corrected article ($antander)
  • Undid revision and reverted back to last correct version
  • Removed Nuetral Point of View (NPOV) and corrected article ($antander, AlvarezQz)
  • Rv and Corrected Spelling (Pardocebu)
  • corrected spelling and district. removed political point of views (Pardocebu)
  • Corrected words (SanCarlosFilipinas, AlvarezQz)
  • NOPV/remove (San Fernando Valley)
  • Undid edits by unknown user identified as Vandalism. Reverted back to last version. provide facts please? were your references to support your claims? (SraQJN)
  • Removed vandalism on my talk page, identified as Personal Point Of View, NPOV etc. Do you have facts to support your statements? (San Fernando Valley)
  • corrected the real native name of Cebu, and corrected the used of words. ($antander)
  • Put the original spelling of cebu. plus those are thing you claim are not landmarks of cebu. were's your reference? ($antander)

Some pages to check out: (LOOK CLOSELY AT THEIR EDIT SUMMARIES)

I have noted also that when one of the sockpuppet accounts get warned, the said user abandons the account and creates a new one. Again, I invite you (or anyone at the Tambayan) to revisit the Sockpuppet case of $antander, seen here. --Mk32 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a bit convinced. I guess re-opening that sockpuppet case page would be in order? --seav (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he is deliberately ignoring WP policy such as - most important of all, NPOV - just to add what he calls facts. given how the master sock and company types edit summaries, it's obvious that he's trying to be bold at the expense of consensus. I just checked out San Fernando Valley's talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tayong Dalawa ratings

User:Huwatttt is currently in conflict with Blake and I regarding the inclusion of the show's latest Mega Manila ratings, which may or may not run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Have referred new user to article talk page, but has been insistent in posting the data despite being cautioned. Please assist. --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Daily ratings log = bad; weekly summaries (Weekly high and averages) = good. –Howard the Duck 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

City and municipalities map

Anybody still on it? There are a few problems on the present one, primarily that it is not colorable. Can anyone edit it? –Howard the Duck 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder for CTC information for incorporators of Wikimedia Philippines

Place the information here: meta:Wikimedia Philippines/Articles of Incorporation/Acknowledgement. --seav (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll still have to get one, probably this week. Also, I will not be able to attend the PhilWiki Chat this Saturday because I'll be on a seminar that will run until 11:00 pm. --Jojit (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of this, but I think even trustees will need to give their CTC information as well. Officially, in terms of what will be written in my cedula, I am not a resident of Makati City, but rather, I am a resident of Gasan, Marinduque. I should be getting my CTC next month (reason: my dad's a barangay captain, and my grandmother's the mayor). --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since 2004, CTCs alone are insufficient for purposes of proper notarized acknowledgments. "Competent evidence of identity" is required, and that generally means a government-issued ID. You can check the Rules here or the enumeration here. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So we indicate what type of government-issued ID and the ID number to use? --seav (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, which types of ID numbers are safe to indicate in a public wiki? --seav (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Type of ID, ID#, date of issue and place of issue. The most common IDs used for this purpose are the drivers license or the passport. If you must publish on a public wiki, I suggest avoiding any ID that is tied to financial benefits (SSS, GSIS, Philhealth, etc) or the more sensitive stuff such as Voter's IDs. The more obscure kinds of IDs are probably the safest, but also the least likely one might have (postal IDs, for example). --Anyo Niminus (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How about NBI Renewal Card? Is that safe and acceptable? --Jojit (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't see why it shouldn't be accepted or pose danger if disclosed publicly. NBI clearances are part of the Supreme Court enumeration. As long as it's issued by the government and has an ID picture, it should be fine. Better still if it has a number and date of issue as well. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I indicated my driver's license. I was about to write my SSS, but thought that was dangerous to disclose. --seav (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In the actual Articles of Incorporation, the headers for the acknowledgment would be "Name", "Competent Evidence of Identity" and "Date and Place of Issue" (my dad has a fairly recent court filing in his office, so I used that as a basis). The headers will be changed to reflect such, so please indicate the date and place of issue of your respective competent evidence of identity. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging the articles proposal

