![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Data on the candidates are verified? :) -- Noypi380 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Jamalul Kiram is the SULTAN of Sulu not the SULTANATE of Sulu. He is a person, not a place, stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.87.214 ( talk • contribs)
My question on the survey results table of Pulse Asia is that there is no total number of respondents written on the table, just 100%. Also, there is no geographic location as well as socio-demographics of respondents - stuff which are important information for valid statistical analysis, that is notability for inclusion in the article. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
: In addition, it is harder to predict senators (since there are 12 - spreading the votes thinner among them) than president and vice president. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email) 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - There is no election for president and vice president in 2007. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email)
00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
pls quit associating mike defensor with lakas as he is the chair of the LP-atienza wing,defensor should only be associated with LP and not with lakas 202.175.217.2 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
are the quick counts necessary to be shown here? -- Scorpion prinz ( Talk | contribs) 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Name | NAMFREL | PPCRV | ABS-CBN | GMA | TU | GO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Escudero | 1000000 | 1000000 | 1000000 | 1000000 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Gomez | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
Pichay | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | Graham's number | 0 |
For those who are currently tuning in to this recent development: there is an ongoing discussion about this at the Philippine regional notice board. Because of the possible ramifications of this new information (please see my user page), you may also want to continue any further discussion about this topic from there. Thank you. --- Tito Pao 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Save for NAMFREL.
Move the whole data/Table of quick count/media count on a different page or article and provide the Link. While presenting their summary of their final projections on the main election page. In this way we can lessen the size of main election page and make it simple for readers to read. The ongoing Namfrel independent count should stay until they make it final 67.101.96.148 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For encyclopedic purpose I think we ought to present the quick count information from the major networks ALONG with Namfrel. Once NAMFREL is complete we could put all the media quick counts from the major networks and all the exit polls and surveys in one sub-article in concern with the 2007 election. Then we could put the summary of everything on it in the main article. Only the official COMELEC count should stay with the main article. Regarding about the credibility of the quick count. They did the procedure as if they were conducting an exit poll or survey. The votes were randomly selected from across the nation proportionally. So in theory once an appropriate numbers of proportionally random samples are collected there will be little or no more change even if they continue to count all the votes. So ABS 8-2-2 statistic will likely be the outcome of the election and the placing of the senators will also be likely the final ranking. Example Legarda and Escudero will most likely be top candidates after all the ballots are counted. As you know in statistical surveys or in the science of statistic, it does not need the majority of samples or in this case votes in order to show a trend. A sample of more or less 1000 which are "randomly selected proportionally" is sufficient enough. So even the numbers are minuscule, it is statistically scientific. The only difference is exit polls, although a much faster way, only shows percentage and with smaller sample, the media quick count shows hard numbers and with a larger sample, which is better because it reduces the margin of error. 69.3.237.71 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, elaborate about notability? The suggestion was keeping the entire media quick count and other polls and surveys and the NAMFREL count about the 2007 elction to a "sub-article". And summarizing them into the main article. The COMELEC official count is the only tally should remain on the main article. If you are suggesting those media counts are not "notable" enough to be mentioned then what is? They come from the two major media networks from the philippines and they are practically filipinos basic mass media source. If you think the quick counts are not credible then the networks themselves are not as well. Eventhough, past articles about the election don't have this, it does not necesarilly mean we can not do it anymore. It just so happen that those quick count information are more accesible now than before. The more information we can present to the readers the better IMHO. This is only my suggestion. 69.3.237.71 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Does Surveys? Exit Polls? or opinion polls in general count as relevant after election?? Does history say who won on this surveys or exit polls? or better yet does the Namfrel quick counts? Do the candidates themselves will care about the surveys and exit polls in the long run? Media in US does not use any "media quick counts" they only use exit polls. "Media count" is only done in the Philippines as far as I know. Why? because US elections are far more stable.
