Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

 

 

 Main Discussion Assessment Requests Members Articles
(Featured · New · Popular) Sources Portal

This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.

Wikipedia Meetups

August 2024 +/-
Christchurch 30	August 4, 2024 (2024-08-04)
NC Triangle Wiknic	August 6, 2024 (2024-08-06)
Seattle Wiknic	August 11, 2024 (2024-08-11)
London 207	August 11, 2024 (2024-08-11)
San Diego 112 Wiknic	August 17, 2024 (2024-08-17)
San Francsico Wiknic	August 17, 2024 (2024-08-17)
Oxford 103	August 18, 2024 (2024-08-18)
Manhattan Beach Edit-a-thon	August 24, 2024 (2024-08-24)
BLT Office Hours	August 25, 2024 (2024-08-25)
San Diego 113	August 26, 2024 (2024-08-26)
September 2024 +/-
Christchurch 31	September 1, 2024 (2024-09-01)
Seattle meetup	September 17, 2024 (2024-09-17)
BLT Office Hours	September 22, 2024 (2024-09-22)
San Diego 114	September 23, 2024 (2024-09-23)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in eleven areas in the Philippines:

• Manila (Metro Manila)
• Cebu
• Naga
• Lingayen
• Tacloban
• Calbayog
• Palo
• Catbalogan
• Catarman
• Guiuan
• Borongan

Interactive events

• Chat via Chatroll
• Group Chat via RumbleTalk
• Web stream via Livestream

See also

• Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
• Wikimedia Philippines

External Link

• Meetup page of Waray Wikipedia

National Library of the Philippines and copyright law

Currently, I'm performing massive expansion work on the National Library of the Philippines, and just yesterday, I was able to finish its very comprehensive 108-year history. If anyone is willing to help me with expansion, that would be great! But for now, I'll gladly ask for a re-assessment from the Assessment people (it's a stub, but a stub no longer).

On another note, I will pay a visit to the Copyright Office of the National Library tomorrow. While I was doing work on this, I proceeded to borrow a 1984 booklet pertaining to Philippine copyright law (during the heyday of PD 49). The two librarians staffing the Government Documents section, of where the booklet was found, seem to agree with me that Section 8 of PD 49 (today known as Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code) is a very contradictory provision, and even the booklet says so: the primer explicitly mentions that Philippine government works are not covered by copyright, yet copyright-like rights are being enforced upon it. They suggested that I pay a visit to the Copyright Office when they open, and since it's a half-day tomorrow, I might just as well do that.

If the Copyright Office agrees with the librarians, it seems that the days of Section 176 will well be numbered (I hope). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great article! Since it is more than just a "Start", I reassessed it at "C". --Bluemask (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I got word from the Copyright Office during that particular visit yesterday and although they don't interpret the law, one of their clerks told me that in order to prevent the undue profiting of private individuals from works not of their own (in this case, the government's), the provision was inserted. According to the clerk, Philippine government works are only in the public domain if they are used non-commercially, and, if I remember correctly, are copyrighted if used commercially (although technically, no copyright exists).

From my interpretation, the government seems to be keen on imposing a double standard on its works to make sure that it profits in the end. A most unusual money-making measure indeed. Any suggestions on our course of action? (N.B.: I want to consult an intellectual property lawyer about this.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The best way to change this is probably by having a congressman or senator to help you lobby the change in the IPC. You have to have a good case first though since these guys will only represent you but not necessarily help you argue or research. As for consulting, I could introduce you to some IP lawyers but I can't provide their contacts here. <bad influence>They're also UP faculty so I think it would be easier to solicit their help if you'll be studying in UP Diliman</bad influence>.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a thought (maybe when I go to the Office of Admissions to submit some paperwork). Since I'm officially a pending case student in UP, and I don't know whether or not I passed, my heart is set on Ateneo for now. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll defend the provision. The limitation takes effect only if the government work will be made use by a third person for profit. Generally, there can be no copyright on government works because they were not made for profit and they were produced by the government as part of its public service for the free use of the citizens. However, if a private person takes advantage of the absence of copyright and exploits such work with the intention of profiting from the labor of government employees (as opposed to similarly making use of it for the free benefit of all), then there is something morally awry about that situation. There may be solutions other than requiring the payment of royalties. But short of definitively banning the use of such works for profit, establishing the right to require royalties seems like the most equitable solution.

