Talk:2007 Philippine general election

Untitled
Data on the candidates are verified? :) --Noypi380 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These are the ones at the SWS surveys, I think. (And I also think we should cut down on local contests, why not National Capital Region (Philippines) local elections, 2007 Metro Manila local elections, 2007 and Cebu local elections, 2007?) -- Howard  the   Duck  07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, dividing is okay too. :) --Noypi380 03:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We might as well removed copy-pasted news... -- Howard  the   Duck  09:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * made new links in the page, lets start from there. :) --Noypi380 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Only talking of the elections at the local level will not be as notable as nation-wide! Besides, the results at the local level does not necessarily reflect the national results.   --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Sorry, my statement above is true only for senators and congressman! --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sultanate of Sulu?
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)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pulse Asia pre-election
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)
 * Note: I found the source, and read the discussion, hence the table cannot be taken on its own, apart from the context. BTW, the current table needs to be changed or add Table 1 page 1 because that will show the actual Top 12. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Already added Table 1 that shows the Top 12 senatoriables...--Pinay06(Talk•Email) 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Defensor
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)


 * Defensor resigned as LP and moved to Lakas-CMD please refer to his COC rizalnnoynapoleon 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

quick counts necessary to be shown here?
are the quick counts necessary to be shown here? --Scorpion prinz (Talk 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets just have one big table and use the sortable thingy in the table. Like this:
 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

!Name !! NAMFREL !! PPCRV !! ABS-CBN !! GMA !! TU !! GO
 * -align=right
 * align=left|Escudero || 1000000 || 1000000 || 1000000 || 1000000 || 0 || 1000000000
 * -align=right
 * align=left|Gomez || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 3 || 5
 * -align=right
 * align=left|Pichay || 2 || 1 || 0 || 3 || Graham's number || 0
 * }
 * The table would be sorted by default by basis of surname. Then we'd get rid of it except for the NAMFREL one after the winners are proclaimed. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * COMELEC ruling says that quick counts must be posted and updated on websites and will not be removed from the webpage.--rizalninoynapoleon 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this true? If so, could you please providea link to a copy of the COMELEC resolution? --- Tito Pao 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is found only in the regulations of Media count (exclusively only for the media count volunteers), since i am working in the ABS-CBN-STI Media Count and give only an excerpt which is the ruling of the COMELEC, i apologize but i hav to follow regulations.--rizalninoynapoleon 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have its own quick count, it merely relays what's said on other sources. Ergo, Wikipedia is exempt from the COMELEC request/ruling. It like saying if I update my blog with quick counts, even if I made it up, it'll be under COMELEC scrutiny? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I for one doubt that we have to oblige with that resolution. We go by WP rules and US laws, and user consensus. I swing towards removing all counts except the official (comelec) and the namfrel unofficial quick count (the only accredited citizen's arm). Berserkerz Crit 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Slowly but surely, the media counts are being taken over by the NAMFREL quick count. So on the moment they stop updating their media counts and start using NAMFREL's, we should remove the media counts here too. Also, I think we should add TU's count, and GO's if they'll have one too. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to this supposed email from Senator Gordon, i don't think Philippine jurisprudence covers wikipedia, since the server is not in the Philippines. It's like forcing me to pose the results of all the media quick counts in my personal website, if I posted the NAMFREL quick count results. One unofficial quick count would suffice, so as not to confuse non-Filipinos. Perhaps we can just have under the See also section a link to the media quick count websites. --Scorpion prinz (Talk 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of that option (viz. to link the unofficial counts instead). In addition, it looks like ABSCBN and GMA7 did stop the quick counts per the COMELEC announcement, so I think we can remove these information from the article. With regard to the alleged email, I haven't received a response from Sen. Gordon's office asking for a confirmation, so I'll let you know if there are updates. --- Tito Pao 08:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the quick counts now.
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 final67.101.96.148 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * -- Howard  the   Duck  07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 125.212.91.14 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)User:MKouklisnot signed in
 * Agree. --- Tito Pao 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree provided that you move to media counts except NAMFREL in a separate page -- Rizalninoynapoleon 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to remove everything except for the summary (like ABS-CBN scored it 8-2-2, GMA had it 7-4-1, since that's the purpose of the media counts anyway.) and the links/references. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one disagrees on the next few hours I'll get rid of it. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * -- Rizalninoynapoleon 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) '''
 * Why? Both ABS-CBN and GMA stopped conducting their media counts already. It is pointless now. Plus NAMFREL's quick count is picking up, and COMELEC's official count is underway. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Compromise
 * Other websites still have the content of those media counts anyway so it's senseless to let them stay. NAMFREL's quick count should stay on the article forever. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus when you compare it to the 2004 elections, the topnotcher had 19 million+ votes while the 12th had 10 million+; the media counts had a range of 1.5M + to 925K, a minuscule proportion. GMA collected data from 12 (out of 15) regions in 2 days. I still have to be convinced why they should be retained and/or moved, at all. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:51, 17 May 2007 (UT

