This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
What is this: Adorons.com? -- βritandβeyonce ( talk• contribs) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
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 http://www.congress.gov.ph and court decisions are available from http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph. 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 (
talk •
contribs) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
So why in the world do we need another Wiktionary for Filipino? Tagalog includes Filipino. -- Chris S. ( talk) 20:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This user believes that the Filipino language damages the Tagalog language. |
This 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:
-- Howard the Duck 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ang manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang sinisira ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog. |
Ang manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang pinayayabong ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog. |
--
Filipinayzd (
talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Naniniwala ang user na ito na hinihinder ng wikang Filipino ang development ng wikang Tagalog. |
Naniniwala 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)
Binibigyan 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)
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)
Tagalog Wiktionary gets very little contributions, what makes you think Filipino will get more? -- Howard the Duck 03:03, 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)
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)
... 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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
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)
Just asking. -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Filipinayzd ( talk)
Tagalog-English?
-- Filipinayzd ( talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog? Bikol?
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:
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)
Ok, to sum everything up:
-- Howard the Duck 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Filipinayzd ( talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. — Wise Kwai 11:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
Padala is currently a stub which could use expansion and cleanup. -- Writtenonsand 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do we make of these two:
Should these be merged into Sulu Sultanate? -- seav ( talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
For Lou Bonnevie. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hmmm... Didn't we have a discussion about this a month or so back? Inquirer.net article: Students should use Wikipedia -- founder http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=105508 Alternativity ( talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the Main Page of the Tagalog Wikipedia? It has been majorly vandalised. - Emir214 ( talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- seav ( talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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 http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7581#c2 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 cbk-zam.wiki. An added fact is that the proposer of this invalid http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7581#c2 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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chavacano). 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavacano_language#Chabacano.3F_Chavacano.3F_Chabakano.3F and http://www.zamboanga.com/chavacano/chavacano_de_zamboanga_usage.htm and notice the spellings used by Professor Juan Gaspar y de los Reyes of the Graduate School of Ateneo de Zamboanga University ( http://www.adzu.edu.ph) 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. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboangueño (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 http://wikipedia.org 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)
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)
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)
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)
Starting from this edit, this article is full of WP:OR! -- bluemask ( talk) 10:17, 12 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)
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)
merry christmas to the hardworking filipino wikenthusiasts! Berserkerz Crit ( talk) 16:06, 24 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) 202.138.168.72 ( talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was our first DYK of the year. congrats.-- Lenticel ( talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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:
-- Chris S. ( talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Quezon City by ABS-CBN News -- bluemask ( talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rodentofdeath is banned for like a year. -- Howard the Duck 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can an admin undelete the following album covers? These were deleted because of missing fair use rationales.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
What is this: Adorons.com? -- βritandβeyonce ( talk• contribs) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
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 http://www.congress.gov.ph and court decisions are available from http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph. 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 (
talk •
contribs) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
So why in the world do we need another Wiktionary for Filipino? Tagalog includes Filipino. -- Chris S. ( talk) 20:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This user believes that the Filipino language damages the Tagalog language. |
This 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:
-- Howard the Duck 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ang manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang sinisira ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog. |
Ang manggagamit na ito ay naniniwalang pinayayabong ng wikang Filipino ang wikang Tagalog. |
--
Filipinayzd (
talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Naniniwala ang user na ito na hinihinder ng wikang Filipino ang development ng wikang Tagalog. |
Naniniwala 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)
Binibigyan 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)
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)
Tagalog Wiktionary gets very little contributions, what makes you think Filipino will get more? -- Howard the Duck 03:03, 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)
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)
... 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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
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)
Just asking. -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Filipinayzd ( talk)
Tagalog-English?
-- Filipinayzd ( talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagalog? Bikol?
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:
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)
Ok, to sum everything up:
-- Howard the Duck 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Filipinayzd ( talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. — Wise Kwai 11:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
Padala is currently a stub which could use expansion and cleanup. -- Writtenonsand 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do we make of these two:
Should these be merged into Sulu Sultanate? -- seav ( talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
For Lou Bonnevie. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hmmm... Didn't we have a discussion about this a month or so back? Inquirer.net article: Students should use Wikipedia -- founder http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=105508 Alternativity ( talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the Main Page of the Tagalog Wikipedia? It has been majorly vandalised. - Emir214 ( talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- seav ( talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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 http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7581#c2 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 cbk-zam.wiki. An added fact is that the proposer of this invalid http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7581#c2 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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chavacano). 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavacano_language#Chabacano.3F_Chavacano.3F_Chabakano.3F and http://www.zamboanga.com/chavacano/chavacano_de_zamboanga_usage.htm and notice the spellings used by Professor Juan Gaspar y de los Reyes of the Graduate School of Ateneo de Zamboanga University ( http://www.adzu.edu.ph) 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. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboangueño (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 http://wikipedia.org 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)
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)
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)
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)
Starting from this edit, this article is full of WP:OR! -- bluemask ( talk) 10:17, 12 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)
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)
merry christmas to the hardworking filipino wikenthusiasts! Berserkerz Crit ( talk) 16:06, 24 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) 202.138.168.72 ( talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was our first DYK of the year. congrats.-- Lenticel ( talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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:
-- Chris S. ( talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Quezon City by ABS-CBN News -- bluemask ( talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Rodentofdeath is banned for like a year. -- Howard the Duck 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can an admin undelete the following album covers? These were deleted because of missing fair use rationales.
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)
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)
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)
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)