Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



What is this: --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, a clone! --Weekeejames (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What I wanted to say is what are we going do on this, the wikipedia itself? --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You may ask that question at the meta wiki - the facilitator of the wikimedia projects that includes wikipedia. That's beyond the scope of tambayan :D --Weekeejames 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Philippine law wiki database

Hi all,

I know this is quite off-tangent to us here, but then this is where I can find people who know MediaWiki wikitext :)

Along with some friends who are studying law, I've started with the LEX LIBERA project, which aims to create a free database of Philippine laws and court decisions, including articles on specific laws targeted for the ordinary person without legal training (Law for the People) and case digests targeted for the hurried law student (Case Digests Project).

The content-management system is MediaWiki, so if you are comfortable editing Wikipedia, you would also be fine with Lex Libera. The license of the product is not yet decided by the community, but it will be a copyleft license, allowing noncommercial reuse and redistribution.

FYI, there are two commercial CD compilations of laws and court decisions in the Philippines: Lex Libris from CDAsia and Phil Juris from Gigabytes Research Systems, Inc. Both of these CD collections are quite expensive, as any law student would tell you, despite the fact that what they contain are actually unprotected by copyright according to P.D. 49.

Philippine laws are available from and court decisions are available from The project will simply collect these laws and court decisions and link the entries conceptually.

Please do not reply to this note here as this is not related to Wikipedia, and I had sent invitations to other communities. Instead, post your comments in the project's Forum page.

Respectfully yours,

Bentong Isles
LEX LIBERA Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentong Isles (talkcontribs) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Filipino Wiktionary Debate (formerly It's official)

Filipino is going overboard with the creation of a Filipino Wiktionary (or rather, a Taglish Wiktionary). The Tagalog Wiktionary is already sleepy enough, what more with this one? --Sky Harbor 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to smell the doom of the Tagalog language, no thanks to Taglish and incompetent people at KWF who do not seem to mind about borrowing terms completely from English. Starczamora 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We used to call our non-Tagalog languages dialects. Today, we call the lingua franca of Filipinos Taglish. --Filipinayzd (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Who initiate it? this user --Exec8 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Compare with and you will know what is the difference. --Exec8 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Creating that Filipino Wiktionary would be so easy. Just put every English word...I once chatted with a Venezuelan friend and we watched Philippine Idol online and he was surprised to hear people juggling between English and Tagalog. He thought it was awful and I agreed. Starczamora 10:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if not many people will take an interest in the project, it will eventually be deleted or not approved outside of incubation due to lack of activity. FWIW, I don't think people in general are capable of creating an authoritative and credible dictionary; you have to be a linguist or a language scholar. That's why I personally won't contribute to any Wiktionary outside the blindingly obvious translations (e.g., Monday -> Lunes, January -> Enero, one -> isa, etc.) --seav 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I know Filipinayzd maybe has good intentions, but I'd like to see those intentions be put to good use in the Tagalog Wiktionary, where they are sorely needed. --Sky Harbor 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Filipino is the Tagalog spoken in Metro Manila and other urban centers in the country, at least according to KWF. What kind of "Tagalog" do these people living in the country's urban centers we speak? "Native Filipino speakers" prefer borrowing English than non-Tagalog words. Don't you? or not Filipinizing (e.g. "nagcreate against nagkrieyt or krumieyt", "ininterview" against ininterbyu, "kinopy paste", "dinouble check against dinobol tsek", "pinaphotocopy" against pinapotokapi or pinapotokopi.) Should we publish the "what is" or the "what should be according to KWF"? --Filipinayzd (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So why in the world do we need another Wiktionary for Filipino? Tagalog includes Filipino. --Chris S. (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of Filipino words are Tagalog origin but not all Tagalog words are Filipino. Some non-Tagalog words, such as "gurang", "pinakbet", "salvage", "nars", "bus" perhaps "magayon", "oragon", "crush" and "type" are Filipino. I don't think "pakikipagtalamitam", "dapatwat", "pangatnig" and "punlay" (punla ng buhay) are Filipino.
"Wais" (from English word "wise") is not/(not only) Tagalog but Filipino/(but also Bikol, Cebuano, maybe Tausug too). "Komplot", "rabuz" (from English word "complot", "robust") are Bikol words; "Ismagol" (from English word "smuggle") is Cebuano, but are not Filipino. --Filipinayzd (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of made-up boundaries attempting (and failing horribly) to delineate Tagalog and Filipino that I've been talking about for a long time. Many, if not all, of the "non-Tagalog" words you cite may have non-Tagalog origins, but they have become part of Tagalog before the creation of Filipino. --Chris S. (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Choose your side...
Flag of the Philippines.svgThis user believes that the Filipino language damages the Tagalog language.
Flag of the Philippines.svgThis user believes that the Filipino language enriches the Tagalog language.

Starczamora (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you people are confused... Filipino ≠ Taglish; Filipino is Tagalog with non-Tagalog words only for words which doesn't appear in Tagalog; for example:

  • Filipino: Ang kalysium ay mahalagang bitamina sa gatas.
  • Taglish: Ang calcium ay importanteng vitamins sa gatas.

--Howard the Duck 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Calcium" and "vitamins" are used by Filipino speakers but not most of Ibatan or Pandan Bikol (non-Filipino) and few Filipino speakers. (I don't think Basco, Batanes or Pandan, Catanduanes is an urban center) These words have become part of Filipino vocabulary.
  • Code-switching is a feature in Filipino (limited to intersentential and intra-word switching).
Flag of the Philippines.svgAng manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang sinisira ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog.
Flag of the Philippines.svgAng manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang pinayayabong ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it should be Naniniwala ang user na ito na ine-enhance ng Wikang Filipino ang Wikang Tagalog...just kidding. Starczamora (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course. It is Filipinoish, in practice.
Flag of the Philippines.svgNaniniwala ang user na ito na hinihinder ng wikang Filipino ang development ng wikang Tagalog.
Flag of the Philippines.svgNaniniwala ang user na ito na ineenrich ng wikang Filipino ang development ng wikang Tagalog at nang ibang diyalekto.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the Philippines.svgBinibigyan ng chance ng user na ito na madevelop ang wikang Filipino.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This debate and the confusion therein goes to show that we should just stick to the all-encompassing Tagalog. --Chris S. (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This debate goes nowhere. Its like "what kind of blue is on the Philippine Flag?". Unless there is no law regulating the Filipino language, Filipino is widely recognized as Tagalog and Taglish like remains code-switching and is not defined by law as Filipino. Back in the 60's it is not difficult to translate an English term to Tagalog. But from the 90's there are a lot of new technical terms created with the onset of information technology. Telephone remains Telepono in Tagalog but Cellphone is not Selepono or Selpon. It is better to keep it as status-quo and let us help KWF and our wise legislators craft a new law. It is much better if we have a humble representation like the Wikimedia Philippines. --Exec8 (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If we use the traditional term-borrowing from Spanish (which I think is the way to go), cellphone would translate in Tagalog as teleponong mobil. Starczamora (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction: it really is teleponong selyular (cellular telephone). But still, I would love to see this issue resolved. --Sky Harbor 09:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was supposed to write teleponong selyular, but I checked the official Spanish translation just to make sure. Too late for me to read the part "también llamada telefonía celular". Starczamora (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways to borrow one foreign word. My observation is, most prefer the "hiram ng buo at walang pagbabago" way. And I don't agree with the rule (currently 1987 Guide is being followed): 1st preference - current vocabulary (Tagalog origin), 2nd preference - equivalent in other Philippine languages, 3rd preference - non-Philippine language ("hiram buo at walang pagbabago" or "bigkas-espanyol-baybay-Filipino"), 4th preference - coining. This preference thingy restricts the user to choose for him/-erself (why call it "preference" in the first palce?) and favors Tagalog. Now defunct 2001 Guide's 3rd-B preference was "bigkas-hiram na salita-baybay-Filipino". Affixing a word that is "hiniram ng buo at walang pagbabago" (is not recognized) is not allowed in Filipino (but in reality is being practiced). The "papalit-palit, pabago-bago" of Guide hampers the development of the language. ---Filipinayzd (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I already sent an e-mail to KWF. Boy, it was so long. Starczamora (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend we should use our energy to something else like in developing Philippine-related topics, Tagalog Wikipedia, Tagalog Wiktionary and other projects like the Bikolano Wikipedia and not to create more projects since we dont have enough number of writers to post. --Exec8 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. With the exception of Chris S., we are not linguists. So we cannot resolve this issue on our own. Let's face it, the nebulous language Filipino is practically Tagalog; Filipino uses Tagalog grammar. What you guys are essentially arguing about is vocabulary and orthography. --seav (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, the KWF has devised yet another new orthography that would possibly be in effect by next year. Seeing that Wikipedia has the potential to develop Tagalog/Filipino, I think it is only right that we gloss over it and send our comments. Visit the KWF wiki ( and read the info in the yellow box. --Sky Harbor 12:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with the two-prong system in pronouncing letters (in "abaseda" and English). It only increases the confusion with the so-called Filipino language. However, I somewhat agree with the manner of translation (especially 1 & 2), except for the unusual "pagbaybay mula sa Ingles". I mean, "saykoloji" looks "un-Filipino" to me. Starczamora (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Filipinizing is unneccessary. Most speakers of Filipino, the variant of Tagalog spoken in urban centers, are literate and can recognize English words. According to 2001 Guide, it is hard to affix and identify unfilipinized words. TV Patrol and 24 Oras have used these in their (running) headlines: "nirape" (instead of ginahasa/ni-rape/nireyp), "kinoach" (pinag-coach/kinowts), "hinayjack" (sinalakay/hinaydyak), "sinalvage" (itinumba/pinatay) and more. Only those who have not heard of the words rape, coach, hijack, salvage would read those 'ra-pe/ni-ra-pe', 'ko-ats'/ki-no-awts', 'hi-jak', 'sal-va-ge/si-nal-va-ge'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipinayzd (talkcontribs) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My comments can be found here. Voice out your opinion now or forever (ano ba yung sinasabi ng pari sa kasal?) --Filipinayzd (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The correct term you were looking for is "Speak now or forever hold your peace" ;-) --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Mabalos (thank you), Titopao. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrap this