The article List of Philippine presidential inaugurations shows similar content to this article, and this also includes a section pointing out the list. The List of Philippine presidential inaugurations, in its intro lines, also shows the same content as the Philippine presidential inauguration article does. •LeMaR• 我爱土木工程! 07:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

San Cristobal River Enhancement Defenders

I don't think it merits its own wikipedia page. — Sandtiger 16:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be any different from the Sankat Mochan Foundation, the Green Camel Bell, the Little Ouse Headwaters Project, the Piedmont Land Conservancy,or the Chesapeake Bay Program. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

12th Congress of the Philippines

This article ended with Nueva Vizcaya, I hope somebody may expand it. •LeMaR• 我爱土木工程! 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Exec8 deleted half of the table back in 2007. No idea why he would do that. I have restored it. TheCoffee (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You may need to look closer at the article. 12th Congress should bear 2001 elected officials, not 2004. The 2004 elected officials should be on the 13th Congress. It needs to be fixed. For example, Reynaldo Calalay was the congressman of the 1st District of Quezon City. Bingbong Crisologo was then a councilor. Roilo Golez was the National Security Adviser and was elected congressman of the 2nd District of Parañaque City in 2004. Parañaque City was lone district then. We need to get help from Scorpion prinz for the completion of the table as well as the 11th Congress. --Exec8 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on salted eggs procedure...

I think I have made a boo-boo on making salted eggs as I boiled the duck eggs before putting them in a jar of salt. Would I still be able to use/eat these eggs inspite of this wrong procedure as it would be expensive to just throw away the eggs... are they still any good?

Thanks in advance for your replies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.161.97 (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to seek answers to some food-related question. Try some other food website instead. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:NOT before asking any questions here. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Call Centre Industry in the Philippines

Previous version of the page had plenty of problems, I revised the page by 70%, can I request some of the members here to help out on it's renovation? --Maverx (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Call Centre Industry in the Philippines... First, it should be spelled "call center". The Philippines leans towards the American spelling. See the manual of style. TheCoffee (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If so both are still acceptable english terms, I'll stick with your transfer but I fixed the title a bit. --Maverx (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New article suggestion

Somebody would like to start an article regarding Ang Kalayaan? It was the official organ of the Katipunan which was edited by Jacinto and co-edited by Valenzuela, I think it was published only once or twice and as far as I remember, it was secretly printed on the office of Diario de Manila and was one of the first objects that the Spanish forces look for when they started to campaign against Katipuneros. Oopps.. Diario de Manila shows a red link, I hope somebody would like to start an article regarding the two. •LeMaR• 我爱土木工程! 06:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Redesign of acknowledgment for the Articles of Incorporation

Subject to the brouhaha of the previous section pertaining to this, please be advised that in compliance with the new format for notarial acknowledgments, incorporators are asked to state the date and place of issue of their respective IDs in the acknowledgment. Also, as a general reminder: if you have indicated your willingness to participate in the activities of WMPH (or would want to do so), please indicate such in the participants' list. A lot of people, including one incorporator, are unaccounted for in that list. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill amending the Copyright (Intellectual Property) Act of the Philippines

The bill defines fair use and some amendments to comply with world's standards. Please look at this bill and check if it needs changes. --Exec8 (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We need some "Withstanding all other arguments, all works of the federal government shall be considered to be in the public domain (meaning use by anyone for any purpose, although the government may still assert moral rights on state symbols and logos" clause so we can finally clarify that "public domain but non-commercial only" conflict... ViperSnake151  Talk  02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dbpgroup (talk · contribs) and "Commons-washing"

I'm concerned since I'm getting a whole lot of bot-generated orphaned image messages indicating that many bank logos are being orphaned. I traced the issue to a user named Dbpgroup (talk · contribs) who's uploading copyrighted bank logos onto Commons under the guise of a free license. The logos concerned are the following:

I'm amenable for moving the last three logos to main wiki space, but I'm saving the logos of Expressnet, Metrobank and EPS for posterity's sake. This user is notorious for reverting edits which change his/her logos to the original ones. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NO WORKING WEBSITE FOR THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL LIBRARY

It's been a while since the website of the Philippine National Library is down (unavailable. The link included in its Wikipedia page and other listings (http://wwww.nlp.gov.ph) is NOT available. Any news on why is this the case? If they have migrated to another website, shouldn't all the online links be updated? If not, as most people who are trying to access it believe, isn't it another shameful thing that the national library, supposed repository of recorded knowledge, does not have a working website? What is the government, specifically, appointed national library officers doing? or more aptly, not doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.8.19 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The website of the National Library is http://202.90.128.124/nlp/. There you go. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Philippine" vs. "Filipino" as an adjective

This topic was brought up during a requested move from Literature of the Philippines to Philippine literature (see this discussion). The Wikipedia:Manual of style (Philippine-related articles) does not give real guidance so I'm bringing this topic up. My personal observation is that "Philippine" is used in official context (pertaining to the Philippines as a state). For example we have "Philippine government", "Philippine Embassy", and "Philippine Senate". "Filipino Senate" just sounds wrong. On the other hand, "Filipino" (and the deprecated "Pilipino" form) seems to be used as an adjective for cultural/ethnolingual concepts. For example, "Original Pilipino Music" and "Filipino cuisine". Now, some dictionaries and reliable sources prefer the use of "Philippine" as the exclusive adjective (see Talk:Philippine literature). Are there any reliable sources/examples that we can use to determine when to use "Philippine" and when to use "Filipino"? --seav (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It think Philippine is the more formal of the two. Filipino seems to be more used for a person (Filipina actress, Filipino boxer etc.) or for semi-formal stuff.--Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

V-League 6th Season 1st Conference

Can an admin semi-protect this for a while? Anons and new users insist on adding scores log for the elimination round which is not appropriate. Must be fan-girls or something since they don't respond on just do their thing when I contact them. –Howard the Duck 10:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cebu 2

Cake brought by Bentong during the 2nd Cebu Wikipedia meetup

This is to inform you that Cebu 2 Meetup is underway. For more info visit

I am still unsure if can still make it. Though I have no relative there, I have friends room I can stay for a night (or two). --Exec8 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate our friends in Cebu for having a successful meetup.

Bob Ong article reassesment

Hey, shouldn't it be promoted into a Mid-importance article? After all, he did have an impact on Filipino culture. Joshua manimtim2 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'd still say low. The B-/C-ratings are more important anyway. –Howard the Duck 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

San Juan, Batangas

Guess what, many curious readers started to look where San Juan, Batangas is. Look at this. Hmmm. --Exec8 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's because of this and this. :-D --seav (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Am not much surprised, that's bound to happen on a wiki :P What I'm (pleasantly) surprised is that nobody made fanboyish edits, since I added the wedding info on the bride's and groom's articles ;) --- Tito Pao (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a summer destination and the hot season is slowly waning, kaya huling hirit na sa tag-init. :-) --Jojit (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it helped that ABS-CBN showed some birds-eye view of the reception venue, which was on a beach. The newly weds has had a platform built with half of it on the sand and half of it on the water. I guess people might want to find out where the heck that resort is :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Downtown Manila

I chanced upon this article and I could not imagine that there is a "defined" downtown area to Manila. If you do a Google search for "Downtown Manila", you get lots of conflicting ideas as to what downtown Manila is. I'm inclined to nominate the article for deletion since its content can be discussed in Manila itself or its various districts. --seav (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From the historical POV, it is Intramuros. If business, it would be Quiapo, southern portions of Santa Cruz, Binondo, Tondo (unsure) and (possibly) San Nicolas (because it is often mistaken as part of Binondo). I recommend that the Downtown Manila article be redirected to the "Manila" article, possibly under the districts section. I apologise in advance for any discomfort that is/was/will be caused from this message. -115.147.23.194 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've initiated a merger proposal. Please go to the discussion at the talk page. --seav (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Manila or City of Manila?