You see everything are essentially the same thing. And it would not hurt if we could make a little sub-page presenting these information. As you know there is a separate page for "opinion polls" for the road to the white house in 2008, You see it has its own "sub-page". Are you going to delete this as well? And there is also a separate page for the "time line" for the 2008 US Presidential Election, Are you going to delete this as well? There is even a separate page for the 2000 Florida election results which is separate from the main article. You see you can create a sub-article about an election as long as it is relevant and has a credible source. It seems the media counts, surveys, exit polls and Namfrel seems to be credible and relevant enough don't you think? We can call this article "The road 2007 Senatorial election" or something like that which contains basically surveys, exit poll, MEDIA COUNT, NAMFREL and other pre-election issues. Let me ask you why is it really hard for you to to get it? It is in a separate page, It wont clutter the main election page, I don't think it will hurt or offense anyone. Would showing media counts offends you? These are just an added or bonus information for the readers. Sub-articles that is worth looking for those who are interested. Like you said this is for the readers sake and not for the editors.
The only reason why you think it is not relevant enough is because in your OWN opinion it is not. And that is not very encyclopedic. You can't ignore presenting credible information just because you think it is not relevant enough or you are not interested. I am not even doing any action yet and you are in hurry of threatening to delete it. Not very encyclopedic my friend. Last time I check Wikipedia can not be controlled by just one person. 67.101.145.37 06:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Again I am basically saying, Surveys, Media Count, Exit Polls or Polls are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. Which is to show trends. So that is a good reason enough to organize them together and put them in a sub-article. And Sure put it on a delete discussion, but we should add this discussion of ours so other people can also weigh in. 67.101.145.37 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles here, please read my first post as I have commented about it already. 67.101.145.37 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
umm, ABS_CBN news? GMA news? Thats their own property why would GMA reports ABS-CBN count and vice versa? AGain I already talked about this, If you think the quick counts are not credible then the networks themselves are not as well. 67.101.145.37 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 67.101.145.37 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
O my, thats not the point. I am sorry but we are just spinning around here 67.101.145.37 07:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why you keep on arguing out of context. You know what I meant on my last post. We are just going to spin and spin again if you keep on taking things out of context. It does not matter whether GMA or ABS are reporting Namfrel or Comelec. What is the connection of it in relation whether you think quick counts are credible or not. 67.101.145.37 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hence the word "quick". Again I already discussed this, on my first post. If you are not really satisfied I would suggest you to write an e-mail to ABS or GMA and ask. I would not say anymore because you have the tendency to loop around again.
You see you prolonging this thing for being technical, and has nothing to do with the discussion anymore. 67.101.145.37 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Write an e-mail to ABS And GMA for your questions and would be the best thing to do. I don't think this discussion will go anywhere anymore. All that with my respect to your opinions 67.101.145.37 08:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope this would be my last say, It seems you would never stop, finding a hole by using technicalities. E-mail them for your own questions and self-information. So you could understand better whey they are doing it. 67.101.145.37 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(i supplied the title for this one. -- Howard the Duck 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Rizalpinoynapoleon, sort the Namfrel quick count AND the COMELEC official count until it is final. In this way it can be both easier for the editors and the for readers. Easier for editors because you just need to punch in the numbers instead of punching in the numbers first then you have to rank it and then you have to cut and paste. That would require more work. I do not think readers would have any problem with it as they are given more options how to view it whether alphabetically or rank in order. 69.3.237.71 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
But you do agree that it would be easier for the editors? Still how would you know that every readers prefered the ranking order? Do you think giving more oprion would be better? All I am saying as for now we should leave it sortable until it is final. because information are still coming in. It would be easier navigationally for the readers and editors alike. Then when everything is in final the tallying should be in ranking order. 69.3.237.71 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to tell this again, I am FOR ranking order of the candidates according to votes. All I am saying since the votes are not final yet and canvassing is still going on, I think sorting the table would be the best way to present this for now. ONCE the counting is FINAL then we ought to rank them according to votes. As what you call iff, indeed there are 2 options that are to sort about in fact there are 3 options, alphabetically, By party, and by votes But that is not really the point here. Since we are doing the sorting thing for both the editors and readers sake. Again since it still ongoing I don't think the readers would mind on a sorting table. Look at the ABS-CBN website, GMA, Inquirer website NAMFREL etc. etc. They all have table that is still sortable. And once again, Once it is final let gets rid of the sorting table. Agree? 