Tagalog Wiktionary gets very little contributions, what makes you think Filipino will get more? --Howard the Duck 03:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I stated before, just transfer every English word. Starczamora (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Then the Filipino Wikitionary would need a bot, but bots creating entries isn't a very good idea. --Howard the Duck 03:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Tagalog Wiktionary gets few contributions because it is limitted to Tagalog vocabs. A lot of English words (that's an exagerration) have become part of Filipinos' (living in Metro Manila and other urban centers in the country) vocabulary. Can you teach me how to create a bot? Thanks for the advice! Filipino Wiktionary would be a collection of vocabularies of the Philippine and other languages used by its speakers (those living in Metro Manila and other urban centers in the country) There, Waray, Cebuano, Pampangan, Bikolano Wikipedians etc. can contribute their native words ("pangga", "oragon", "pinakbet" etc.) that have become part of Filipinos vocabulary. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Tagalog Wiktionary gets few contributions because it is limitted to Tagalog vocabs."[citation needed] I personally think that it is the lack of interest in the project, and not the supposedly limited scope of vocabulary, that's the reason why the Tagalog Wiktionary gets few contributions. --seav (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it include "rugaring" of Bikol or "moadto" of Cebuano? Of course "sigarilyo" (etymology: cigarillo of Sp.), "bolakbol" (etymology: "blackball" of Eng.) etc. are Tagalog. Lack of interest too. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Like the Japanese language, Tagalog expands its vocabulary by borrowing foreign terms or is translated through contextual means. The Japanese has "pasokom" (personal computer), "demo" (rally), and "maketto" (supermarket). Meanwhile, in Tagalog instead of utilizing "onlayn", it can be translated as "sa pamamagitan ng Internet". Tagalog can also be used for technical terms if the good people of KWF would be kind (and "masipag") enough to translate them (i.e. "Paralisis sa Mukha" for Bell's Palsy; "Lisensiyang Pangkalahatang Pampubliko ng GNU" for GNU General Public License). Starczamora (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Doing it via bots isn't a good idea; the Cebuano Wikipedia was removed from the Main Page since a great number of articles were created by bots. Also, English-borrowed Filipino words are just re-spelled (e.g. cake->keyk) and I'd rather redirect that to the English Wikitionary than create a whole new Wiktionary. --Howard the Duck 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sigarilyo" and "tsinelas" are re-spelled "cigarillo" and "chinelas", right? Yet these are considered Tagalog of Tagalog speakers (Bikol of Bikolano speakers too.) These have become part of Filipinos vocabulary and should be included in Filipino Wiktionary. --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea: since Filipino is basically a language of borrowed words, redirect each word in its mother language; ergo, keyk redirects to cake on English Wiktionary, chinelas (I never seen the word spelled this way) to tsinelas in Tagalog Wiktionary, etc. --Howard the Duck 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog loanwords--Filipinayzd (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sigarilyo" may also be part of other Philippine languages' vocab, not just Tagalog's therefore it can be redirected to other Philippine Wiktionaries (in the future). --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You can only redirect to one place; I chose Tagalog since it has more speakers. However if one Filipino language word which is seldom used in Tagalog is used often in other Philippine languages then it should be redirected there.
Entries that are found in Tagalog AND other Philippine Wik or most Phil. Wik. must be redirected to Filipino Wik then.--Filipinayzd (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this anymore, can you refrain from using abbreviations? What Philippine Wik? Philippine Wikipedia? --Howard the Duck 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Put your reply at the bottom of this section this the flow of the discussion is getting unwieldy. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Most are borrowed. Redirecting or link? If you redirect, will it leave the main site (Fil. Wikt.)? --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a Filipino language word which is not borrowed? If that's the case then it can have an entry. If a word is borrowed, redirect it. --Howard the Duck 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog words (since Filipino is a variant/dialect of Tagalog).--Filipinayzd (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary is a dictionary, ergo it must be a language, not a variant/dialect of another language. --Howard the Duck 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Put your reply at the bottom of this section this the flow of the discussion is getting unwieldy. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, the Filipino Wikipedia would redirect to the Tagalog Wikipedia, OR if there's an un-borrowed Filipino language word it will be a legit entry. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is (Filipino) Wikipedia a pre-requirement (Fil. Wikt.)? --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Nor would I endorse that idea; the Tagalog Wikipedia has a dearth of contributors already. --Howard the Duck 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Put your reply at the bottom of this section this the flow of the discussion is getting unwieldy. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We can't do about it (re-spelling e.g. cake-keyk) for that's what the natives (not all) do. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually on textbooks for use in the teaching of Filipino language they allow to do that. The textbook assumes the user/reader knows 1) that the word "keyk" is a translation of the English word "cake" 2) the meaning of "cake" in English. --Howard the Duck 07:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I guess every person (living in Metro Manila and other urban centers in the country; I am not sure with those in non-urban areas) knows what "cake" is (and a lot more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipinayzd (talkcontribs) 08:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I studied in the provinces in elementary and H.S. (although private) and students know the English language, I can say the same for the public schools too, when I taught catechism many of my Grade 3 students were knowledgeable in English -- competence drops when they drop out of school. --Howard the Duck 08:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Even those in rural areas have access to media. --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So what's the point? --Howard the Duck 08:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Filipino is used in media and reaches non-speakers of Filipino (the variety of Tagalog spoken in Metro Manila and urban centers in the country). --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this, does it mean Filipino used in the media is different from the Filipino (which is a "variety" of Tagalog) spoken in Metro Manila and urban centers? I know for a fact that several programs shown from Metro Manila are beamed throughout the country, hence there will be standardization in the Filipino language; the programs shown in local TV in non-MM areas are mostly in the vernacular (Kapampangan, Waray, Bisaya, etc.) and isn't the "Filipino" language used in media and MM. --Howard the Duck 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The kind of Tagalog used in TV Patrol, PBB etc., is Filipino. --Filipinayzd (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So what? The Tagalog/Filipino used in PBB is beamed through the country, hence people might understand that, hence it will become the brand of Filipino they'll use. --Howard the Duck 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This variety of Tagalog spoken in MM and other urban center (Filipino) will no longer be known to Filipino speakers only. That is one of the purpose of ther so-called Philippine National Language. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So? Does this guarantee contributors to a Filipino language Wiktionary? --Howard the Duck 09:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So why create if there'll be no guarantee of contributors? --Howard the Duck 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this already - the entire point of this subsection is to point out that since the Tagalog Wiktionary isn't contributed enough, why so should a Filipino language Wiktionary be created? Can there be enough contributors for a Filipino Wikitionary? --Howard the Duck 08:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Filipinayzd's notion of what the Tagalog Wiktionary can and cannot accept is completely false. As the administrator of the Tagalog Wiktionary, it is only right to clarify what Wiktionary can accept and cannot accept. Just read the Main Page: (translated) This is the Tagalog Wiktionary: it aims to describe words in all languages, with definitions and descriptions (written) only in Tagalog. I think that clears it up. --Sky Harbor 11:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm for a Filipino wiktionary, much more a Filipino wikipedia. To complement the Filipino wiktionary we can use UP's Diksyunaryo ng Wikang Filipino as main reference. =) --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought Filipino Wikipedia was a pre-requirement. I'm checking out all Philippine Wikis to search for Filipino words. Filipinayzd (sign me in I'm lazy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I still see no need for the Filipino Wiktionary if they will find a good home in the Tagalog Wiktionary, which accepts any words, regardless of language, whether Tagalog, Filipino or otherwise. --Sky Harbor 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you include Cebuano's "pangga" or Bikolano's "gurang" there? --Filipinayzd (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
With that said, I can include Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious there too >:) --Howard the Duck 12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Your call. :) --Filipinayzd (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is such as thing as "sinta" and "matanda" in Tagalog. The two words you mentioned are considered "slang" in Tagalog. Starczamora (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, only one Wiktionary should be active: either Filipino or Tagalog, frankly it doesn't matter whichever is removed but there should only be one. --Howard the Duck 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm for Filipino. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It should be Tagalog until KWF defines the difference between the structure of Tagalog and Filipino. With that, the following points would arise:
  • Concluding that Filipino is THE SAME as Tagalog would spell the doom of the Tagalog language, since English words and non-Tagalog terms would eat up the whole Tagalog language.
  • Concluding that Filipino is DIFFERENT from Tagalog would mean that Tagalog should have an independent orthography, structure, as well as rules of translation and term borrowing. There would also be a need for translators between Tagalog and Filipino.
I would also like to point out that foreigners and Filipino-Americans are learning "Tagalog", not "Filipino". Starczamora (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I am against having a separate wiktionary for Filipino, I am open in adding projects for the development of Philippine languages. What we see right now is a ningas cogon attitude where we start one project but failed to develop and start another one and if zest is lost start another... --Exec8 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway to stop this madness? Come on, since the Tagalog Wiktionary is ignored, so will be this. --Howard the Duck 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no movement on Meta at the moment. We just have to keep our eye on meta:Requests for new languages. There already was a proposal back in September, but it was quashed when the reforms were put in. See meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Filipino. Curious to know why Filipinayzd had a change of heart in only one day (see below). hehe. --Chris S. (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
He opposed his own project too. --Filipinayzd (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The role of a Wiktionary...

... if I may further clarify Sky Harbor, is to be a dictionary of all words in all languages, but defined using a particular language. That's why we have an entry for "日本" in the English Wiktionary. So there's little sense in having Wiktionaries for mutually intelligible dialects of the same language. --seav (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. To answer Filipinayzd's point, this means that the word "pangga" can be inserted, just with a Tagalog definition. --Sky Harbor 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It can be added as an entry, in fact, every single word in the world. But not as part of its vocabulary. Can you find, balakubak, in an English dictionary? No. English's boondock (assimilated/"Englishized") and Tagalog's bundok (where it came from) have different meaning. -Filipinayzd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But it appears that the English Wiktionary is not just your ordinary English dictionary, it's an English dictionary for every word in every language in the face of the earth. Who knows I can even find sign language words there. And please, can't you just sign in? It's a lot easier typing ~~~~ than typing (or even copying) "Filipinayzd" --Howard the Duck 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tagalog Filipino Dilemma

Wow, this debate has been going on here for a very long time now. It is very suprising that we haven't really decided on an ultimate and final solution for this problem. From the Tagalog and Filipino wikipedia to the Tagalog and Filipino wiktionary. When will our quarrels end? In the beginning there was Tagalog... It was so insufficient that it had to borrow words from Spanish but remained to be called as Tagalog. English came around and Tagalog thought it had to enrich itself more, so it borrowed more. Eventually the thirst for more was irresistable for coping up; it wanted more and more that it had to change its name to Filipino. As we all can see, the Filipino language reflects our history, our evolution, our development. Let's all give it a chance. Our constitution gives us that chance, lets utilize it, and let our constitution (our law) be our source of inspiration. To the purists and to those who are against Filipino in any form and shape, I challenge them to write in their Tagalog wikipedia and wiktionary without any Spanish borrowings. I challenge them to write in pure Tagalog if there's any. That way we can clearly see the borderline between what Tagalog is and what Filipino is. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no existing borderline. If that were the case, that would mean that American English and British English are different languages based on vocabulary. It's not just that; the mere fact that a language borrows from other languages does not mean that it is automatically separate. The semantics have to be separate as well, which is notoriously absent in Filipino as it still uses Tagalog grammar and Tagalog vocabulary, even borrowed words from other languages that have long been part of the lexicon. --Sky Harbor 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a wrong notion that Tagalog and other Filipino (Philippine) Languages will eventually die because of Filipino. As long as a language is spoken it will not die. Of course it will evolve. Technically, Filipino is a dialect. As defined by KWF, it is the Tagalog in Metro Manila and urban centers of the country. One can identify the difference of Tagalog in Metro Manila and outside it. There are people, some of them are even in KWF, who fail or refuse to recognize this borderline. --Filipinayzd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just a matter of giving Filipino a chance to develop not just for the Tagalogs but for the entire Filipino people. The Tagalog purists who dont want their language to be infiltrated by other languages or feel like their language is being corrupted by Filipino should stop borrowing words from other languages and dropped the Spanish borrowings in their vocabulary. I feel like enough is enough. Let's all give Filipino a chance to evolve and develop not just in its vocabulary, but in semantics too and all that. Filipino will be, eventually, completely different from Tagalog and will be a separate language if given the chance. --Weekeejames (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It is our obligation as speakers of our respective languages to protect and promote our languages. I am not threatened of Filipino or of any languages. --Filipinayzd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The government may have had good intentions into using Tagalog for the Filipino language, but the problem is that they incorporated Filipino into the Tagalog language so much that people nowadays think that Tagalog and Filipino are one and the same. I mean, how many of you can speak straight Tagalog (without any hint of "tusok-tusok the fishball" English)? Heck, even I can't, and I'm in Manila for crying out loud! Nakaka-frustrate, di ba? Or should I say...Nakakadismaya. Tagalog IS a dying language, and with the quick pace of turning it into a CREOLE (no thanks to English), I bet it probably will. Starczamora (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You are probably confused between a creole and a mixed language. Creoles come to life when Juan (a bisaya) and Pedro (a tagalog) come together and do not understand each other that they have to learn the language of another companion, Maria (a Spanish) and mix it (Spanish) with Cebuano and Tagalog to create a pidgin. When Juan and Pedro's children and grandchilden continues to use the pidgin, it becomes a creole. Now a mixed language on the other hand comes to life when both Juan and Pedro speaks both Cebuano and Tagalog and mix the two (or even add a three or four others) together. We can say that Filipino is a mixed language - a mixture of more than two languages. It is also not a code-switched language like Taglish and Englog. Tagalog is not a dying language. It well and alive. It is the current blueprint of an evolving and developing language called Filipino. It might not be in the future though. --Weekeejames (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is our obligation to protect our language by speaking it. -- Filipinayzd (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What we learned today this debate really goes no where. Like the political dynasty section in the Philippine constitution, if there is no enabling law that gives quasi-judicial/ regulatory powers to KWF like for example in news reporting, the Filipino language has no real identity. Let us invite a person in KWF on this forum or formally thru a personal meeting in Manila 4 ...or 5 ...or 6. --Exec8 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How can we expect Filipino to have its own identity if we aren't giving it a chance in the first place? We don't need a commission with regulatory powers at the moment. We just need to give Filipino a chance, and we all can make a difference beginning with wikipedia and a wictionary. It's about time we Filipino wikipedians resolve this issue once and for all for the issue will keep on coming back like a vicious cycle. Kahit gustuhin ko man hindi ako nakaka contribute sa Tagalog wikipedia dahil alam ko bokya ang Tagalog ko. Medyo alanganin ako dahil Chavacano ang wika ko. Pero pag may Filipino wikipedia at Filipino wictionary, sigurado ako na magiging komportable ako sa pag ko-kontribute. --Weekeejames (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I bet you yourselves speak and write the Filipino variety of Tagalog and not the kind of Tagalog you contribute in Tagalog Wikipedia. I guess the last time we have written and spoken in Tagalog was when we wrote our formal theme writing and when we delivered our speech, ironically, in Filipino subject. Isipon ta. --Filipinayzd (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. So contributors should not be in the business of developing a language (which could be considered Original Research) but documenting its usage instead. --seav (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It's publishing the "what is". Affixing or assimilating a word that has become part of one's language is different from just borrowing. --Filipinayzd
It's not just that either. To quote the WMF language proposal policy:

The language should have a valid ISO-639 1–3 code. If there is no valid ISO-639 code, it should be a natural language or a well-established constructed language. The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language. The information that distinguishes this language from another should be sufficient to convince standards organizations to create an ISO-639 code.

Of relevant note as well:

The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case basis. The subcommittee does not consider political differences, since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities.