That said, I've never understood why Section 176 has been cited for prohibiting the use of unauthorized government works in Wikipedia such as logos or photographs. Since Wikipedia is non-profit, there is no need to secure permission to use such works in WP articles. It would be a different matter if such works are uploaded to Commons under a free license or CC license, since the works once there could be freely exploited for other profit-oriented ventures. But if they are uploaded on Wikipedia itself, for use in a specified article, Section 176 by itself is sufficient to justify the work without any accompanying fair use rationale. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia allows complete re-use of its contents, whether for profit or not, Section 176 of the code is interpreted in the Wikipedia sense as a non-commercial license, and as such is considered non-free because it does not meet the definition of Free Cultural Works as adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation. By extension, because the Wikimedia Foundation allows for the complete re-use of its contents, whether for profit or not, the same applies. Commons is not the only place where pictures can be freely re-used commercially; the same applies for Wikipedia, Wiktionary and any Wikimedia project where an image may be uploaded. As discussed before when this issue arose, Philippine copyright is weird in providing for a virtually unheard-of PD-NC license with respect to government works.

For further guidance and reference as to the issue surrounding Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code, please see this and this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Wiki group of course has every right to define its own policies on the use of government works in its various projects, so its opinion should be the final say. But for clarity, if the use of such government works in Wikipedia were challenged in Philippine courts, the uploader would win hands down. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Someday, I'd love to see that. If the intention of the government is to really make its works available to all persons without the restrictions of copyright, why must it be so concerned with its bottom line? If they explicitly agreed to remove copyright on their works, why must they be so worried with someone else profiting? This is all an issue of attribution. If the Philippine government is so worried people might pass off government-made work as their own, then they should have made attribution mandatory instead. If their main motive is to earn a quick buck so that their "labor" is recognized, then that's a very heavy burden they imposed upon themselves. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? Pinoys as a race are intrinsically greedy bastards. Shrumster (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not all of us are. ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Philippines article

The article has been riddled with vandalism and it's content has gradually decreased in the past year, most notably the lead section, which is now 1/3 of what it was a year ago in length. There are also some good-faith edits that have decreased the quality of the article. There is also potential for edit-warring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.123.200 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AlvarezQz and $antander's edits to "Philippines"

Hello. I would like to get some opinion on what to do with the Philippines article. For the past year, since October 2008, a user named $antander had been editing the article on a daily basis. The edits are apparantly good-faith, but the user continually reverts any other contribution by other editors, which i think is a violation of WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:3RR. $antander usually put an edit summary: reverted back to last correct version, which is his/her version. $antander disappeared around January 2009, but in February, user AlvarezQz became active, displaying the same kind of behavior, and like $antander, reverts any edit not done by him/her. Again this could be an issue concerning WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:3RR. Both editors had done so on a daily basis, usually giving out any one of the following edit summaries:

• Corrected information
• revertback to last correct version
• corrected article
• Undid revision and reverted back to last correct version

The "correct version" being his/her version. Both editors used these summaries. Anything little detail changed, including the simple italicization of the name Republika ng Pilipinas (which I recently put in according to WP:MOSTEXT), is reverted.

Curiously, AlvarezQz on more than one occasion gave out this edit summary:

• Removed Nuetral Point of View (NPOV) and corrected article

$antander later reappeared on the Philippines article and gave out this summary:

• Corrected introduction and removing Nuetral Point of View (NPOV)

(Note the same misspelling of neutral ("nuetral") on both summaries, and how the said users want to "Remove NPOV" - which I assume to mean "Remove POV")

This could also possibly be a case of sock puppetry, or it could just be a coincidence. Both editors display the same kind of editing habits, and are advocating for a nearly identical/identical version of the Philippines page.

• Version advocated by AlvarezQz
• Version prior to above AlvarezQz revision
• Version advocated by $antander
• Version prior to above $antander revision

The fact the both AlvarezQz and $antander wanted to "Remove NPOV" could also indicate that they are the same person. However, I do not want to wrongfully accuse anyone, so that's why I put the matter up here for discussion. (BTW, Both $antander and AlverezQz have already been previously warned about edit warring by other users, though not about their edits on the Philippines article.)