67.101.145.37 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does ABS-CBN, GMA, Inquirer etc etc. uses sortable table if it such a very confusing thing? I don't think there is a reader so stupid to figure out Zubiri will lost because he is at the bottom in alphabetical order. That is non-sense. But I hope you know where I am coming from? You see we do agree that it should be ranking order only in my case lest sort the still ongoing election for now until it is final 67.101.145.37 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not sort them alpha? You are asking a rhetorical question.They are journalistic, Journalistic and encyclopedic are essentially based in objectiveness 67.101.145.37 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Journalism and Encyclopedia should be the same in showing information objectively. This is NOT a HARD COPY encyclopedia everything is fluid. The beauty of this is actually because of what we are talking about. We can actually do this thing that we could not do in a hard encyclopedia. But again I am going to tell this once more. I AM FOR RANKING THEM IN ORDER. But since we have an option to sort it while the election is ongoing why not exploit it? then we can rank them as they should 67.101.145.37 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious with this question? Maybe to some people they find it easier to look for their candidates alphabetically instead looking the ranking order one by one. It goes both ways. If sorting is really such a bad thing again why other much credible sources like ABS, GMA, etc uses this? 67.101.145.37 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please look at ABS-CBN website. OK, I think we are talking long enough and I am pretty sure you know already what I have been suggesting all along. Why are you implying that I am obsess of the alphabetical order thing?? That is not my point. You keep on asking why should we alphabetized again and again. That was not my point that has never been my point. Please read my posts again and tell me what am I really suggesting 67.101.145.37 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
O come on be serious now. 67.101.145.37 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, and you are not being reasonable anymore. Please review my posts and read them slowly if needed twice and tell me what I have been suggesting and NO it does not had anything to do with alphabetical order. 67.101.145.37 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"I don't care if editors will have a harder time encoding"
See you are being the devil's advocate here. You are basically suggesting "me me its all about me" "I don't care about the editors or the readers or anybody else Ill do what I want" "This is what I think its better for me and not for others" So if you are not a bit sensitive with other editors then what expectation of the readers would have for you? In my side lets help editors and the readers alike. 67.101.145.37 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope this would be my final words, Everything we talked about here would be moot, because at the end of the day we both agree that the final table should be according to votes. If it such a really hard thing for you to understand what I have been simply suggesting then what more really I can do? But we must hear others opinion before you or me jumping to a conclusion 67.101.145.37 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you agree that we should the Cayetano issue under NPOV since that matter is controversial -- Rizalninoynapoleon 02:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Accdg. to the COMELEC, Goma is an independent and not from the NPC. -- Howard the Duck 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Where are NAMFREL counts published. COMELEC website seems down most of the time and the only NAMFREL site I found is at http://namfrel.zamboanga.ph. -- Soman 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is planning to add either the COMELEC or NAMFREL results, be sure to add both the total votes (add all the votes) and the percentages. -- Howard the Duck 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a better discussion of the party-list system. I did by best but maybe someone can clean it up. -- Bruce Hall 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
COMELEC has just proclaimed that Fr. Eddie Panlilio (YEHEY! To end jueteng in Pampanga) as the new Governor of Pampanga. Howard, Scorpion and Others today is a day to end corruption and poverty and i ask that Among Ed should have a page he deserves it. Don't you agree rizalninoy 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Howard please watch your language you can get blocked by the Wikipedia Administrators. No Offense. rizalninoy 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If so please provide any citation or source about it thank you. 69.3.237.71 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have far too much information on it and is very much in a disarray. For a novice it is almost impossibly to understand at a glance who and which parties that where elected. -- Jonte-- 11:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
tabs