Even if Filipino has a separate ISO 639 code (fil ISO 639-2), it is still recognized as a variant of Tagalog. Therefore, unless there is an already-existing degree of separation, there is no basis for such. Besides, words like komportable already exist in Tagalog. --Sky Harbor 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Komportable, and a lot more, also exists in Bikol, I bet in Cebuano and other Philippine languages too. Tagalog cannot just solely claim it. A word, loan word (assimilated or not) or local (of a particular Philippine language), can be considered Filipino when it has become part of Philippine or other Philippine languages' vocabulary. Naturally, more Tagalog words reach the "status" of "Pambansa/Filipino" (can be found in other Philippine languages' vocabulary or can be understood by non-Tagalog speakers), one reason is, Tagalog is used by media. --Filipinayzd
Giving Filipino a chance here does not necesarrily mean developing it within Wikipedia. It is already an evolving language, a developing one outside Wikipedia. There are probably more "extensive body of works" in Filipino already than Tagalog. The original research presumption is futile. I also do not believe that Filipino is an unnatural language nor a non-established constructed language. It came to life as part of our historical process as a nation. Furthermore, the non-coexistence of two similar languages on a wiki is not an exclusive policy. A good example would be the simple English wikipedia and the English wikipedia. The WMF does not care about the politics behind the Tagalog protectionists and the Filipino advocates. --Weekeejames (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Iyon nga eh. There are extensive works in Filipino because they thought it is Tagalog (I bet that's the reason why Cebuanos detest learning Filipino). As I've said before, Filipino is a living and breathing CREOLE at the expense of the dying Tagalog. Had Filipino been created out of, say...Cebuano, the dilemma would fall on Cebuano, and Tagalog would have been alive and well. Starczamora (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It's frustrating when you come in second. Like they say, second placers are the first losers. No pun intended. We, Bicolanos, would be the fourth losers then. --Filipinayzd 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Well, blame it on the imperialists Tagalogs. Who crafted Filipino anyway? I bet they're the Tagalogs themselves. lol :D Seriously, let's take out politics and decide and find a solution to this dilemma here in Wikipedia. --Weekeejames (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it a Waray who created Tagalog? Anyway this debate won't achieve anything unless either of two Tagalog/Filipino Wiktionaries get scrapped and any creation of a Tagalog/Filipino Wikimedia project would be stopped. --Howard the Duck 15:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was a Waray who was chairman of the National Language Institute that decided that Tagalog should be used. And I quote:
"The then President Manuel L. Quezon appointed to compose the (National Language) Institute, Jaime C. De Veyra, as chairman, representing Samar-Leyte-Visayan; Santiago A. Fonacier, representing the Ilocano regions; Filemon Sotto (Cebu-Visayan); Casimiro Perfecto (Bicol); Felix S. Sales Rodriguez (Panay-Visayan); Hadji Butu (the Muslims) and Cecilio Lopez (Tagalog), as members." link here
As you see, it wasn't the so-called "Tagalog Imperialists" that forced the language into other regions. Starczamora (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But Quezon and the National Language Institute's national language was PILIPINO which was simply another name for Tagalog and NOT the Filipino we are discussing these days. It is not the same Filipino in our present-day constitution. I was asking "who crafted Filipino" [in our 1987 Constitution] and not who crafted Pilipino. I still bet they were the Tagalog imperialists. --Weekeejames (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as the language used by the state, in school (as a medium of instruction) and media is based on Tagalog, Filipino will become the (most popular) lingua franca of the Filipinos. --Filipinayzd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Someday we may have Filipino Davao apart from Filipino in Metro Manila. --Filipinayzd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It happens to every language anyway. They're called dialects, although there should be one standard dialect in the language in which everyone can understand. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere (again). Can't we stay on topic: on whether to scrap the Filipino Wiktionary? --Howard the Duck 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are people saying that there is a Filipino Davao (and have even proposed it as the official language?) They're confusing it for codeswitched Tagalog and Cebuano - or Bisalog. --Chris S. (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm for Filipino [because I'm a Filipino]. I'm for a poll. We can't quarrel all the time here. We've got to decide and make a resolution to this issue once and for all to stop this going nowhere (again and again). --Weekeejames (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just what exactly is a poll going to change? Wikipedia works on a consensus, and so far there is no consensus judging from the lively debate we've been having here. If you guys submit the proposal to Meta Wiki, the language subcommittee will most likely not approve it - if it is allowed to get that far. --Chris S. (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't know where Filipino ends and "pure" Tagalog begins. There is no clearly defined line that can be formed as a basis for making a distinction. If there is anyone who insists that there is a clearly defined border between the two, then I'll slap you with a [citation needed]. Many English words are being assimilated at varying rates into Tagalog. For example, doktor is already an established Tagalog word despite manggagamot. Same with oto as a synonym for kotse and titser vis-a-vis guro. On the other hand, computer/kompyuter is in middle stages of assimilation and website is just starting to be assimilated. Is "Nag-computer ako kagabi" Tagalog? Filipino? Taglish? How can you tell if computer is already an accepted Tagalog word? How about "Nag-text ako sa kaniya"? "Nag-drive ako kagabi"? "Nag-bus ako papunta rito"? If you're going to tell me that some/all/none of these are Tagalog/Filipino/Taglish, then you are making arbitrary decisions. --seav (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Doktor, kotse, titser are used in Bikol (parabulong, lunadan, paratokdo) perhaps in Cebuano and other Philippine languages. We also say it "Nag-text ako sa (saiya/insert other Philippine languages counterpart here)", "Nag-drive ako (kasubanggi/insert other Philippine languages counterpart here)", "Nag-bus ako (pasiring digdi/insert other Philippine languages counterpart here)" in Bikol (in other Philippine languages). -Filipinayzd (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"Many English words are being assimilated at varying rates into Tagalog." If this is true, then Tagalog is not in danger; it is alive and well. So there is no need to panic. It's just that the possibilities of Filipino is more and broader. I can just imaging assimilating Tausog, Bicolano, Boholano, Chavacano, and etc. words [other than English] into Filipino. I can already think of one: "bodi" which is a Zamboangueño slang word for broke: Hindi wais sa kanyang ekspendityurs kaya laging bodi si Juan! When we talk about this dilemma, it seems the root problem is evidently English, but English doesn't have to be the only language that can have its words assimilated into Filipino. --Weekeejames (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There's the rub. Are we talking about assimilating words (from any language) into Tagalog? Into Filipino? Or into Tagalog/Filipino? You say, "the possibilities of Filipino is more and broader" How about "the possibilities of Tagalog is also broad"? Is your example sentence using "bodi" Filipino, Tagalog, or Tagalog/Filipino code-switched with Chavacano? When I say "pangga ko siya," am I speaking in pure Tagalog/Filipino with "pangga" already or in the process of being assimilated or am I just code-switching with Hiligaynon? --seav (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog can assimilate words from any language as it has been doing so for hundreds of years now for all its goodness and benefit, but we are talking here about Filipino and its even more, broader possibilities because it has a mandate from the law that talks about an evolution, development and all that of a national language based on other Philippine languages [and not just Tagalog] (Tagalog/Pilipino is not even mentioned there, though it's included implictly). So in my example above, its clearly Filipino - from the context of what the Constitution is saying. So what's that borderline between Tagalog and Filipino that we find it so very hard to see? It's that mandate from the law. What makes the possibilities of Filipino greater and broader? It's the same mandate from the law. In other words what makes them different from each other is the legality of Filipino (de jure). --Weekeejames (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, what a debate! I don't know where to start. I have to disagree with Weekeejames that the possibilities of Filipino is more and broader. Filipino is a standardized language and standardization moves at a snail's pace since it's regulated by a government authority. Tagalog, on the other hand, continues to evolve and incorporate words from other languages everyday - the same thing it's been doing for a thousand or so years. People are rightfully defining Filipino as evolving (albeit slowly), but they are wrong by redefining Tagalog as something that is limited. This is totally wrong. What reliable sources do we have that say that Tagalog is limited in such a way, that it can no longer accept borrowings?

I do not know how pangga and gurang can be Filipino. Have these words been incorporated by the KWF? You know, just today I had to revert one of Filipinayzd's edits to Languages of the Philippines - as the Filipinos he claimed to be distinct than Tagalog are equally valid in Tagalog as well. Why are you guys trying so hard to fabricate distinctions between the two?

Why indeed do we need a separate Filipino Wikipedia/Wiktionary? Remember, Filipino is strictly defined as a standardized language, based on the language of Manila. Tagalog is not limited to such a definition, as it encompasses not only Manila and the rest of the Katagalugan, but the whole Philippines. Here on the English Wikipedia, we are not limited to one standard because English is spoken everywhere - and that is the beauty of it. It would not make sense to create a General American English Wikipedia/Wiktionary (based on the dialect of the Midwest!) - and Simple English is another story, because there are no regional restrictions to it either. It would be a huge waste of time and effort - this is in light of the fact that GAE is much more developed than Filipino is. --Chris S. (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how pangga and gurang can be Filipino. Have these words been incorporated by the KWF? Starczamora who is a Tagalog (I suppose) know what these words mean. He says in Tagalog (in Bikol too perhaps in other Philippines languages) these are slang. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you guys trying so hard to fabricate distinctions between the two? Fabricate? I've heard it many times in TV Patrol and 24 Oras. Folks in Metro Manila refer to community police when they say barangay (Perhaps for people in Tayabas tanod) I can't imagine Bulaqueños use kaya, as in "Mahangin kaya sa labas" (In Bikol, we say, "Maduros man daw sa luwas). --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not referring to the words as being fabricated, I am referring to the fact that these words belong to one language and not the other when, in fact, they are equally valid in Tagalog. As for your statement that you can't imagine Bulaqueños wouldn't use those words, you make that under the assumption that Tagalog is supposed to be the same for everyone. Remember, Tagalog has its dialects too. Bulaqueños have words that Manileños do not use and vice-versa, so OF COURSE you cannot imagine Bulaqueños using kaya. --Chris S. (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Hindi nga? (Hindi nga? is actually the "Manila Tagalog"/Filipino of Talaga?) :P Can you put in the Discussion Page what I wrote there? I want to know what others think. Thanks. Where are the Bikol words I added? --Filipinayzd (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Filipino is not even a standardized language yet. If it were, then we have no reason to quarrel on the issue. The KWF doesnt have any clearly defined regulatory powers. Its task and functions are very limited in scope. Actually, its the mandate of the law on Filipino that makes the Tagalogs feel they are being pushed into limits - that feeling of endangerment. Nobody is putting any limits on Tagalog. What I'm asking here is that Tagalogs should give Filipino a chance after all it has also been borrowing words from other languages. If they can't, then the Tagalogs might as well stop borrowing words from other languages or drop the Spanish loan words from their vocabulary, stop using Filipino, and stop acting like hypocrites. I also beg to disagree that Filipino is based on the language of Manila. What's the basis? The English assimilation? When a Cebuano in the Visayas speaks Tagalog, to me it becomes Filipino. When a Davaowenyo speaks Tagalog in Mindanao, to me it becomes Filipino. Filipino is in a process. Somehow codeswitching will be a standard characteristic of Filipino. --Weekeejames (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If Filipino is not a standardized language yet, then what business do y'all have proposing a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary for it? Yes, we'll give Tagalog a chance, but right now is not the time. If ever, we should give it a lot of time for it to evolve. I am looking at 50 years from now. That may even be too early. It takes time for a standardized language and to be normalized and to have its own character. As for Filipino being based on the language of Manila, there was a directive released in the early 1990s and also as recent this year, the KWF chariman Dr. Nolasco has stated as such back on August 24:

Are "Tagalog," "Pilipino" and "Filipino" different languages? No, they are mutually intelligible varieties, and therefore belong to one language. According to the KWF, Filipino is that speech variety spoken in Metro Manila and other urban centers where different ethnic groups meet. It is the most prestigious variety of Tagalog and the language used by the national mass media.

The other yardstick for distinguishing a language from a dialect is: different grammar, different language. "Filipino", "Pilipino" and "Tagalog" share identical grammar. They have the same determiners (ang, ng and sa); the same personal pronouns (siya, ako, niya, kanila, etc); the same demonstrative pronouns (ito, iyan, doon, etc); the same linkers (na, at and ay); the same particles (na and pa); and the same verbal affixes -in, -an, i- and -um-. In short, same grammar, same language.

As for non-Tagalog Filipinos speaking Tagalog and you considering it Filipino, sorry but that does not make a separate language. What an absurd idea. --Chris S. (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"If Filipino is not a standardized language yet, then what business do y'all have proposing a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary for it?" - Because it's an existing language whether you like it or not. Although it has a legal status (as mandated by the constitution), the law itself is not very clear on what Filipino is. It is only saying what it is; it doesn't say what it's not. It doesnt give any power to any regulating/enforcing body to impose what isn't Filipino. If I invent my own Filipino sentence, nobody has any right to tell me it's not Filipino. That's the reason why I say it is not a standardized language [yet]. An added reason for Filipino to have its own wikipedia and wictionary is because it's now spoken by more Filipinos than just the Tagalogs. It probably has its own variants now in other parts of the country. For non-Tagalog Filipinos speaking what appears to them as Tagalog which I consider as Filipino, I reiterate, nobody has the right to tell me it isnt Filipino nor it isn't a variant or a dialect, if you may, of a separate language. We keep insisting that Filipino=Tagalog or Filipino=dialect of Tagalog, and althought its blueprint is currently [and obviously] Tagalog (KWF wins), the mandate of the law doesn't say that it should only be Tagalog. Filipino is such an "ideal" language that the Tagalogs keep on usurping it and ironically rejects it because they feel that their language is at risk. The bordeline between what Filipino is (or what some of you insist it to be) and what Filipino should be (according to the law) is very clear. We just have to choose which side we are on. Or perhaps another option for us: What Filipino should be is what Filipino really is. --Weekeejames (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Nobody has any right to tell me it's not Filipino." And so, what gives you the right as a Zamboangueño to tell a Tagalog that your "Filipino sentence" is not Tagalog? It's his own language that his own ancestors have developed over the course of a millenium or so, and then all of a sudden a Bicolano and a Zamboangueño (wink) are going to tell him that the language they are speaking is no longer his? Isn't this a bit arrogant? --Chris S. (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"Filipino is not even a standardized language yet." Yes, there's still no defined process/standard for regulating the development and evolution of Filipino. So how can you say that your example sentencs that incorporate words from various languages is Filipino? You also say that code-switching will be a characteristic of Filipino. Says who? Also, that's contradictory. Code-switching can never be an intrinsic part of any single language because, by definition, code-switching is the imposition of two or more languages in a grammatical unit (e.g., sentences, phrases, words), and is not of a single language only.
To clarify my all of my comments further, my position does not concern whether Filipino or Tagalog is doomed or not or whatever. My point is that until the KWF releases a standard/linguistic process, we cannot for certain say what's Filipino and what's Tagalog. There is no clear border until there's a clear standard/process from the KWF. So this is also not a matter of giving Filipino a chance or not, because until we have a definitive answer from the KWF, Filipino is still a nebulous linguistic concept with ambiguous definitions.
Why am I emphasizing the KWF? Here's why: While the Constitution says that "as [Filipino] evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages" it does not mean that we, as Filipino citizens, can do our own developing and enriching. No, no, no. There has to be an implementing/enabling law. (That's why we have this huge brouhaha over how to amend the constitution by people's initiative. There is no enabling law for this mode of constitutional amendment and that's why various "people's initiatives" have failed.)
With the Filipino language, there is an enabling law. That's Republic Act No. 7104 which created the KWF. So therefore, the KWF has the sole prerogative of "developing and enriching" the Filipino language. So until the KWF has given us binding standards to deal with, we cannot go on defining our own perceptions of what is Filipino or not and what is the "border" between Filipino and Tagalog.
As for Tagalog, since it's not a de jure language, it will continue to evolve via natural linguistic means. --seav (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So how can you say that your example sentencs that incorporate words from various languages is Filipino? You also say that code-switching will be a characteristic of Filipino. Says who? Also, that's contradictory. Code-switching can never be an intrinsic part of any single language because, by definition, code-switching is the imposition of two or more languages in a grammatical unit (e.g., sentences, phrases, words), and is not of a single language only.