Some pages to check out:

• $antander's contributions
• AlvarezQz's contributions
• Revision history of Philippines

Issue recap:

• Philippines article
• WP:OWN
• WP:EDITWAR
• WP:3RR
• WP:SOCK

I need suggestions on what should be done. I'm at a bit of a loss on what to do. I want to remain civil and do not want to get into an edit war with the users, or wrongfully accuse them. Thank you for your help! Mk32 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: New users User:DantePh and User:HZYrd have recently popped out, and providing the same kind of edits and edit summaries that AlvarezQz and $antander have been providing. Seems now that the since the accounts of "AlvarezQz" and "$antander" have been warned, it could be that the user decided to shift to an account that no one has warned yet.

• DantePh's contributions
• HZYrd's contributions

Again pops out the line Removing "Nuetral" Point of View in their edit summaries, same as "AlvarezQz" and "$antander". Mk32 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest pursuing any appropriate line of action such as notifying an admin or something like that. Also, check out the two users recent edits, including moving Marcelo H. del Pilar to Marcelo Hilario del Pilar, plus several other possible wp:own issues with other Filipino historical figure pages. Shrumster (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest linking this topic at WP:AN and request for checkuser and semi-protection for the Philippines article since it's having a run of anons lately. Since I'm close to you guys and no expert in this matter, I can't directly help you as an admin.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I have reason to believe that "AlvarezQz" and "$antander", as well as "DantePh" and "HZYrd" are all the same user (see new edit above). It seems the user does not want to be bothered by anyone trying to communicate with him/her, so the user might be using multiple accounts to make edits to various Philippine-related articles.

A trip to checkuser and whatever sock reporting places we have is in order. This is possible grounds for disruption. Shrumster (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I already put the Philippines article up for semi-protection a few days ago. It is semi protected for one month. Mk32 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few run-ins with $antander myself, I think with the Rajah Soliman article being the example Im most irritated by, but I'm afraid I had no urge to engage in a very nuanced edit war with him over it. (He preferred Suleiman, not Sulayman, among other things). I too don't know what to do. I haven't noticed him on Philippines, though. I guess I've never edited that article, as its not on my watchlist. Will add it now, although most of you will probably note that I prefer to focus on content development and outline restructuring rather than wikifying, isn't exactly my strength. (I do try, though.) Perhaps when we're done with Philippines we can explore this user's other edits? And those of his sockpuppets assuming they are? -- Alternativity (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran into $antander a few times, notably in Lapu-Lapu. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The dude gutted Andrés Bonifacio. Fixed. 222.127.219.100 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To 222.127.219.100 - The user has edited just about every Philippine-related article on Wikipedia.
To Alternativity - Would it be best if the Philippines article is restored to the version before $antander arrived and made all those "corrections"? The necessary revisions can be made from there. Mk32 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Philippines article isn't something I managed to follow over time, so I'm not sure. Have any other editors done substantial editing of it since $antander showed up? A) If so, it would be unfair to do so. B) If not, but the edits are done in good faith, that wouldn't be fair either. But C) if no other editing has been done and it's clear his work is revisionism, then I do think a rollback ASAP is a good thing. But it sounds to me like $antander isn't usually a clearcut case of C. Looks more like a bunch of us are going to have to work to get that article back up to speed... I'm on the verge of proposing a sort of "guardia civil" or "tambayan tanod" workgroup to watch out for intentional revisionism to Philippine history and culture articles. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On an off-topic note, 222.127.219.100 are you someone we know? -- Alternativity (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternativity - When I looked at the revision history of the Philippines article, the only other user to have substantially edited the article is the now blocked user User:Richard Relucio and sockpuppets. I am not sure if these have been reverted. Otherwise, it is only $antander and AlverezQz who have edited the article. I must say that the edits of AlvarezQz and $antander seem to be good faith. I don't see any deliberate attempt to sabotage the article. The only problem is, again, the user/s refuse to work with any other editors and will not accept any other edits except the ones made by the user, and the said user/s will edit war with anyone who tries to contribute. The behavior is disruptive, even if I think the user/s sincerely want to contribute to the article. Recently, AlvarezQz got blocked for a 24 hour period for edit warring. (see here and here). The "Guardia Civil"/"Tambayan Tanod" thing is a good idea. The Philippine-related articles, it seems, have been left unwatched for some time now. Mk32 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, quite aside from just getting people to watch top level articles for disruptive behavior, what I feel is really needed, as a function of that group, would be an establishment of a discussion page specifically for nuanced/in depth discussion of Philippine history and culture articles. Discussion in individual talk pages doesn't seem to be enough. This subproject (?) would help us all establish some sort of consistency ACROSS articles. This would have been especially helpful, I think, back during the Luzon Empire/Kingdom of Tondo fiasco. Sigh, come to think of it I'm still reeling from the thought of how much more work Culture of the Philippines needs, in terms of structuring. (Not that we're in bad company... lots of "Culture of..." articles aren't very well organized either. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for cities