While reading this article and translating parts to Dutch for the Dutch Wikipedia, I found an inconsistency. In the section about the Genuine Opposition it is stated that Manny Villar is a candidate running under the flag of GO, but remains independent. But when I go to the acticle about Genuine Opposition it is stated that Manny Villar is member of the Nacionalista Party. One the these two statements must be incorrect. Magalhães 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article on Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-administrasyon was deleted because there's no proof of its existence. So how do we resolve the fact that it's still listed here in the election article? Can the whole house election results be verified? -- seav 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We should divide the articles in all elections (Presidential and other articles) Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:GenuineOpposition logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Data on the candidates are verified? :) -- Noypi380 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Jamalul Kiram is the SULTAN of Sulu not the SULTANATE of Sulu. He is a person, not a place, stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.87.214 ( talk • contribs)
My question on the survey results table of Pulse Asia is that there is no total number of respondents written on the table, just 100%. Also, there is no geographic location as well as socio-demographics of respondents - stuff which are important information for valid statistical analysis, that is notability for inclusion in the article. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
: In addition, it is harder to predict senators (since there are 12 - spreading the votes thinner among them) than president and vice president. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email) 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - There is no election for president and vice president in 2007. --
Pinay06 (
Talk•
Email)
00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
pls quit associating mike defensor with lakas as he is the chair of the LP-atienza wing,defensor should only be associated with LP and not with lakas 202.175.217.2 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
are the quick counts necessary to be shown here? -- Scorpion prinz ( Talk | contribs) 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Name | NAMFREL | PPCRV | ABS-CBN | GMA | TU | GO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Escudero | 1000000 | 1000000 | 1000000 | 1000000 | 0 | 1000000000 |
Gomez | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
Pichay | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | Graham's number | 0 |
For those who are currently tuning in to this recent development: there is an ongoing discussion about this at the Philippine regional notice board. Because of the possible ramifications of this new information (please see my user page), you may also want to continue any further discussion about this topic from there. Thank you. --- Tito Pao 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Save for NAMFREL.
Move the whole data/Table of quick count/media count on a different page or article and provide the Link. While presenting their summary of their final projections on the main election page. In this way we can lessen the size of main election page and make it simple for readers to read. The ongoing Namfrel independent count should stay until they make it final 67.101.96.148 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For encyclopedic purpose I think we ought to present the quick count information from the major networks ALONG with Namfrel. Once NAMFREL is complete we could put all the media quick counts from the major networks and all the exit polls and surveys in one sub-article in concern with the 2007 election. Then we could put the summary of everything on it in the main article. Only the official COMELEC count should stay with the main article. Regarding about the credibility of the quick count. They did the procedure as if they were conducting an exit poll or survey. The votes were randomly selected from across the nation proportionally. So in theory once an appropriate numbers of proportionally random samples are collected there will be little or no more change even if they continue to count all the votes. So ABS 8-2-2 statistic will likely be the outcome of the election and the placing of the senators will also be likely the final ranking. Example Legarda and Escudero will most likely be top candidates after all the ballots are counted. As you know in statistical surveys or in the science of statistic, it does not need the majority of samples or in this case votes in order to show a trend. A sample of more or less 1000 which are "randomly selected proportionally" is sufficient enough. So even the numbers are minuscule, it is statistically scientific. The only difference is exit polls, although a much faster way, only shows percentage and with smaller sample, the media quick count shows hard numbers and with a larger sample, which is better because it reduces the margin of error. 69.3.237.71 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, elaborate about notability? The suggestion was keeping the entire media quick count and other polls and surveys and the NAMFREL count about the 2007 elction to a "sub-article". And summarizing them into the main article. The COMELEC official count is the only tally should remain on the main article. If you are suggesting those media counts are not "notable" enough to be mentioned then what is? They come from the two major media networks from the philippines and they are practically filipinos basic mass media source. If you think the quick counts are not credible then the networks themselves are not as well. Eventhough, past articles about the election don't have this, it does not necesarilly mean we can not do it anymore. It just so happen that those quick count information are more accesible now than before. The more information we can present to the readers the better IMHO. This is only my suggestion. 69.3.237.71 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Does Surveys? Exit Polls? or opinion polls in general count as relevant after election?? Does history say who won on this surveys or exit polls? or better yet does the Namfrel quick counts? Do the candidates themselves will care about the surveys and exit polls in the long run? Media in US does not use any "media quick counts" they only use exit polls. "Media count" is only done in the Philippines as far as I know. Why? because US elections are far more stable.