— Seav
Code-switching (tag-switching and intra-word switching or combination, but not intersentential and intra-sentential switchings) is a characteristic of Filipino. KWF has created rules to standardize it. But in my observation, speakers of Filipino do not prefer/follow what KWF has set, and they do it their own ways or should I say, KWF does not recognize how speakers of Filipino speak or write their language -- technically a dialect (Filipino), the most popular one, of Tagalog. Intersentential and intra-sentential switchings are not allowed since accoding to the rules you can only borrow words (note that some of unassimilated foreigns words have become part of Filipino vocabulary) and not clauses or sentences. Naturally, speakers of Filipino often borrow from English rather than in other Philippine languages for (one reason is) it is understood by most of its speakers. Another reason is, how can you borrow from a Philippine language (aside from your own) which you don't know? Note that most of Filipino speakers are Tagalog. It is KWF's job to think of a way. But I can an advice. Non-Tagalog speakers of Filipino should promote their native vocabulary. How, you may ask. How did "oragon", "gurang", "pangga" become familiar? --Filipinayzd (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Pinapalangga mo naman ang beybi ko, says a Cebuano speaking in Filipino. That is clearly an incorporation of Cebuano and English words in a Filipino sentence. That, very evidently, is NOT Tagalog. Can you notice the technically code switching feature especially the intra-word switching? Basically like I said, Filipino is not a code-switching language, but technically there is code switching, and therefore there is a possibilty that code switching will be a characteristic of Filipino in the future when it gets fully developed. Binebeybi is not code switching (although technically it is) because the foreign word "baby" is now a Filipino word "beybi". So, there you go... There is code-switching, technically, in Filipino.

To clarify my all of my comments further, my position does not concern whether Filipino or Tagalog is doomed or not or whatever. My point is that until the KWF releases a standard/linguistic process, we cannot for certain say what's Filipino and what's Tagalog. There is no clear border until there's a clear standard/process from the KWF. So this is also not a matter of giving Filipino a chance or not, because until we have a definitive answer from the KWF, Filipino is still a nebulous linguistic concept with ambiguous definitions..

— Seav
The law does not say that its the KWF to decide what is Filipino and what is not Filipino. The KWF is simply a tangible guide, a mere helper. It's no surprise that its functions are limited. The law is giving a mandate to every Filipino citizen to help shape up a national language, not to a single commission. Filipinayzd is correct when he wrote, it is our obligation to blah blah blah... The KWF can only setup guidelines and standards for schools and government agencies, but it cannot impose what Filipino is and what Filipino is not. It does not have the power to do so. That's why I said, the possibilities of Filipino is broad. The mandate of the law on Filipino as a national language is very broad because it tells us what it is and not what it is not. It's telling us what we can do and not what we can't do. In essence, its a kind of a "hopeful" law. --Weekeejames (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If Filipino is supposed to be shaped up by Philippine citizens, then the KWF should be taking a more active role. Otherwise, it will be forever doomed to be nothing more than a dialect of Tagalog. The reason is that there is all this confusion and arbitrary delineation. Remember, that Wikipedia is against the use of original research. This is what you guys are proposing to do with Filipino. It's still too early to have a Filipino Wikipedia. Like I said, give it a couple centuries or so. ;-P --Chris S. (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For a non-Bisaya speaker of Filipino, at least for me, the given example "Pinalangga mo naman ang beybi ko." is incomprehensible. I understand "pangga" but not "pinalangga". --Filipinayzd (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it evident that Filipino will have its own dialects/variants/varieties? Palangga is a Cebuano word (for dearie, a sweetheart). There would be differences between the Filipino spoken in Manila and the Filipino spoken in the Visayas and Mindanao. Native indigenous languages will always be a factor on how Filipino is spoken in different parts of the country. Don't tell us that Filipino is only the Tagalog clone language of Manila and urban areas because it is not and it will not be. Consider the sentence: Pinapaguba [pinaguguba] ng gobyerno ang mga haus ng mga iskwater sa Pasil. Who is to say this isn't Filipino? --Weekeejames (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Don't tell us that Filipino is only the Tagalog clone.." Uh, the KWF itself proclaimed it on a handful of occasions. They are the ones who made Filipino. It's their creation. And they are defining it. You guys are confused. Confusing Tagalog dialects for a new fangled language. --Chris S. (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let's have Filipino then. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break: The role of KWF, etc.

Filipino is a made up "language" that just happens to currently be a dialect of Tagalog. Read up on Sec. 14. Powers, Functions and Duties of the Commission to see what actual powers the KWF has. For example, the KWF can "Propose guidelines and standards for linguistic forms and expressions" and "conduct, at the national, regional and local levels, public hearings, conferences, seminars and other group discussions to identify and help resolve problems and issues involving the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino".

While it's not illegal, according to the law, that Filipinos can forge their own ideas on what Filipino is or is not (i.e., you can't be jailed for it), I can not buy the claim that non-native-Tagalog-speakers speaking Tagalog to already be Filipino speech. Like the "pinapalangga" example. For me that's just Tagalog code-switched with another language. Here we have the Ilonggo "palangga" inflected using Tagalog grammatical rules (double the first syllable + add 'in' infix). That's code-switching of two languages: Ilonggo vocabulary + Tagalog grammar. That does not automatically make it Filipino. Again, code-switching merges two or more languages together.

The fact that Tagalogs are starting to incorporate "palangga"/"pangga" into their speech does not mean that Filipinos are already developing Filipino. To me that's simply Tagalog evolving. --seav (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Constitution nor Republic Act No. 7104 says what Filipino exactly is. The constitution just says that Filipino is the national language, one of the official languages, and is based on existing Philippine and other languages. The RA 7104 is actually silent on it and just says the KWF should develop/promote Filipino (and other Philippine languages). By this fact, nobody can say what is or isn't Filipino. If you go by the law, just because the law does not specify what Filipino is or is not does not mean we can define for ourselves what Filipino is.

Point in fact: the Constitution says that Filipino is based on Philippine and other languages. So going by the logic WeekeeJames is using, I can create a French-Ilokano creole and claim that it is Filipino and that won't be unconstitutional!

Such absurdity is abated by clarifying the intent of the Constitution and this clarification is manifested the enabling law or RA 7104. The law itself does not define what Filipino exactly is so it is therefore up to the KWF to promulgate standards and guidelines on the exact makings of Filipino. --seav (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the constitution is not clear on what exactly Filipino is. I've said it's vague, but let's now dwell too much on what exactly Filipino is. Since you claim Filipino to be just another Tagalog or a clone of Tagalog, then let's stick with "what is not Filipino". That's where I am trying to drive my point at. The constitution does not say what it's not, only what it is. If only the constitution is saying Filipino to be "based on Tagalog or Pilipino and other existing Philippine language and other languages...", then I would easily reject any creation of the Filipino wikipedia/wictionary. If only the constitution is saying Filipino as a national language should "not be based on other Philippine languages, but only based on Tagalog or Pilipino", then I would easily accept Filipino to be a Tagalog clone.
"Point in fact: the Constitution says that Filipino is based on Philippine and other languages. So going by the logic WeekeeJames is using, I can create a French-Ilokano creole and claim that it is Filipino and that won't be unconstitutional!"
You didn't get the logic there. You cannot claim my kind of Filipino to be just another Tagalog clone unless the constitution (the source of the idea called "Filipino" national language) tells us what Filipino is not. Its telling us oh eto pinoy national language nyo - para sa lahat, ayun sa lahat.. pero ang sinasabi nyo... tagalog yan kasi tunog at mukhang tagalog lang naman ang pilipino. Eh, hindi naman sinabi ng batas na ayun sa tagalog lang. Ang sabi ng batas para sa lahat at ayun sa lahat at hindi tagalog lang. The creole you will create cannot be the Filipino that you would like it to be. Common sense lang, kelangan karamihan nakakaintindi para ito ay matawag na wikang pambansa. National=majority Nakakaintindi ba ng karamihan ng mga pinoy ang French? Yeah, I can prolly write a sentence using popular words that majority of Filipinos understand and that are based on Philippine languages, add a foreign word or two and spell it in the Filipino way and call everything Filipino! I bet it wont be unconstitutional. lol --Weekeejames (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Filipino is that speech variety spoken in Metro Manila and other urban centers where different ethnic groups meet. It is the most prestigious variety of Tagalog and the language used by the national mass media. [3] --Filipinayzd (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tambayan, Filipino or Tagalog?

"Tambayan Philippines is a regional notice board for articles related to the Philippines. Tambayan is a Filipino word which means a place for hanging out."

Just asking. --Filipinayzd (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? But to humor you, I'd say it's Tagalog, which also makes it nominally Filipino. But that's just my opinion. --seav (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Some words can appear in 2 or more languages. --Howard the Duck 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Inaprubahan ng presidente noong Byernes ang umento sa sweldo ng mga empleyado ng gobyerno dahil sa walang tigil na pagtaas ng presyo ng bilihin sa merkado. (Pinayagan ng pangulo noong Byernes ang pagtataas sa pasahod ng mga manggagawa ng pamahalaan dahil sa walang tigil na pagtaas ng halaga ng bilihin sa pamilihan.)
Inaprobaran kan presidente kan Biernes ang pagpalangkaw kan sweldo kan mga empleyado kan gobyerno nin huli sa daeng untok na paglangkaw kan presyo kan mga barakalon sa merkado. (Tinugutan na kan pamayo kan Biernes an pagpalangkaw kan bayad kan mga paragibo kan pangatamanan nin huli sa daeng untok na paglangkaw kan halaga kan mga barakalon sa bakalan.)
  • Pumasok sa kwarto at nag-aral ng kanyang leksyon imbes na pumunta ng kanto at humithit ng sigarilyo ang pobreng binatilyo. (Pumasok sa silid at nag-aral ng kanyang aralin sa halip na pumunta sangang-daan at humithit ng tabako [?] ang kawawang binata.)
Liminaog sa kwarto asin nag-adal kan saiyang leksyon imbes na magduman sa kanto asin maghithit nin sigarilyo an tresteng solterito. (Liminaog sa laog asin nag-adal kan saiyang inaadal bako na dumuman sa sabatan na dalan asin maghithit nin tabako an makaherak na aki.)
  • Maraming estudyante sa kolehiyo ang nadismaya sa pagtaas ng matrikula. (Maraming mag-aaral sa pinakamataas na paaralan ang hindi nasiyahan sa pagtaas ng pambayad sa pag-aaral.)
Dakol na estudyante sa kolehiyo an nadisganar sa paglangkaw kan matrikula. (Dakol na paraadal sa pinakahalangkaw na adalan an nauyam sa pagtaas kan pambayad sa pag-adal.)
  • Desedido na ang pamilya Santos na umalis sa nasyon. (Napag-isipan na ng mag-anak na Santos na umalis sa bansa.)
Desedido na ang pamilya Santos na humali sa nasyon. (Napan-isip na an pamilya Santos na humali sa banwa.)

--Filipinayzd (talk)

If you look at the first sentence closely, the important words used were borrowings from Spanish: aprobar, presidente, viernes, aumento, sueldo, empleado, gobierno, precio, mercado. Tagalog borrows words from Spanish tremendously! But why do we have to borrow, for example, merkado when palengke exists? Clearly, Tagalog is not a pidgin, a creole, netiher a mixed language. The assimilation of some Spanish words into Tagalog were prolly the effects of bilingualism of the middle and upper class Filipinos during the Spanish period. --Weekeejames (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Pamilihan - well actually palengke is Mexican in origin brought by the Spaniards and Spanish-Mexicans from Mexico. lol --Weekeejames (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Inapprove ng president noong Friday ang increase sa salary ng mga government employee dahil sa non-stop price increase ng goods sa market. (Inapprove kan president kan Friday an increase sa salary kan mga government employee huli sa non-stop price increase kan goods sa market.)
  • Pumasok sa room at nagstudy ng kanyang lesson instead na pumunta sa crossing at magpuff ng cigarette ang poor boy. (Luminaog sa room asin nagstudy kan saiyang lesson instead na dumuman sa crossing asin magpuff nin cigarette an poor boy.)
  • Maraming college students ang nadisappoint sa tuition fee increase. (Dakol na college students an nadisappoint sa tuition fee increase.)
  • Decided (na) ang Santos family na mag-emigrate. (Decided (na) an Santos family na mag-emigrate.)