Discussion has stalled, so i suggest it may be re-started. I think no one is opposed to the thought of moving all component cities back to <Cityname>, <Provincename> convention; the only points of divergence are what to to do with the ICCs and HUCs. Either to

• Leave them as <Cityname> City. (ex: Pasay City)
• Use the plain name. (ex: Pasay)

Also, I think everyone will agree to use append "City" when there are several LGUs named identically such as Cebu, Iloilo and Davao. The cities stay at Cebu City, Iloilo City and Davao City while the provinces stay at Cebu, Iloilo and 3 Davao provinces.

Another point of divergence is what to do with the cities in Metro Manila. I've suggested using <Cityname> City, Metro Manila but nobody liked it. I'm willing to go with the plain name. I'm just peeved with the situation of San Juan City.

I guess all new discussion should go at the LGU project talk page. –Howard the Duck 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Adobo, Adobo (Filipino cuisine), and Adobo sauce, oh my.

Er... following up on Ambeth Ocampo's article citing the indigenous origins of Adobo (whose name is taken from the spanish term for marinade), I created an article for Adobo (Filipino cuisine), since the Adobo article seemed to be mainly about a general phrase for marinated dishes among Spanish and Spanish-colonized countries. But I'm looking at the Adobo sauce article and I suspect it refers to that general category already, and the only thing in to merit a difference between it and the Adobo article is Adobo (Filipino cuisine). I'm starting to feel/think that Philippine Adobo ought to own the Adobo article, with the general term being sent to Adobo sauce. But I'm not sure, and I'm seeking advice as to the next course of action. -- Alternativity (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PBA team articles and templates

Recently, the team articles (especially the section on depth charts) and the team roster templates have all been vandalized steadily and it's getting hard to keep up with the vandals. I'd suggest semi-protect on these pages for 2 weeks to see if it works:

• Alaska Aces (PBA) and Template:Alaska Aces roster
• Barako Bull Energy Boosters and Template:Red Bull Barako roster
• Barangay Ginebra Kings and Template:Barangay Ginebra Kings roster
• Burger King Titans and Template:Air21 Express roster
• Coca-Cola Tigers and Template:Coca-Cola Tigers roster
• Purefoods Tender Juicy Giants and Template:Purefoods TJ Giants roster
• Rain or Shine Elasto Painters and Template:Rain or Shine Elasto Painters roster
• San Miguel Beermen and Template:San Miguel Beermen roster
• Sta. Lucia Realtors and Template:Sta. Lucia Realtors roster
• Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters and Template:Talk 'N Text Tropang Texters roster

–Howard the Duck 12:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the semi-protect! Mk32 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've hidden the depth charts (and I plan on removing them entirely) that caused the vandalism to drop off on article and template pages. I'll have to see if this can be sustained. –Howard the Duck 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrés Bonifacio

I've tried to bring the article in line with recent scholarship. 222.127.219.100 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a notability guidline in the tagalog wikipedia?