You see everything are essentially the same thing. And it would not hurt if we could make a little sub-page presenting these information. As you know there is a separate page for "opinion polls" for the road to the white house in 2008, You see it has its own "sub-page". Are you going to delete this as well? And there is also a separate page for the "time line" for the 2008 US Presidential Election, Are you going to delete this as well? There is even a separate page for the 2000 Florida election results which is separate from the main article. You see you can create a sub-article about an election as long as it is relevant and has a credible source. It seems the media counts, surveys, exit polls and Namfrel seems to be credible and relevant enough don't you think? We can call this article "The road 2007 Senatorial election" or something like that which contains basically surveys, exit poll, MEDIA COUNT, NAMFREL and other pre-election issues. Let me ask you why is it really hard for you to to get it? It is in a separate page, It wont clutter the main election page, I don't think it will hurt or offense anyone. Would showing media counts offends you? These are just an added or bonus information for the readers. Sub-articles that is worth looking for those who are interested. Like you said this is for the readers sake and not for the editors.
The only reason why you think it is not relevant enough is because in your OWN opinion it is not. And that is not very encyclopedic. You can't ignore presenting credible information just because you think it is not relevant enough or you are not interested. I am not even doing any action yet and you are in hurry of threatening to delete it. Not very encyclopedic my friend. Last time I check Wikipedia can not be controlled by just one person. 67.101.145.37 06:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Again I am basically saying, Surveys, Media Count, Exit Polls or Polls are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. Which is to show trends. So that is a good reason enough to organize them together and put them in a sub-article. And Sure put it on a delete discussion, but we should add this discussion of ours so other people can also weigh in. 67.101.145.37 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles here, please read my first post as I have commented about it already. 67.101.145.37 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
umm, ABS_CBN news? GMA news? Thats their own property why would GMA reports ABS-CBN count and vice versa? AGain I already talked about this, If you think the quick counts are not credible then the networks themselves are not as well. 67.101.145.37 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 67.101.145.37 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
O my, thats not the point. I am sorry but we are just spinning around here 67.101.145.37 07:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why you keep on arguing out of context. You know what I meant on my last post. We are just going to spin and spin again if you keep on taking things out of context. It does not matter whether GMA or ABS are reporting Namfrel or Comelec. What is the connection of it in relation whether you think quick counts are credible or not. 67.101.145.37 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hence the word "quick". Again I already discussed this, on my first post. If you are not really satisfied I would suggest you to write an e-mail to ABS or GMA and ask. I would not say anymore because you have the tendency to loop around again.
You see you prolonging this thing for being technical, and has nothing to do with the discussion anymore. 67.101.145.37 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Write an e-mail to ABS And GMA for your questions and would be the best thing to do. I don't think this discussion will go anywhere anymore. All that with my respect to your opinions 67.101.145.37 08:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope this would be my last say, It seems you would never stop, finding a hole by using technicalities. E-mail them for your own questions and self-information. So you could understand better whey they are doing it. 67.101.145.37 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(i supplied the title for this one. -- Howard the Duck 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Rizalpinoynapoleon, sort the Namfrel quick count AND the COMELEC official count until it is final. In this way it can be both easier for the editors and the for readers. Easier for editors because you just need to punch in the numbers instead of punching in the numbers first then you have to rank it and then you have to cut and paste. That would require more work. I do not think readers would have any problem with it as they are given more options how to view it whether alphabetically or rank in order. 69.3.237.71 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
But you do agree that it would be easier for the editors? Still how would you know that every readers prefered the ranking order? Do you think giving more oprion would be better? All I am saying as for now we should leave it sortable until it is final. because information are still coming in. It would be easier navigationally for the readers and editors alike. Then when everything is in final the tallying should be in ranking order. 69.3.237.71 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to tell this again, I am FOR ranking order of the candidates according to votes. All I am saying since the votes are not final yet and canvassing is still going on, I think sorting the table would be the best way to present this for now. ONCE the counting is FINAL then we ought to rank them according to votes. As what you call iff, indeed there are 2 options that are to sort about in fact there are 3 options, alphabetically, By party, and by votes But that is not really the point here. Since we are doing the sorting thing for both the editors and readers sake. Again since it still ongoing I don't think the readers would mind on a sorting table. Look at the ABS-CBN website, GMA, Inquirer website NAMFREL etc. etc. They all have table that is still sortable. And once again, Once it is final let gets rid of the sorting table. Agree? 