--Filipinayzd (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog? Bikol?

  • presidente, sweldo, empleyado, gobyerno, presyo, merkado
  • kwarto, leksyon, imbes, kanto, sigarilyo, pobre
  • estudyante, kolehiyo, matrikula
  • desedido, pamilya, nasyon
  • approve (aprub), president, increase, salary, government, employee, non-stop, price, goods, market
  • room (rum), study (istadi), lesson (leson), instead, crossing, puff, cigarette, poor, boy
  • college, student, disappoint, tuition (twisyon), fee
  • decided, family, emigrate
  • sa, mga, na-, -um-, mag-, -ng, (reduplication)
  • cognates

It is not impossible to create a Philippine language that is ginagamit bilang wika ng komunikasyon ng mga etnikong grupo, na katulad ng alinmang wikang buhay ay dumaraan sa proseso ng paglinang sa pamamagitan ng mga panghihiram sa mga wika ng Pilipinas at mga di-katutubong wika at sa ebolusyon ng iba’t ibang baryedad ng wika para sa iba-ibang sitwasyong sosyal, sa mga nagsasalita nito na may iba’t ibang sanligang sosyal, at para sa mga paksa ng talakayan at matalisik na pagpapahayag.[4] since Philippine languages have cognates and common way of assimilating foreign words. --Filipinayzd (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


So what was the point of this exercise? The same can be done in English:

English with primarily Latinate vocabulary: I encountered the pensive attorney who assisted me in inquiring about the timid feline and the dormant canine who continue to perspire profusely annually! I am unable to comprehend this unfortunate result prior to the amicable citizens assembling in the oriental cities to purchase benign venison.
English with primarily Germanic vocabularly: I met the thinking lawyer who helped me ask about the shy cat and the sleeping dog who keep on sweating deeply every year! I cannot understand this unlucky outcome before the friendly townfolk gather in the eastern towns to buy good deer meat.

Yes, these are silly sentences but both of them are more or less conveying the same, basic information, though with slightly different nuances of meaning, but no one would say they are different languages. --Chris S. (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

random section break

Ok, to sum everything up:

  1. Filipino is a growing language.
  2. Filipino borrows from Philippine languages, most especially Tagalog and other languages, most especially English and Spanish.
  3. Filipino spoken in Bulacan is different from the one spoken in Cebu. (Dialects)
  4. KWF doesn't have the power to force what dialect of Filipino to use.
  5. The people have the power on what dialect of Filipino to use for themselves and for other people.
  6. However, in order for Filipino speakers understand each other, there should be one dialect that'll be the "main, official" dialect. (a.k.a. the Manila dialect via it's media hegemony)
  7. The Filipino language spoken in Manila is basically Tagalog with English and Spanish loanwords.
  8. Ergo, more than likely, Filipino=Tagalog.
  9. Wiktionary can have words from language.
  10. Wiktionary can have words from dialect of a language (check out color and colour in the English Wiktionary).

--Howard the Duck 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Some entries in English Wiktionary are not actually used by its speakers (e.g. "日本").
    I actually use a Nihonggo word in daily life (Gozaimas-if you're in call centers you'd always use this LOL)... actually several non-English words are used by English speakers, especially words about numbers (deux, tres, etc.) and the Latin phrases like et cetera, et. al. and others. --Howard the Duck 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. There is a section for translations in other languages in each entry.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of scope, but then again...

Filipinayzd moved Filipino language to Filipino dialect. I don't know whether or not to move it back. --Sky Harbor 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why did he do that? If Filipino is a dialect of Tagalog (if that's what he wants to point out), then there is no more reason for a Filipino wikipedia and wictionary. Certainly, I do not agree on that move and neither on the merging of the article Filipino language with Tagalog language. Until there is a clear definition on what is not Filipino and an amendment to the constitution for Filipino to be based [primarily] on Tagalog/Pilipino, then the debate continues... That nonsense move should be reverted back. How could a "national language" be a dialect of itself? Perhaps an article on a dialect can be redirected to its language (and be a section or a subsection of it), but not the other way around. --Weekeejames 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that the day he did it, and I'm not sure how to respond. I've been thinking about the fate of that page, which seems to be mostly repeated information from Tagalog language. For that reason, I have been asking myself if it would be appropriate to simply merge Filipino into the Tagalog article. Or we could rename the article to something like Filipino (linguistics), Filipino (official language) or even Official language of the Philippines. I'm in no hurry to decide at this point.--Chris S. 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we just say what the KWF's stand on this and move/copy everything that is related to how the language is spoken, etc. to Tagalog language, while keeping Filipino language where it supposedly was... --Howard the Duck 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad that it was reverted back and that Filipino dialect article is now redirected to the Filipino language article. That move was simply absurd, IMHO. I believe we need to present the Filipino language article more as a highly-debatable concept that is unclear, unresolved, a dilemma or posing problems, with focus more on its current evolving and developing character and not as what we interpret it to be. The lack of regulating powers, lack of enabling laws, its unclear definition in the constitution, the need for an amendment in the constitution, the slow progress of the commission, etc... should help put the article in that perspective with the right references/sources. --Weekeejames 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asian cinema task force

The Southeast Asian cinema task force was recently started as a joint project of WikiProject Films and WikiProject Southeast Asia. Editors who are writing about Filipino films are welcome to join the project, where they will find support for collaboration on new articles and the expansion and promotion of existing articles. — WiseKwai 11:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Rated?

I was wondering if Tambayan was rating the articles themselves or just the talk pages related to the articles. Can anyone please tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroditoes (talkcontribs) 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We rate the articles but we put the tag on the talk page. If you're interested in assessing articles, go to Tambayan Assessment page --Lenticel (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do assess Philippine-related articles by ourselves through talk pages but not beyond B-class. GA up to FA is not ours. Anyone could rate anyway. --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to what's already mentioned: the page about the article itself should (ideally) contain only the information about the topic. Ratings are what I'd consider as part of an article's metadata similar to any templates that are found on Talk pages. Putting it in another way: some researchers would want to print just the contents of the article and not the discussion or other miscellaneous information on the Talk pages. --- Tito Pao 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinoy TV Task Force?

I'd like to propose a taskforce for the Tambayan, specifically dealing with Piony TV. Alot of what you have down there seems quite interesting (and I still think that ABS-CBN should experiment with Wowowee in different markets, just what NBC needs to go with a specific other game show), and we need to truly clean it up and expand it and all that. So, think we should launch a Piony TV Taskforce? ViperSnake151 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Its Pinoy, not Piony. You can also call us Filipinos--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, I'm only concerned about the spelling.--Lenticel (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why? Is Viper not a Filipino? --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not. Sorry bout' that, I'm Canadian actually. I just randomly came across the world of Filipino TV one day on Wikipedia, then I noticed how fanboyish and all it was written. ViperSnake151 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, welcome Viper to the realm of Pinoys.hehe. Yeah, those articles needs assistance. --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, Piony is cute. --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Television Kusog - anyone wanna help me get it all set up on the technical side? ViperSnake151 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Padala needs your help

Padala is currently a stub which could use expansion and cleanup. -- Writtenonsand 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinoy Christmas photos

Guys, Christmas is just around the corner and if you have cameras, don't forget to take lots of encyclopedic Christmas pictures! Let's virtually decorate the articles on Parol and Christmas in the Philippines. Merry Christmas! :-) --seav 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seav, I'm going to DYK Parol in mid-December. When do you plan to add pics so we can synchronize our efforts?--Lenticel (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I plan on taking pictures of the supposedly huge Simbang Gabi celebration at St. James Cathedral in Seattle this Saturday. Hopefully my pics will turn out nice and be Wikipedia-worthy. ;-P --Chris S. 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What do I know? ;-) I will be in a Simbang Gabi (actually, in two masses) this month. I will also be supervising this year's production of our parish's panuluyan. There are also some puto bumbong stalls near our church. I also took a couple of pictures in one of my choirmate's home, which has an electronic parol on it. Our parish will also unveil the belen in our church's main plaza. So I think I can get the pictures as soon as I can :) --- Tito Pao 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys I hope you could shoot a FA-worthy Parol picture. The effects are twofold. 1)It will be used to describe Parol and 2) might become a useful Christmas barnstar of sorts.--Lenticel (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would electronic parols made of capiz pass? Because that's the kind of parol I was able to capture on my digicam. (So it seems, real, paper parols are getting rarer every year :P ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao (talkcontribs) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, as long as the parol image looks good then it's ok. I remember making papel de hapon parols during my elemetary years...--Lenticel (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

complete list of all Philippine-related articles

Does anyone know where the list is? I've seen that page before, I can't find it anymore.--Weekeejames 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. List of Philippine-related topics. Note that it is not complete --Lenticel (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was exactly what I was earlier looking for. Thanks. I appreciate it. --Weekeejames 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
But it's nowhere near complete. For a more complete list, you can check out Category:Philippine-related articles by quality which currently has 3500 Philippine-related articles. :-) --seav 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Another follow up question: how do we send email to another wikipedia user without leaving messages on their talk pages> wasn't this a feature before? I can't seem to find that feature anymore. lol. sorry, im getting noob these days. Thanks. --Weekeejames (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Go the user's User page, then look for the "E-mail this user" link at the sidebar under "Toolbox". You can only send an e-mail to a user who has set his/her e-mail address in his/her preferences (you can't tell), and if also you have set your e-mail address too. --seav (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sultan of Sulu articles

What do we make of these two:

Should these be merged into Sulu Sultanate? --seav (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It should be merged and it needs a grueling clean-up. Hahay. --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 11:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the list can survive on its own when the merged article gets too long. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for expansion

For Lou Bonnevie. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture Crash Comics

I don't know about this one. Initially I thought of an AFD nom since I don't think this is notable enough, but I'll just bring it up here and let the more experienced editors decide if this article can be saved.— Sandtiger 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it is notable. Like any other countries who have popular comic book publishing companies, titles, magazines, it deserves its own article. It may not be widely popular globally, but it is notable in the comic book industry in the Philippines. †Bloodpack† 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, after reviewing the article, it does have a touch of WP:COI issues. It doesn't follow WP:COMIC proper guidelines and exemplar on writing a better comic related article. I'll try to wikify the article when I get the chance, or endorse it to our notice board †Bloodpack† 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I just endorsed it here †Bloodpack† 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I had been reading CCC before. But I'm not aware of any 3rd-party reliable sources to source info for its article. --seav (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Haven't seen the article yet (yep, I've been that wikilazy the past few months) but as a publication commonly seen in most major bookstores and comic stores around the country (or MEtro Manila at least), it should have an article. Shrumster (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales says...

Hmmm... Didn't we have a discussion about this a month or so back? article: Students should use Wikipedia -- founder Alternativity (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. This information brought me back to my discussions on "Sad Thing" (it's archived). Now, who says Wiki is sloppy? Hindi na ngayon. --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 06:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in Tagalog Wikipedia Main Page

Have you seen the Main Page of the Tagalog Wikipedia? It has been majorly vandalised. - Emir214 (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently reverting all changes made by User:MadeAryawanKute. - Emir214 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted all changes and warned the user. Each template in the Tagalog Main Page should be protected. If the user continues to vandalize articles, he must be blocked immediately. - Emir214 (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The main pages and their templates of Wikipedia in other Philippines languages should be protected. That's what I did with the Chavacano Wikipedia and only sysops/admins can edit the first page. --Weekeejames (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Tagalog Wikipedia had an artificial rise from less than 6,200 last September to 10,000 last October 20 and now its almost 15,000. --Exec8 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's due to User:Wikiboost's articles usually stating the name and country of the city. (eg. Wonju, South Korea) - Emir214 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I saw his contribs and many are starting articles. He says he's not a bot. Can I borrow him for cbk-zam? lol --Weekeejames (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Guimaras oil spill

In light of the recent South Korea oil spill, my mind drifted back to our oil spill. Whatever happened to Guimaras oil spill? No [more] media noise means no more interest on this article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we usually are so eager to write/edit articles when such events are current and hot news items, and then we eventually forget or do not give importance to those articles anymore. I think the Guimaras oil spill needs help. The Subic rape case too (which I attempted to help a long time ago, but left it). Those who have more access to media info especially those who are in the Philippines, please help these articles. --Weekeejames (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the nature of things, I guess. There are plenty of current affairs articles that need attention, like Philippine National Broadband Network controversy. Eventually, these will be taken care of. Be optimistic! --seav (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio Stations

Per Wikiproject Radio Stations, radio stations with government issued callsigns must have their page name be their call sign. Since the Philippines use callsigns, all the articles should be moved to their correct callsigns as their pages. ViperSnake151 16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all. There are some exceptions, and ultimately, WP:NC should be used, where the name everyone knows would be used. For example, perhaps only a handful would know what radio station "DWTM" is but a lot would recognize "Magic 89.9". --Howard the Duck 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it depends. We can have redirects, but it says that "In places with a mix of call signs and station names, such as most of Central or South America, the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known". But, this depends - all the stations have callsigns - which would require all the pagenames to be their call letters. And, for the TV stations, we DO have the call letters be the pagename, even if the calls are not well-known. ViperSnake151 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well nobody knows what they (TV stations) should be called, so we use the default name... their callsigns (although an argument would be to call "DZBB-TV" as "GMA-7 Manila" but that'll be for another discussion). For FM radio stations, they have their own given names, so we're using that. All AM radio stations are widely known on their callsigns, though so no problem with that.
Also, some FM radio stations incorporate a part of their callsigns to their name, like "Monster Radio RX 93.1" or "97.1 Barangay LS" so their callsigns are not that forgotten.
P.S. There's a thread about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. --Howard the Duck 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 Southeast Asian Games