In relation with this discussion, there's been an argument in the Tagalog Wikipedia about the title of the article about Manila. Should it be Lungsod ng Maynila or simply Maynila? An editor in Tagalog Wikipedia argued that it should be Lungsod ng Maynila because it is the official name of the city, based on PSGC. But here in the English Wikipedia, the title of the equivalent article is Manila and not City of Manila, which is official. As far as I know, it is titled Manila because the most easily recognized name should be used. So, what do you think? This is also in connection with this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general) --Jojit (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Manila in the English Wikipedia simply because of the Use common names naming convention. Another example: we use Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton. So the question is, does the Tagalog Wikipedia adopt English's naming conventions wholesale (with some tweaking)? I suggest you adopt the common names convention at least for those topics that have a widely-recognized Tagalog name (or otherwise we'd have lots of Taglish article names). --seav (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We have that, and it backfired quite a bit. People do not use Tagalog country or state names in their editing, for one, and city names (like Seyol for Seoul and Kuwala Lumpur for Kuala Lumpur) have not yet been implemented. Naming conventions are hard to implement on tl.wiki because if we were to adopt the English Wikipedia's use common names convention, then all places would use English names, since even the Spanish-derived Tagalog names are beginning to fall out of use in common speech and writing. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I only use "City of Manila" to make it clear that I'm talking about Manila, not Metro Manila or any other geographical area centered around the City. As for tl, use Maynila. Spanish names are still not that falling out of use, we still have Nueva Ecija and New Ecija. –Howard the Duck 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant in the context of Tagalog outside the Philippines. We use "Mexico" over "Mehiko" so much in Tagalog that we mistakenly call Mexicans "mga Meksikano" when it's supposed to be "mga Mehikano" (pits blame on media). The same has happened for Italy, France, Japan, China and Australia. I can certainly bet that people don't even know that Thailand in Tagalog is Taylandiya and that Singapore is Singgapur. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Gonzalez is at it again, I think...

Hmm, it looks like as though he resurfaced and tried on editing Angel Locsin despite the permanent semi-protection imposed on the page. Same modus operandi, same subject of interest, and one banned user needing to be hammered. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can we put full protection on the said article? (at least a week or two will do) Otherwise, someone (like me) might resort to some solutions not recommended by the Wikipedia community. -it's war time @ 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Banned him. No need to fully protect the article. TheCoffee (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Here. Blake reported him. axrealmdotcom (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, unbanned him to let the sockpuppet investigation do its job. :p TheCoffee (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it is apparently a duck. Don't want to jump into conclusions, but it is certain that he is Gerald, based on the user's behaviour. I know that the sockpuppet investigation noticeboard is the right place for such incidents, but if it's an obvious duck test passer, there's no need for such, just block him on sight ala Grawp. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I can has investigation on this guy? His edit pattern gives me the chills... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And very ironic either as his userpage has CVU and VandalFighter userboxes. Anlaki ng bayag niya (He's got big balls) to even use them when he is doing the same things that those things are designed to eliminate! --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
He just registered, so it is pretty doubtful that he uses VF and he's a CVU member. Just block him like Grawp, will you? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I got no powers for that, just let Sarah know.--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The similarities of his signature ABS-CBN Interactive (talk) with I ♥ Love Philippines (talk), who is a blocked user and is identified as Gerard's socks. Their userpages are also similar , look, I love Philippines and ABSCBN_Interactive. Haha! Huli ka! (Gotcha!) axrealmdotcom (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, will be informing Sarah and/or Nrdg in a bit. They know what to do with this blood clot. And lol at pointing that one out, what an epic fail... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There's always the more civil option: befriend him on Friendster, and subsequently, leave a message there. Some people just don't understand block constructs. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, can someone take a peek at this guy? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from anon editors