67.101.145.37 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does ABS-CBN, GMA, Inquirer etc etc. uses sortable table if it such a very confusing thing? I don't think there is a reader so stupid to figure out Zubiri will lost because he is at the bottom in alphabetical order. That is non-sense. But I hope you know where I am coming from? You see we do agree that it should be ranking order only in my case lest sort the still ongoing election for now until it is final 67.101.145.37 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not sort them alpha? You are asking a rhetorical question.They are journalistic, Journalistic and encyclopedic are essentially based in objectiveness 67.101.145.37 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Journalism and Encyclopedia should be the same in showing information objectively. This is NOT a HARD COPY encyclopedia everything is fluid. The beauty of this is actually because of what we are talking about. We can actually do this thing that we could not do in a hard encyclopedia. But again I am going to tell this once more. I AM FOR RANKING THEM IN ORDER. But since we have an option to sort it while the election is ongoing why not exploit it? then we can rank them as they should 67.101.145.37 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious with this question? Maybe to some people they find it easier to look for their candidates alphabetically instead looking the ranking order one by one. It goes both ways. If sorting is really such a bad thing again why other much credible sources like ABS, GMA, etc uses this? 67.101.145.37 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please look at ABS-CBN website. OK, I think we are talking long enough and I am pretty sure you know already what I have been suggesting all along. Why are you implying that I am obsess of the alphabetical order thing?? That is not my point. You keep on asking why should we alphabetized again and again. That was not my point that has never been my point. Please read my posts again and tell me what am I really suggesting 67.101.145.37 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
O come on be serious now. 67.101.145.37 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, and you are not being reasonable anymore. Please review my posts and read them slowly if needed twice and tell me what I have been suggesting and NO it does not had anything to do with alphabetical order. 67.101.145.37 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"I don't care if editors will have a harder time encoding"
See you are being the devil's advocate here. You are basically suggesting "me me its all about me" "I don't care about the editors or the readers or anybody else Ill do what I want" "This is what I think its better for me and not for others" So if you are not a bit sensitive with other editors then what expectation of the readers would have for you? In my side lets help editors and the readers alike. 67.101.145.37 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope this would be my final words, Everything we talked about here would be moot, because at the end of the day we both agree that the final table should be according to votes. If it such a really hard thing for you to understand what I have been simply suggesting then what more really I can do? But we must hear others opinion before you or me jumping to a conclusion 67.101.145.37 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you agree that we should the Cayetano issue under NPOV since that matter is controversial -- Rizalninoynapoleon 02:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Accdg. to the COMELEC, Goma is an independent and not from the NPC. -- Howard the Duck 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Where are NAMFREL counts published. COMELEC website seems down most of the time and the only NAMFREL site I found is at http://namfrel.zamboanga.ph. -- Soman 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is planning to add either the COMELEC or NAMFREL results, be sure to add both the total votes (add all the votes) and the percentages. -- Howard the Duck 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a better discussion of the party-list system. I did by best but maybe someone can clean it up. -- Bruce Hall 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
COMELEC has just proclaimed that Fr. Eddie Panlilio (YEHEY! To end jueteng in Pampanga) as the new Governor of Pampanga. Howard, Scorpion and Others today is a day to end corruption and poverty and i ask that Among Ed should have a page he deserves it. Don't you agree rizalninoy 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Howard please watch your language you can get blocked by the Wikipedia Administrators. No Offense. rizalninoy 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If so please provide any citation or source about it thank you. 69.3.237.71 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have far too much information on it and is very much in a disarray. For a novice it is almost impossibly to understand at a glance who and which parties that where elected. -- Jonte-- 11:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
tabs
While reading this article and translating parts to Dutch for the Dutch Wikipedia, I found an inconsistency. In the section about the Genuine Opposition it is stated that Manny Villar is a candidate running under the flag of GO, but remains independent. But when I go to the acticle about Genuine Opposition it is stated that Manny Villar is member of the Nacionalista Party. One the these two statements must be incorrect. Magalhães 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article on Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-administrasyon was deleted because there's no proof of its existence. So how do we resolve the fact that it's still listed here in the election article? Can the whole house election results be verified? -- seav 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We should divide the articles in all elections (Presidential and other articles) Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:GenuineOpposition logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)