I believe this article needs to be improved just like the 2005 edition. Based on the last news I read, there are boxing and taekwondo matches rigged. This is the first time I saw the medal standings are completely different from the 2003 and 2005 editions. --Exec8 (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the boxers didn't answer the bell for round 1. Only Semallana fought and he lost 10-4 against his Thai opponent. --Howard the Duck 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird "nationalistic" edits by

This anon editor has been appending "Filipino" to almost any mention of American military forces during World War II such as changing "victory by the American forces" to "victory by the American & Filipino forces." I don't know what to make of it. And I think this has been going on for a few months now with other IP addresses. --seav (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a case-by-case basis. if Pinoy units weren't present, it is perfectly all right to credit the operations solely to Americans (such as the Battle of Corregidor (1945)). --Howard the Duck 04:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's still a good thing to edit the bias out of articles, though. Much of WWII writing is American-centric. Seems to me the editor knows what s/he's doing, except for grammar and a hint of overzealousness here and there. I haven't examined the edits in detail, though.Alternativity (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm leaving those edits alone since I'm in no position to check whether Filipinos accompanied Americans during various battles, campaigns, and sorties. I'm assuming that wherever the user adds "Filipino", that Filipinos actually did join American there. --seav (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

I'm not sure if you guys are following behind-the-scenes action here in Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general but I've been hoping that the Wikipedia:Flagged revisions will be implemented here in en.wikipedia for the past few months. The extension software is very customizable and it will probably be used to implement only either one of two mutually exclusive possible scenarios here in en.wikipedia:

  1. Sighted revisions - only article revisions that have been sighted as not having any vandalism will be shown to anon users and it is hoped that all articles will have at least one sighted revision. This is meant to twarth vandalism by removing the impetus for it. However, it greatly reduces the incentive for helpful anons to edit the page because there is a lack of instant gratification.
  2. Quality revisions - only article revisions that have been quality-stamped will be shown to anon users and only a subset of all articles will have this stamp. All the other articles behave as before. This is meant to improve the quality reputation of Wikipedia and prevent the publicly-visible degradation of high-quality articles (because edits to an already excellent article tends to degrade it in general than edits to other pages). The problem with this is that it doesn't address the widespread vandal problem that wears down dedicated contributors.

--seav (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

interwiki link of cbk-zam

Just for the information of everybody here especially those who, last year, helped on approving the creation of the Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia. I am currently working with people from Meta, Betawiki, and Bugzilla to revert back the interwiki link of cbk-zam from "Zamboangueño" to "Chavacano de Zamboanga". First of all, I wouldn't sacrifice the proper and accurate name over length (if Chavacano de Zamboanga, to some, seems annoyingly lengthy). As far as I could remember, I objected to that proposal, but did not really pursue a "formal objection". I do believe that is invalid. While certainly I acknowledge Christopher Sundita's linguistic background despite him being a non-native Chavacano speaker, I resent the fact that there was no community consensus on that matter especially consensus among Chavacano contributors (however, small they may be in numbers... one, two, or three - it simply doesnt matter). What matters is that there should have been consensus regarding An added fact is that the proposer of this invalid does not even regularly contribute to the Chavacano wikipedia. Therefore, I, being the proposer of its creation, am asking the developers to change back the interwiki link of cbk-zam as "Chavacano de Zamboanga" the original, the same proper and formal name of our language presented to Meta on May 16, 2006 and I quote: "This request is for the Chavacano de Zamboanga variety which has the largest number of this Philippine Creole Spanish speakers in the Philippines, being the main language of Zamboanga City, Philippines" (see I have also proposed that if the length of the language name is an issue, then simply Chavacano with a /v/ is just fine. Chavacano with a /v/ is peculiar only to Chavacano de Zamboanga; the other main varieties, Caviteño and Ternateño spell theirs with a /b/ as Chabacano following the original Spanish orthography. Hence, Chavacano with a /v/ can not refer to the other varieties other than Chavacano de Zamboanga. Kindly see: and and notice the spellings used by Professor Juan Gaspar y de los Reyes of the Graduate School of Ateneo de Zamboanga University ( on the second link. But this is only if length is indeed an issue. Now regarding "Zamboangueño", using the term as alternative for "Chavacano de Zamboanga" is misleading simply because the term is ambiguous. It basically and primarily means the people of Zamboanga City. Seeño (sociological context, rather than linguistic). It is only used "locally" (Philippine context) to refer to the Chavacano de Zamboanga variety spoken by Zamboangueños if only to distinguish itself from the other varieties. I believe that cbk-zam and all of its interwiki links everywhere should be "Chavacano de Zamboanga" - the same name as it was presented to the entire Wikimedia Foundation community on May 19, 2006 and was approved by the same community somewhere in October of that same year. We are indeed going back to the original name as it was proposed to Meta for accuracy, uniformity, formality, interface translation purposes, etc. (cbk-zam is going to work with Betawiki anytime soon after this minor correction of reverting back will take place). When Meta approved its creation, the board of trustees and language subcommitee approved the creation of "Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia" and not the Zamboangueño wikipedia. Right now if you go to you will see cbk-zam listed as "Zamboangueño" which is partially correct, yet partially incorrect - hence, ambiguous, and it bleeds my heart for when I proposed its creation, I asked for Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia and not Zamboangueño wikipedia, excuse my redundancy. Muchisimas gracias a todos. --Weekeejames (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a shorter name aside from "Chavacano de Zamboanga"? --Howard the Duck 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Length is not an issue at all with developers. Length seems to be an issue here with some Filipino wikipedians, and like I said, I will not agree on sacrificing accuracy over length. Chavacano with a /v/ which is peculiar only to Zamboangueños comes handy for some people here who are annoyed by the lengthy name. But then again, Im pushing for the original name presented to Meta, the same name that was approved by the board for uniformity, accuracy, formality and interface translations purposes and not just for the accomodation of some people here. --Weekeejames (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What name do the Chavacano speakers call their language? Do they use any other alphabet and/or special characters? The Cavitenos call theirs "Chabacano" per se (not Chabacano de Cavite, etc.) --Howard the Duck 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically...generally, Chavacano/Chabacano, Chavacano de Zamboanga. Locally, also Zamboangueño (but again, this is ambiguous because Zamboangueño primarily means the people of Zamboanga City). It was originally meant to be presented to Meta as "Chavacano" or even "Chabacano" following the original Spanish orthography, but then there were objections by Christopher Sundita as to restricting the wikipedia into a particular variety, hence it became "Chavacano de Zamboanga" as the name of the language presented to Meta for its creation; note that its Chavacano with a /v/, peculiar to Zamboangueños. Now additional of "de Zamboanga", I decided, wouldn't hurt since we also call our language as "Chavacano de Zamboanga" see that link above where professor Juan de los Reyes of Ateneo de Zamboanga University wrote "Chavacano de Zamboanga" in big bold red letters. Btw, an admin of meta has been gracious to do the minor corrections of cbk-zam as "Zamboangueño" to "Chavacano de Zamboanga" on the portal page of which is a good thing. --Weekeejames (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I asked that was because the interwiki links are for use ONLY FOR THE SPEAKERS of those languages, NOT FOR NON-SPEAKERS, ergo, it should capture the attention of the language speaker to "CLICK ME", and not for the non-speakers to think about "what is this for?"
Now you've said it's among Chavacano, Chabacano, Chavacano de Zamboanga and Zamboangeño, so only one among these four names must be chosen. Now most of Chavacano speaker on Zamboanga would call this language as Zamboangeño, then it should be renamed as such. These interwiki labelnames aren't used for identification for non-speakers, but for the speakers of that language. If the case were for non-speakers, the "日本語" label would not be labeled as "日本語" but as "Japanese."
More than likely, the names of these interwiki links should be name the speakers themselves would relate to. (that goes for "Samar-Leyte Visayan", it must be changed to "Waray-Waray" or "Waray")
"English" may either refer to those people living in England or those people who speak English. Inter-wiki doesn't label it as "English English". --Howard the Duck 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You basically do not understand the implications of changing cbk-zam to Zamboangueño because all you do is to have a look at the left sidebar where it shows "also in other languages". I do acknowledge that purpose, but the change to Zamboangueño reflected everywhere - globally, not only as an interwiki link on those left sidebars of wikipedias. You should have seen earlier the portal page of where one of the languages was "Zamboangueño". True and partially correct in the local context, but not in the international context. You should have seen some lists of wikipedias pages that I corrected at meta where cbk-zam was "Zamboangueño' rather than "Chavacano de Zamboanga". Again, it is true, but partially incorrect; it's in a local context and generally, ambiguous. Another thing, non-uniformity makes developers and other people confused so much so that they associate Zamboangueño to cbk-zam without even knowing that its ambiguous. Did you know that in the language options in the preference page of, cbk-zam is listed as cbk-zam - cbk-zam? I could only guess the error was out of confusion. These are just one of those many implications and if you were translating, contributing, doing administrative works for cbk-zam, you will understand what I am talking here about. Now again, I am pushing for the uniformity, formality, accuracy, for technical purposes the original name of that language presented at Meta and the name was "Chavacano de Zamboanga". --Weekeejames (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ambiguous? The word English in itself is ambiguous, as evidenced by the rather dab long page. But if you'll see it in the context of the left pane and at, "English" refers to the language. So for the interwiki-links in the left pane and for, I'd say we'd use the name in which every Chavacano speaker will relate too (I don't care what name it is), as for other inter-wiki links, the "technically correct" English name will suffice. --Howard the Duck 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking here about English. That's irrelevant although I perfectly understand the analogy. Why do you keep on pushing Zamboangueño as the interwiki link of cbk-zam? Is it just to catch the eyes/attentions of a native speaker looking at the left sidebar? Then if that's the only reason, I see no reason why Chavacano de Zamboanga won't catch the attention or eyes of a native speaker who happens to read those "in other languages" sidebar. Indeed, Chavacano=Zamboangueño=Chavacano de Zamboanga. It's all the same, but there's a slight difference with the middle one. Zamboangueño also means the people of Zamboanga City. So why use a term that can have a different meaning when another one on the same level with a more accurate meaning exists? Besides, lots of people know the ambiguity of the word "English" while few ever know the ambiguity of the word "Zamboangueño". As you see, your analogy is not only irrelevant, but insignificant as well. --Weekeejames (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not even advocating for the name Zamboangueño as the label: I'm advocating for what is the name that most speakers of this language will recognize on the spot. I just don't get the ambiguousness of it: as I've said English can refer to lots of things, English national team, English language, English people, Alex English, etc., but when you place it on the context of the left pane, it is understood to be about the language. Same here, if the label was Zamboangueño, it doesn't refer to the Zamboangueño people, a person whose surname is Zamboangueño, a place called Zamboangueño or Zamboangueño fries, it is about the "Zamboangueño" language.
As for the few people who know, they will understand, since the people who don't know about the ambiguity of the term Zamboangueño wouldn't even care about it's inclusion in the list. Heck, would that Malaysian know what a Zamboangueño is on the spot? He'd rather look for "Bahasa Malaysia." --Howard the Duck 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"I'm advocating for what is the name that most speakers of this language will recognize on the spot" <------- As a native Zamboangueño, let me tell you this. Here's the name that most speakers of this language (from all levels in Zamboangueño society) will recognize: Chavacano. Plain and simple. Scholarly, I even have the feeling the term "Zamboangueño" was a coined term by immigrants that obviously came from the word meaning, the people of Zamboanga City. But then this is just a hypothesis and will hefta be backed up by higher research. Going again to your "I'm advocating for what is the name that most speakers of this language will recognize on the spot"... you see, changing cbk-zam to Zamboangueño like I said has many implications and not only the sidebar, left pane, or whatever you call it is affected. cbk-zam will technically be Zamboangueño to developers, stewards, beaureacrats, admins who themselves do not know that the term is, rather, ambiguous. While for you and I, it would be meaningful, technically for some and for a whole lot of wide readers/editors of wikipedia, wikimedia, etc... cbk-zam would just be "Zamboangueño" without these people knowing the ambiguity of the word. Hence, my push for uniformity. Are you getting the point I have been trying to drive at? I mean, try to look at the big picture. Do not zoom in to that left sidebar thing only. The interwiki-link is not just about that small thing on the left side of wikipedia pages. --Weekeejames (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Then use Chavacano with a "v". The left pane is the single most important inter-wiki link farm. It won't be hard to disambiguate since there's no Chabacano Wikipedia yet. Same for the homepage, while use the "technically correct" term for other places. --Howard the Duck 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Try to file a bugzilla report. I think "Chavacano" (without the "de Zamboanga") should be used instead of "Zamboangueño". --seav (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. But If it must be changed, then I am against putting it as simply Chavacano given the fact that there are two other kinds. There needs to be some kind of specification. It's not a simple case of dialects, but separate languages with the same name. And suggesting that there is a difference between Chavacano and Chabacano seems rather silly since many people do not see a difference between the two.