I've been receiving hate mails from IP editors regarding my contributions on showbiz-related articles; they're in Tagalog, but the usage of English and Tagalog profanities stuck me, as well as sexual and homosexual remarks against me and User:NrDg. The IPs in question are 121.97.203.166 and 210.4.58.35. His mention of Nrdg and me alludes to User:Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blake, don't let words bring you down. I'll be watching your page, and will remove any hate messages if I happen to spot them. axrealmdotcom (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks. I guess this isn't much of a suprise; if you're into this kind of fancruft cleanup thing, you WILL definitely wind up with irate fans who wrongfully complain ant whine at you. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Like this one, Blake? Don't worry, I've reprimanded the guy on his talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

TheCoffee spots plagiarism of Wikipedia in a coffee-table book

See his blog entry: [9]. Using maps in newscasts is one thing (it could be fair use), but lifting direct sentences and selling them in a book with nary a mention of the GFDL is downright wrong. --seav (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Send this to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and let Jimmy's lawyers decide what to do about it.--Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Something tells me that when WMPH starts up, we will end up being like the WMF whenever it comes to this. This is quite brazen indeed. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm appalled. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 08:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when someone just jacks the article outright without attribution. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Classic case of a dumba** author too lazy to construct his/her own sentences. --Maverx (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I may have to agree on the last statement, but I may have to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. -it's war time @ 13:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Filipino BLP's

I am starting to become concerned about the status of our BLP's on some Filipino people, we should aggressively take a stand on these since they are truly something we must make a high priority. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Them fanboys just don't understand what we're trying to do to their idol's articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I third that, having seen how this certain sockmeister we are really familiar with and others have done. They just don't understand things like WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:AGF, and whenever we try to explain WP's policies to them they strike back by saying 'are you the owner of this site? Get off my face.' --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that fan-crufty problems are just quality problems. BLP problems, on the other hand, pertain mostly to legal problems (i.e., defamation) and I think that is what Viper was talking about. --seav (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
yes the serous problem is defamation on articles not people adding fan crap.harlock_jds (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we need to know which articles these are and who we can suspect are doing these things. As much as NPOV is important in keeping our biographies clean and tidy, we need to determine which BLPs are worthy of our suspicion. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. Quality problems and/or legal problems whatever it may be, let's hit two vultures with one stone. Filipino BLP's that I think we should concentrate on are: Political figures and politicians who will run the 2010 election and/or will be a major character of that time frame and celebrities who are a magnet of i-will-fight-for-my-idol fans. axrealmdotcom (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

new National Scientist

Hi, I just read here, that Teodulo Topacio, Jr. has been conferred the title of National Scientist. Anybody here has (a link to) more information on this scientist? The news article contains very limited information. Magalhães (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PBMA

Should these articles be merged or one will be deleted? --Exec8 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be merged. --Jojit (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

House of Representatives

Ok I fixed the 12th Congress.
The 11th Congress has no data, unless someone ordered this or research it at the House.
For the 14th Congress, is there someone had a list of new party list representatives? The new parties are: Aba-Ako, Abakada, ABS, ANAD, Ang Kasangga, AT, Bantay, Banat, 1-Utak, Kabataan, Kakusa, Senior Citizens, TUCP, Uni-Mad, and VFP. New representatives have been added to: Akbayan, Abono, Agap, Anak Mindanao, Anakpawis, An Waray, Alagad, A Teacher, ARC, Bayan Muna, Butil, and Coop Natco. --Exec8 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all know who Bantay's representative is: the (in)famous Jovito Palparan. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Kindly check this section. See if it requires correction and/or split as a separate article. Warning: This is math. --Exec8 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert war with 121.54.1.2

Apparently 121.54.1.2 is stubborn and want to make Pandi, Bulacan a federal district. --Exec8 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Address Country (Short) Country (Full) Region City ISP
121.54.1.2 PH PHILIPPINES MANILA MANILA SMART BROADBAND INCORPORATED
The anon has a point though on standardizing LGU infoboxes at least below the regions. We should be using Template:Infobox Settlement, though. –Howard the Duck 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention to images by User:Veluz330