I have seen many articles about Bea Alonzo and Piolo Pascual that did not even have any references and did not have any links as to prove it's notability. If you have a link to the tagalog wikipedia's notability guidelines, please post the link here under a different header name below this header. —Preceding unsigned

There is no specific notability guideline on the Tagalog Wikipedia, and we use the English guidelines wholesale. However, we tag articles as unsourced. If you want to propose a guideline, or guide the community in formulating such, then you are free to do so. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, if you have any concern about articles in Tagalog Wikipedia. You can post it at the Kapihan discussion page. --Jojit (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd fixed Piolo Pascual's Tagalog Wikipedia article, although, there is still no reference list. For Bea Alonzo's article, I don't see any unreferenced content but it needs expanding like the most of artista articles in the Tagalog Wikipedia. ;-) --Jojit (talk) 07:13, 3 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)

WP:RM for Libingan ng mga Bayani

There is a request to move Libingan ng mga Bayani to Cemetery of the Heroes. Over the course of this weekend, the move has been proven controversial. Input would be appreciated on the matter, and pertinent discussion can be found at my talk page ( here), here and here. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up my response here too, as it seems to me it would raise a general concern for terms using the Filipino language. Copied from Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move:

• Don't Support (conditional) In my mind the question here is not whether we should use the English term - the policy is rather clear on that matter. If this were the only argument, I would favor using the English term, although I suggest Cemetery of the Heroes (Philippines) rather than plain Cemetery of the Heroes. It strikes me that Cemetery of the Heroes is a rather general term which would be confusing if allowed to exist on its own as an article name. However, I submit that the argument against making such a move would not be one of policy, but one of equivalence. The Libingan ng mga Bayani is a single specific cemetery with a specific name, "Libingan ng mga Bayani" which to my knowledge is not translated into English when used in official documentation. The usage for the term "cemetery of the heroes" I have seen does far tends to be more like "He will be buried in our cemetery of the heroes, the "Libingan ng mga Bayani". (Whereas official language will refer to a City of Manila rather than Lungsod ng Maynila, and so we use Manila in English Wikipedia.) By the same argument, the specific policy perestroika is not entered in English Wikipedia as "economic restructuring." The translation of the term into English by media does not equivalence make. If we have a news source that says perestroika means "restructuring" (it literally does, doesn't it?), that does not mean we automatically prefer the article name "Restructuring (Russia)" instead. Now, if there's an reliable source that says the official name of the specific cemetery is "Libingan ng mga Bayani" AND "Cemetery of the Heroes", i would support a move towards Cemetery of the Heroes (Philippines), as I explained earlier. Until then, my position is don't support. But I'm not unreasonable in that regard and do think there's room for argument here. As it turns out, for example, Oath of Allegiance (Philippines) was written in English first, when I had thought all along that the oath's only proper name was "Panatang Makabayan". Having said all that... can someone please pore through the relevant legislation for the Libingan? Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose until RS says that this is the real English translation. I pulled up two republic acts, [1] and [2]. Both call the site Libingan ng mga Bayani despite having the acts written in English--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lenticel, please do copy that onto the conversation at Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move... I just brought it up here for discussion of the matter in principle. :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:57, 2 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)

Need help on User:121.54.32.39

121.54.32.39 (talk · contribs) has been doing strange edit regarding the status of Palawan vis-a-vis MIMAROPA and Western Visayas. He's ignoring the messages left on his talk page. --seav (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

translation

Could somebody please translate de Tagalog sentences on this photo for me? More specifically I am looking for the meaning of:

• Tagapaglabag ng karapatang pantao
• Pang - hold up o pag sunog at pag patay
• Pagpapasara sa mga pabrika at pagawaan
• Pananabotahe sa globe cell site at mga infrastraktura
• Gusto'y kaguluhan at karahasan
• Iparalisa ang ekonomiya ng gobyerno
• Kusog Kontra Terrorismo

Thanks, Magalhães (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the following:

• Violator of human rights
• Holding up or arson and murder
• Closure of factories (pagawaan and pabrika both mean factory)
• Sabotaging Globe Telecom cell sites and other infrastructure
• Wants chaos and violence
• Paralyze the economy of the government
• Move (?) against terrorism

Hope those help. Also, I had to correct some of the Filipino terms listed above. (N.B.: Whoever wrote that poster should note that the Filipino word for infrastructure is imprastraktura). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Sorry for the typo's in the Filipino terms. My knowledge of Tagalog is limited to a few word only. Magalhães (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kusog is a Cebuano word for "strength". --Jojit (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, okay, thanks, Magalhães (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines

Please help expand this article. Thanks --Kleomarlo (talk) 03:42, 4 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. [3], and in his Adobo article a few columns back[4]. 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)

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)

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 co-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,

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)

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)

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 [5] 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

Senate Bill to amend the Flag law

Filed early this year by Sen. Escudero: [6]. 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)

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)

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)