In any case, I am for Chavacano (Zamboanga). Take a look at Norwegian, on the sidelink it says norsk (bokmål) and norsk (nynorsk) to differentiate between the two standard varieties of Norwegian. Somewhere down the line, other Filipinos who speak different languages that have the same name will have their own Wikipedia - the Ifugaos, Manobos, Isnegs, Samas, and Bicolanos (and we have one variety now already!). So this may be the route we will have to go. --Chris S. (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Chavacano (Zamboanga)" seems reasonable. --Howard the Duck 05:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help: Marimar (Philippine TV series)

Can an admin full-protect this article. A certain user has been redisplaying the ratings log and s/he doesn't want to talk. --Howard the Duck 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

have you reported the user to the 3RR notice board? Also be carefull not to fuel a edit war as you've also broken the 3 revert rule (and this isn't a case of vandalisim or anything else the justify doing so). harlock_jds (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
that's the reason why I'm not reporting this to 3RR >:) --Howard the Duck 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I nominated a Marimar ratings article a while ago. Is this the effect of removing that article?--Lenticel (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that was crated to make the person adding it in the main article happy. Personally i don't think it belongs either in the show's article or in it's own as the idea of tracking the ratings for a daily show seems amazingly silly, petty and way out of the scope of wikipedia (no matter what the show).harlock_jds (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend a full-protection of that article for 5 days so that the person will at least attempt to talk about it. Ratings are rather notable, but a ratings log isn't. I'd even allow a monthly rating log, but that's about it. That person even removed the {{fact}} tag I added since it wasn't sourced. --Howard the Duck 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And can an admin investigate the deleted history of the ratings article? Maybe they're the same person. --Howard the Duck 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Ladysoseono was the creator of the ratings article, I don't know about the cotributors though.--Lenticel (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems they're 2 different users then. --Howard the Duck 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaking the front page of our project

I'm over the next few days, going to be making some adjustments to the front page of the Tambayan, such as integrating some of the sections into Templates so that we don't have to edit the entire page just to edit one section. I also plan on giving the styling of the page a bit more pizzaz, possibly using Ambox here and there too. ViperSnake151 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to place the head section (intro) into the main page itself instead of a transcluded subpage. Also, there's a need for a new section to handle the departments: Assessment and Collaboration. --seav (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Philippine general election, 2010

Starting from this edit, this article is full of WP:OR! --bluemask (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help monitoring this article and its talk page, I think I struck the nerve of anonymous editor who is apparently working for a politician. --bluemask (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The only way for that to be cleaned is like what I did for the 2007 election article: cleanup the article when nobody cares about it anymore. --Howard the Duck 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Er... is there an admin we can ask to look into this every now and then? Hehe. Don't want to find myself in the middle of an edit war right now. Too many other things keeping me busy in real life. (Hence the wikibonked tag on my user page!)Alternativity (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I just found a new source for this article, covering potential Lakas presidentiables. I dont know what to do with it so I'm posting it here, hoping someone else will know what to do with it. It's from within the political party itself, but it's still speculation,so... ewan. hehe. It lists Villar, Roxas, Legarda, Gordon, and De Castro as potential candidates or "guest" candidates. Alternativity (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Lim Ubac, Michael; Bordadora, Norman (26 December 2007), "Search for Lakas 2010 bet is on: Ruling party seeking coalition with NP, LP", Philippine Daily Inquirer


Hi, Pinoy WP peeps!

I'm working on the Bagets page right now, and if you want to help out, holla back. thanks! Eaglestorm (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Er... I dunno if it's really appropriate to do so here, but I can't think of any other place to say... Merry Christmas, Tambayan Philippines! :-D Alternativity (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas as of 12:00 AM Philippine Standard Time --Exec8 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The 15,000th Tagalog Wikipedia article was "Pasko sa Pilipinas" --Exec8 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

merry christmas to the hardworking filipino wikenthusiasts! Berserkerz Crit (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!! --βritandβeyonce (talkcontribs) 05:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Maligayang Pasko, Maayong Pasko, Naragsak a Paskua, Malipayon nga Paskwa, Maogmang Pasko, Maupay nga Pasko, Masayang Pasko, Maayad-ayad nga Paskwa, Maadong Paskwa, Marigan Nabidad, Feliz Navidad, etc. ;-) --Chris S. (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though my mom doesn't know this Tagalog song (only Illocano), Christmas Greetings to all. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

MERRY CHRISTMAS gang! †Bloodpack† 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maligayang Pasko sa inyong lahat. :-) --seav (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year! --Jojit (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

be careful of

This anon has been changing around some of the articles, changing around the call letters in places. I reverted most of his edits, I highly suggest you check on his revisions for validity. ViperSnake151 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about I'll revert the edits from the range if I spot them. --Howard the Duck 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Needed: Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945)

Hi. The Military history of the Philippines during World War II article is very sketchy and on its page there is a red link for an article about the Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945) a very important subject that is still needed as there are already articles about: the Japanese occupation of Burma; Japanese occupation of Hong Kong; Japanese occupation of Indonesia; Japanese occupation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak and Japanese occupation of Singapore, so this gap is glaring. Anyone with and interest or expertise in this topic is welcome to start writing it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason for that. In the philippines at least, the documentation for this is actually rather sparse, believe it or not, and the literature is scattered. The military battles are well documented but the civilian occupation isn't. I'll do the best I can. I haven't started collecting sources for that particular era, but I've picked up a book or two. I'll see what I can do, wikibonked or not.Alternativity (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fe Del Mundo

Hi. I recently expanded the entry for National Scientist Dr. Fe Del Mundo originally created by Algarne 34. I also created for it a redirect page "Fe Del Mundo", but I think that "Fe Del Mundo", rather than "Dr. Fe Del Mundo", should be the main entry. I'm just not too sure about the protocol regarding moving pages, and I'd appreciate any advise or action regarding that. Thanks! --Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If the new article is name is "totally" logical and undisputable, I suggest moving it rather than redirecting it -- redirecting it will make it impossible for normal users to move it since it'll require admin intervention. Anyway, I moved it to "Fe del Mundo". --Howard the Duck 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That was mucho rapido! Thanks.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this qualifies for DYK! Somebody go and nominate it! --seav (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I nominated it for DYK here--Lenticel (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate it.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My sister is working there (Fe del Mundo Children's Medical Center Foundation) as a nurse. Now, they're having a union strike regarding the hospital's status being sold to STI. It is now under legal investigation in DOLE regarding the employees benefits, compensation etc. They say it's del Mundo's greedy relatives being responsible for selling the hospital, and filing for bankruptcy because del Mundo doesnt have any children "para ipamana ung ari-arian nya kaya sinuwapang ng mga kamag-anak nya"

I think that is notable, although dunno where to find a web source for it (for citation) (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

updated the article with referenced information on the strike and the takeover by STI/Accent. Anyo Niminus (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was our first DYK of the year. congrats.--Lenticel (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TV ratings log

Guys I'll need all of the help I can get to remove these crap from Wikipedia, it's been established that they don't add anything and most of the time are invented by fanboys (not related to the current AGB - ABS-CBN suit) and are unsourced. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these affecting all TV articles? Or just the popular currently airing ones? --seav (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Both current and past primetime programs. --Howard the Duck 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

help with ABS-CBN legal controversies/issues

Just heard in the news yesterday that ABS-CBN is yet again involved in another legal controversy where their news vehicle/driver accidently hit/ran over an old poor bystander in a provincial carinderia (can't remember exactly where). Currently, the culprit is detained and refused to give any statements. On the other hand, the network extended their sympathy and financial condolences to the relatives of this poor woman. Can anyone include this and its details (cite)? thanks! †Bloodpack† 15:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would question notability of the controversy. harlock_jds (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In what manner? As I noticed the illegal dismissal of the network's 2 other employees in the said section. Are they also noteworthy? †Bloodpack† 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly i question the notability of that too as i don't think we need to list every legal action against a company and the addition of that to the article smacks of Recentism. i expect it would be taken out at some point in a article cleanup unless their are a lot more cases of illegal dismissals harlock_jds (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to read the news article about it. Starczamora (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Harlock jds. Come to think of it, it is simply someone who commited homicide that happens to be employed by a notable company. This is not as notable as the Wowowee stampede. Should the crime be commited by someone unemployed or employed on a non-notable company, I think we will not even think of putting it in the wiki. Actually I saw the news item on GMA hmmmm...--Lenticel (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
LoL...of course, you can expect GMA to do that. Anything just to sling mud on ABS's face in the light of the ratings accusations, albeit in a subtle way ;-) --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of recentism, somebody created an article (AGB Nielsen Philippine TV ratings controversy) about the recent dispute of the two giant networks. --Jojit (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That i can see being a bigger deal but my god someone needs to add some references to it :Dharlock_jds (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm looking for the etymologies of some provincial names. I've scoured Wikipedia and only these provinces don't have an explanation:

Thanks. --Howard the Duck 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help you with this specifically, and I'll certainly scour my limited sources as soon as I can. May I ask, though, what other places you've found etymologies and histories for? I'd love to be able to have a list which identifies which provinces have etymologies and which ones do not, specifically so I know what else I could work on. :-D Alternativity (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a long list at provinces of the Philippines but I moved it to its own article. I'm also creating a map so it'll be helpful if it is complete. And if anyone can add the languages in which they came from it'll be better. --Howard the Duck 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
added some refs on the etymology article's talk page.--Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a huge book called Tracing your Philippine Ancestors written by Lee W. Vance in 1980. It's meant as a genealogical reference, but it gives a historical and and demographic description of each province and the genealogical resources available therein. Many of the provinces have information concerning former names and/or etymologies of those names.

Here's what I found:

  • Palawan: No information on the meaning of this word. Was originally named Calamianes. Then split into three provinces: Calamianes, Paragua, and Balabac. Somewhere down the line, there was a "Southern Paragua." Then by 1905, Paragua became Palawan. I don't know if Paragua and Palawan are related. But paraguas is Spanish for umbrella. And if you look at Palawan, it does look like a closed umbrella.
  • Siquijor: Formally called Isla de Fuego and later, Katugasan. It says that Siqujor may have come from "Si Kihod" in reference to the ruler of the island, Datu Kihod.
  • Leyte: No information about where Leyte comes from. Villalobos called it Felipina then Filipinas then that name became the name of the whole archipelago. Originally called Tandaya.
  • Surigao: No info on etymology. Villabos's navigator Bernardo de la Torre wanted to name it "Cesarea Caroli" after Charles V. Name didn't catch on so became known as Caraga, which included Surigao Norte/Sur, Agusan Norte/Sur, northern part of Davao Oriental, and eastern Misamis Oriental. After it was known as Caraga, it became known as Nueva Guipuzcoa. And then Surigao.
  • Misamis: Spanish corruption of kayamis which is "a variety of sweet coconut which was the staple food of the early inhabitants of the area."
  • Tawi-Tawi: no info.
  • Masbate: no info.

--Chris S. (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Tawi-Tawi means "very far away" (perhaps in the same use as "layo-layo"). It'll be great if this'll be added at the main article. --Howard the Duck 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I've found:
  • Palawan - Ancient Chinese travelers referred to the islands of Palawan--back when they were migrating from the Philippines to Borneo--as Kla-ma-yan (Calamian), Plau-ye (Palawan), and Paki-nung (Busuanga).[1]
  • Siquijor - There are two versions, but both have to do with the term "Kihod". One version refers to "Kihod" as a legendary ruler in the island, while the other refers to "Kihod" as the "beginning of low tide".[2]
  • Leyte - The island was called "Abuyo" during Spanish contact (either out of miscommunication of "Ah buyog!", it's a bee; or a Waray term for "agreeable"). The name became Leyte out of corruption of the term "Ira Ete" (belonging to Ete), referring to the birth name of Rajah Bankaw.[3]
  • Surigao - An ancient name, where the area was ruled by Datu Solibao. The Spaniards then changed the name into "Caraga", based on the Caraga Visayans inhabiting the area.[4] It is also claimed that the name came from the Spanish word "surgir" (swift water or current).[5]
  • Misamis - Derived from the Subanen word "kuyamis" (a variety of sweet coconut), then the Spaniards changed it to "Misamis" so they could pronounce it better.[6]
  • Tawi-Tawi - From an old Malay word "jaui" (far).[7]
  • Masbate - Said to be derived from a miscommunication between Spaniards and the natives, where the latter replied "mas bati" (I am beating some cocoa).[8] Starczamora (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So what do you think of knol?

After WikiPilipinas, its Google's knol. So what do you think? --Exec8 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it complements Wikipedia well. I hope they'll have articles whose authors have PhD's on their belts so we can use them as a reliable source. By the way, WikiPilipinas visited my school some time ago but I didn't see them (busy in work).--Lenticel (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lenticel (talk). :-D Alternativity (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's from Google, it must be evil. Just kidding. Starczamora (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncredited locator map sighting

Quezon City by ABS-CBN News --bluemask (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since images in Wikipedia are supposed to be freely-distributed, I don't see the problem with it. Starczamora (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Usage is ok as long as the terms of the licenses are followed. But ABS-CBN did not follow the terms which makes their usage illegal. --seav (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail and they have now removed the image. See, it's easy! --seav (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New Article or Expanded old article?