I would like to bring your attention to Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation logos uploaded by Veluz330. He claims that the logos are under the GFDL, but they should be under the non-free use media rationale license. - 203.87.194.142 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Smart Gilas

Can someone help me with the improvement of the article. I believe the article is notable since google searches yields over 1,000 results from news sources. --Maverx (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Howard the duck for your help! Appreciate it, the article is nominated in DYK. --Maverx (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Imno ng PUP

Hello. I've checked the article, and it seems that it violate the Philippine Intellectual property Code (PIPC) (Chapter 16, section 216. [10]) by inserting the lyrics of the song in the article. It is dubious, since there is no mentioned date of death (if possible) of the composers of the main hymn, and it is impossible that the author of the centennial hymn died 50 years ago (per PIPC). And I don't think that the song is in public domain, isn't it? Thanks. --The Wandering Traveler (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's fair use, which may not apply in this case. However, lyrics are inherently not notable in most situations, unless they are. U.P. Naming Mahal has lyrics on its page, but it is almost certainly believed to be in the public domain. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if the composers of the above song is still living, but if it violates the Philippine Intellectual property Code, then the removal is valid pending information of birthdate or deathdate of the said composers. Moreover, if the song is not notable itself to be published as what Sky Harbor said, it should also be removed. No problem with me. axrealmdotcom (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
RE to UP Naming Mahal. I've deleted the lyrics and will be able to restore it if pending information regarding the composers are incorporated. Nicanor Abelardo died 75 years ago, and in common sense, Teogenes Velez also died more than 50 years ago. The translators Hilarion Rubio and Tomas Aguirre are expected that they also died 50 years ago since they translated the hymn when UP College of Music was still the Conservatory of Music (and the conservatory was converted into present UP College of Music in 1968[11]). That's it. UP didn't have its centennial song UP ang Galing mo maybe because it is a copyrighted song (and a rare one to be found an mp3 of it in the internet). A bit of information.--The Wandering TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 05:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ph swineflumap.png

File:Ph swineflumap.png has licensing problems (its license isn't indicated) so may be deleted. It's an Influenza A H1N1 swine flu 2009 outbreak map. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any news that there is a 2009 swine flu in Bicol and NCR. Is this hoax or foreshadowing? This must be deleted, it may bring confusion to users and readers if it will be used in any article.--The Wandering TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 04:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is one confirmed case of A(H1N1) in Metro Manila. Meanwhile, there were suspected cases in Cebu, Iloilo and Camarines Sur. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps one should read the newspaper that DOH never stated the place where the infected victim was confined. As of now, this image is a possible hoax.--The Wandering TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 12:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose that it should lapse the seven day deadline, then re-upload the said picture, which may be "supported" by verifiable information. From that image, I think that Metro Manila should be "colored" in red since the first person who got "swine flu" was detected in a facility in Metro Manila (RITM in Alabang, Muntinlupa City). It may be based on an "original" image (without the coloring ish) that was licensed/dedicated to the public domain. -it's war time @ 14:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The person is confined at the RITM. She is currently under quarantine. Just because the DOH did not initially state the location of her confinement does not mean that the image is a hoax. We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions here.
On another note, I think it would be right to assume that the image was self-made. It just so happened that the creator of the image did not cite a license under which he/she released it under. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps finding a patient in an airport in NCR doesn't mean that there are swine flu in NCR. I may recommend not to use the image as of this moment, it may bring confusion.--The Wandering TravelerWIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Because she was found in Metro Manila, it is as if there is A(H1N1) in Metro Manila. It's how it is for all other maps noting infection in other countries, and it is the standard which will be upheld in this one. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2008/0109_angara3.asp
  2. ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20090406-198123/Senate-acts-to-combat-Internet-piracy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_21&oldid=1159021530"