Hi everyone. Need advice. I've just gotten a reference for one of the Philippine Mythical Creatures i've been reserching, the Tigmamanukan. I'd like to create an extensive entry for ancient Tagalog beliefs associated with this bird. (One of the legends says it was the bird that cracked the bamboo and let malakas at maganda out.) However, two researchers specifically identified the bird in question as Irena cyanogaster, the Philippine Fairy Bluebird. My question is, do I create a separate entry for the Tigmamanukan as a mythical creature, and title it Tigmamanukan, or do I attach an extensive section to the Philippine Fairy Bluebird entry? I'm not sure what to do.Alternativity (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two options:
  1. If they're really one and the same bird, place it one the bluebird article.
  2. If the bluebird article is already long then I guess the Tigmamanukan is fine. --Howard the Duck 05:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If they're really one and the same bird. Hehe. That's the big question, ain't it? Even with primary sources I'm a bit quizzical. It's like identifying the Sarimanok with a specific species. Part of the reason I didn't do any tigmamanok work until I did find primary sources. Now I have them, but my internal instinct doesn't quite trust them. Anyway, sige, I'll read all the texts again, then make a decision soon. Thanks Howard. :-D (you don't mind being called Howard, do you?) Alternativity (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what, it seems that Philippine Fairy-bluebird is a real bird, while Tigmamanukan is a fictional bird so it'll make sense to create separate articles for these two birds.
As for my name, any name would be fine. --Howard the Duck 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Make a separate article. If there are separate articles for coffee the crop and coffee the plant genus, then all the more reason to have separate articles for a real bird and a mythological bird. --seav (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To all who made comments, please take note that the red Tigmamanukan link is now blue. :-D Thanks!Alternativity (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is now nominated for DYK--Lenticel (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And in fact it did become a DYK. Thanks for everyone's input here and congratulations to all who worked on the article. :-D Alternativity (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Angeles City-related Arbcom case: RodentofDeath

I think is is the first time we had an Arbcom case regarding the edit warring on a Philippine-related article. (Was there an Arbcom case related to Iglesia ni Cristo?) Anyway, RodentofDeath was banned for one year. --seav (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is the first ArbCom case related to a Filipino editor, but just to be sure, lemme check the ArbCom archives. Actually, involving two Filipino editors; apparently, Susanbryce had admitted that her Tagalog is better than her English. I've been following this case for sometime partly because I was involved in reminding/warning both readers back when the other related articles were just starting to grow. She even cited one of her responses to my comments at a Talk page as proof that she did try to seek the help of other editors in order to help clean up the articles :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Found it! Here's the ArbCom case involving the edits on the INC article: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Emico. So the RodentOfDeath/Susanbryce case might be the second, unless there are other ArbCom cases involving Pinoys that we haven't heard of (yet). Anyway, the Emico case looks interesting, it also provides some assessment of articles relating to the INC, also raises some points about the lack of sources with regard to the subject matter. The case is also interesting because the complainant/petitioner received a longer suspension/block as compared to the editor he complained about (although the defendant was banned from the affected articles). --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodentofdeath is banned for like a year. --Howard the Duck 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser controversy

As we are all aware of the controversial "growth" of the Tagalog Wikipedia, Felipe Aira pursued a request for CheckUser on Meta to determine once and for all the veracity of claims that the exponential growth of the Tagalog Wikipedia was bot-induced. The results are as follows (and I do not think someone among us would like the results):

I'm vouching for both Emir214 and Exec8 as being real users and not bots (yes, even legit users were tagged as bots) on both Meta and the Tagalog Wikipedia. But at least it gives credence to claims that the growth of the Tagalog Wikipedia is most likely bot-induced. --Sky Harbor 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Checkuser might be targeting those who have a larger than usual contribution so both Emir214 and Exec8, which are prolific editors, got tagged as well. Sky, how can we help eliminate the bots from the prolific editors? --Lenticel (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we know who's who. Only thing we need to do is to finally clarify who's what. I find it odd that bots created are not bots from their owners' point of view, unless the ones in question can explain how they can make such a large number of articles in such a short amount of time. --Sky Harbor 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey why am I here? I don't contribute much to wikipedia these days. But I admit I share internet connection with my boardmates. --Exec8 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification regarding votes for senate bills

There are 23 senators right? If 17 voted in favor of the UP Charter, 0 abstained and 0 voted against it. What happened to the others? I'd like to work on the voting record of each senator in the 14th senate, and I'm confused. Alternativity (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Absent? --seav (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my first guess. Looks like it. I just kinda want confirmation. I don't intend to use the data, I just want to make sure there are no holes in my research. :-D Alternativity (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this a current event? --Howard the Duck 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not "current" in the sense that it happened yesterday, but "current" in the sense that I'm looking at the 14th senate right now. I hope to move on to the 13th then 12th senates eventually. I suppose the applicable rules are more those for living persons, rather than those for current events. And oh, I could use some help doing this. :-D I'm mining the data from the senate website's statistical data.Alternativity (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bids for Wikimania 2009

Anyone want to support a Philippine bid for Wikimania 2009? Perhaps I can bring this into the agenda of the fourth Manila Wikipedians' Meetup. --Sky Harbor 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that a local chapter is not a prerequisite for a Wikimania bid, but I don't think that a 2009 bid would be successful. First of all, Taipei hosted Wikimania 2007 and I don't think they might pick an Asian city again too soon. Second, we don't yet have the resources to organize a Wikimania here. A 2010 bid is much more feasible. --seav (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I have to wonder: why is Kathmandu bidding itself as a city? Oh well. --Sky Harbor 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Celester Mejia

This user may have good intentions in trying to edit Wikipedia as factual as possible, however his recent edits in Pinoy Idol have been quite a pain. Here are his most recent edits:

  • He kept on insisting that the announcement of Pinoy Idol was held on GMA's New Year's Eve 2008 Presentation, which should be 2007. If we follow his insistence, New Year's Eve 2008 is on December 31, 2008 which is definitely not the case here.
  • He included an Indonesian interwiki of Pinoy Idol where there isn't any.
  • He included a "feature article" template on the Tagalog article of Pinoy Idol without any nomination and consensus (which I already removed and have reprimanded him on the matter).

I have a feeling that he does not review the edit history of the article and would instead go on "edit-happy mode". How should we deal with users like him? Starczamora (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You should try notifying him first via his talkpage. He's probably not viewing the edit summaries in articles. So no matter how he's being informed, he wouldnt know it unless he views it (the edit summary or article talkpage) or he sees his talkpage †Bloodpack† 13:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
also note the person is pretty young so it's important to Assume Good Faith and to focus more on educating rather than just complaining about the edits.harlock_jds. Also use his talk page... i see NOTHING about these edits on it. (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Notify him at his user talk page. If he doesn't cooperate, go to WP:AN/I and complain there. It can be easier if he's a frequent image uploader with bad copyright tags. I just noticed with these showbiz fanboys is that they never listen, maybe perhaps due to their youth. --Howard the Duck 14:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

UP Sigma Rho problem

Anons always remove sourced Cris Mendez case section and I always revert it back. I reverted the recent changes and added the article to my watchlist but I will appreciate more eyes and opinions into this.--Lenticel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If they won't stop, try WP:RFPP. I'll watch this too just in case in order to "bolster" your case. --Howard the Duck 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to split {{Philippines-geo-stub}}

There are 272 articles in this stub category, plus perhaps hundreds more untagged (mostly municipalities and cities) so perhaps it's a good idea to split them into {{Luzon-geo-stub}}, {{Visayas-geo-stub}}, {{Mindanao-geo-stub}} even {{Metro Manila-geo-stub}}. --Howard the Duck 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I also wonder whether land and waterforms should have a separate category from the towns and cities? Just a thought.Alternativity (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since they're geographical places too... the problem here is on waterforms like the Sulu Sea, where would it be included? Maybe on the general {{Philippines-geo-stub}} or there'll be two or even 3 stub classifications. --Howard the Duck 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. I'm interested because i've spent a lot of time working on the Category:Tributaries of Laguna de Bay|tributary rivers of Laguna de Bay. I'm not sure what name their classification would fall under, either. Perhaps {{Philippines-landform-stub}} ? Alternativity (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a {{Philippines-landform-stub}} is pushing it to the limit but if other stubs do that then I won't mind. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't know that much about stubs. Just thinking aloud. :-D Alternativity (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Montemaria, January 11-13, 2008, Fr. Fernando Suarez

Let me respectfully NOTIFY Filipinos here of the $ 220 million/P 8 Billion Montemaria Project at Batangas City Bay on Jan. 11-13, 2007. I created Fr. Fernando Suarez, CC, the Healing Priest. Further, I submit also that the following Filipino articles may well contribute to this Tambayan, thusly:

Articles I created -

Just sayin or notifying. --Florentino floro (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You could simply include the Tambayan Philippines template like this on every Philippine-related article you have created. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is just now, that I know it is possible, I will add that template to all my articles, Filipinos. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Bueno

I created the bio of Vincent Bueno yesterday since he is the first Filipino/Asian to win the award. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seals again

Ok Save US 229 has gone around and removed seals from various articles. The bright side is that he has left them intact in the province that the seal is from. But he removed them from the administrative regions on the basis that they are decorative and that they violate WP:NFCC. I don't necessarily see it as decorative, but what do I know. I want to know what the rest of you think before I take any action (if such is justified). --Chris S. (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not decorative, however the thing is you won't recognize a province on its seal alone, since at 20px, they all look pretty much the same so I won't buy the argument that it is used for "identification" purposes. Plus, I don't think Cavitenos know how their provincial seal looks like. --Howard the Duck 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You do have a point about the seals being visible at such a low resolution. I took a look at U.S. State and I think we should follow their lead. Rather than put the provincial seals in the administrative regions, we could just put them in one place in Provinces of the Philippines. That way it's a bit more justified and it would helpful if all the seals were just there. But again, Save Us 229 reverted my edit there. --Chris S. (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should find a legal loophole in this issue. Waiting for Congress' action is like waiting for Godot. --Howard the Duck 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The question I brought up earlier was just when were these seals made? Was it made before 1987, under the old constitution? If so, then my next question is, do the current copyright laws apply to works made before those times? Perhaps there was a less idiotic copyright policy then. And if that's the case, we should use that rationale. --Chris S. (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Philippine copyright laws do have exceptions and the latter do have restrictions. As requested by as User here who sent a message to me, I respectfully submit the following - the only law which governs Philippine copyright, but I cannot give opinion on foreign copyright laws, to wit: "The following is very informative on the SEALS - REPUBLIC ACT No. 8293, June 6, 1997[5]: "PART IV, THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT, CHAPTER I, Section 171. CHAPTER IV - WORKS NOT PROTECTED - Section 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49) CHAPTER VIII - Section 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. - 185.1. Section 212. Limitations on Rights. - Sections 203, 208 and 209 shall not apply where the acts referred to in those Sections are related to: 212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events; 212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific research; and 212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions under Section 185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a)" --Florentino floro (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there is no copyright, but the images can't be used for profit, and the Wikimedia Foundation considers "images for non-commercial use only" as under fair use restrictions due to the U.S. Copyright Law. --Howard the Duck 07:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance: Album covers

Can an admin undelete the following album covers? These were deleted because of missing fair use rationales.

Done. --Chris S. (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --bluemask (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippine peso

Okay, I need a clear guideline, how should we refer to the Philippine peso in articles? Most of the time I've used stuff like PHP1,000,000 in articles, and quoting the manual of style:

  • Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear.
  • Do not place a currency symbol after the value (123$, 123£, 123€), unless the symbol is normally written as such. Do not write $US123 or $123 (US).
  • Currency abbreviations that come before the number are unspaced if they end in a symbol

So, how do they commonly write down references to this currency down there? ViperSnake151 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I normally use P in my edits, just like how Philippine journalists write them. (But that is before I realized there are other currencies that use "P" like the Botswana pula.) Starczamora (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer PhP with the first occurrence linked to Philippine peso.--Lenticel (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the symbol for the Philippine peso is lacking in many fonts, I prefer to use just P instead. I feel that PHP is more like a technical symbol and an ISO-code rather than a currency symbol. But of course, that's just my opinion. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
PHP or Php works for me. Eaglestorm (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer doing it like this: "P345.32" (perhaps this could be added at WP:MOSPHIL?) --Howard the Duck 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we use ₧? (ETA: Ah, I just noticed that it has one line!) but instead, we would use a template that would specify the font. Something similar to Template:IPA. We could have Template:PHP. Or failing that, a simple JPGE or PNG icon. --Chris S. (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those with Microsoft Office 2007 will notice that the peso sign now has font support (which I do). --Sky Harbor 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Which font is this? For all fonts? And also could you cut and paste the character here? It most likely won't show up in my browser, but the coding - in the form of a box - will and that's what I'm after. --Chris S. (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected: those with Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer 7 (maybe) will see the sign. --Sky Harbor 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I use IE7, but it depends on the font and the personalized skin used. I use Arial in a modified version of the Classic Skin, so all I see is "Pts.", not "P" with a line. Maybe you're talking about the symbol under Arial Unicode MS. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 2.0 and I also see Pts in Chris' post.--Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's both. The technological complexity makes it hard to explain :D. --Sky Harbor 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eduardo Hontiveros, SJ (1923-2008)

I've added some information to the article about Fr. Eduardo Hontiveros, SJ, who, unfortunately, died today. He is the composer of mass songs and Catholic liturgical songs such as "Pananagutan" ("Walang sinuman ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang...") and "Ang Puso Ko'y Nagpupuri". Please feel free to add any information you can find about him. Most of the Google hits, unfortunately, return mentions in karaoke playlists, so there's still lot of work to do with regard to the article about him. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added his death at 2008 in the Philippines. Magalhães (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. During Advent, I attended Tagalog mass twice (one of which here) for the first time since perhaps 1987. I heard Ang Puso Ko'y Nagpupuri and was wondering if it was used in the Philippines or if it was simply translated here. May he rest in peace. --Chris S. (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did write that version of the Magnificat and it is still used in the Philippines. In fact, second to "Pananagutan", it's probably his most-recognized (non-Mass) composition :) --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)