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)
 * I don't think minuscule data, no matter how scientific would appease notability. The current setup of the summarized media counts and displaying both COMELEC and NAMFREL counts in its entirety is what was being used on previous elections articles. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:27, 19 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)
 * Is the media count relevant after the elections? Does history say who won the media count? Do the candidates themselves will care about the media count in the long run? No, on all accounts. It's unecyclopedic. Does the US elections page give out media counts from ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN? No. End of story. If you really want to create an article for media counts, go ahead but I'll put it on deletion once I see it. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:46, 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)


 * I can't delete it, I'm not an admin; however I can initiate moves for deletion, every registered user can do that.
 * Opinion polls and exit polls are not equivalent to the media counts. In fact the only exit poll that exists for now is Pulse asia. The media counts are unscientific and not proportional. The scope of the media counts is very limited. That's why they stopped with 1.5 votes. On 2004, the range was between 19 million to 10 million. Compare 19 million and 1.5 million. And they're unencyclopedic. Only NAMFREL's and COMELEC's should stay. Also, I don't see any news agency quoting media counts. :It's like saying we should have a play-by-play record of what happened in a basketball game, encyclopedias and even almanacs don't do that. The most they can do is to select the important bits - who won the game, the scorers, rebounders, chokers, referees. Media counts are unimportant.
 * Granted opinion polls are a lot smaller - about 3,000 respondents, these are scientific, they count houses/telephone numbers in regular intervals instead of the actual random guy on the street thing.
 * If you really like to have a tally of the media counts, you can post them at your blog.
 * As for local elections, they are valid; I'm actually planning to create a spin-off article, and eventually the House election too.
 * Look, everyone is free to create an article about media counts, but everyone is free to put any article in a deletion discussion. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:10, 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)
 * Surveys/opinion poll and exit polls are in percentages; media counts are in exact figures. With that said, surveys and exit polls are scientific while media counts are not. To say that they're the same is like saying rheas and ostriches are the same species. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:28, 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)
 * Which brings me to notability. No news agency is reporting media counts now. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:33, 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)
 * They're reporting NAMFREL and COMELEC's numbers now. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O my, thats not the point. I am sorry but we are just spinning around here67.101.145.37 07:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to read the section title? What's the last word again? -- Howard  the   Duck  07:47, 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)
 * If the media counts aren't credible then why are the networks aren't reporting and/or updating them? -- Howard  the   Duck  07:56, 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.
 * No, they don't use "quick". NAMFREL has the exclusive right (trademark?) to use "quick count", that's why they use the term "media count" or simply "count"/"tally". -- Howard  the   Duck  08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Which means the NAMFREL quick count and the ABS-CBN and GMA "quick" media counts aren't the same. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:13, 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 opinions67.101.145.37 08:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Emails are original research. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:18, 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)

Sortability
(i supplied the title for this one. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Howard change the NAMFREL Quick count to sortable for better tallying Rizalninoynapoleon 15:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno but IMHO it's easier to have sorted default on the number of votes since there is only one source (NAMFREL) now; the reason I used sortable on the previous version is that there were 3 counts. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sortable was easier especially that the ranking can change any moment Rizalninoynapoleon 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. -- Howard  the   Duck  01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sortable though one source besides look at the recent result of the NAMFREL quickcount 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reindent - Ever heard of drag and drop and/or copy-paste? -- Howard  the   Duck  08:52, 18 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)
 * How would sorting by name be helpful to the reader when all that matters now is the number of votes? -- Howard  the   Duck  04:27, 19 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)
 * Wikipedia is made for readers. And at the end of the day the number of votes is what that matters. Or else Zubiri won't make it even if he's #1 at the standings. Sortable is useful iff there are more than 2 options to sort about; in this case, there is only one. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:42, 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)
 * In sports standings tables, there are lots of columns, points, wins, losses, winning percentage, etc. However, in spite that the seasons are ongoing, you don't sort team standings by wins or losses, heck even alphabetically, they're sorted either in winning percentage (non-soccer/hockey) or points (soccer/hockey), by default. There's no reason to sort them by party or by name. The only column that matters is the number of votes, if we'll allow "sortable", it will just confuse the reader (oh, Zubiri won't win since his name starts with a Z). -- Howard  the   Duck  06:59, 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 final67.101.145.37 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By why sort alphabetically? Do sports team standings sort their records alphabetically? No.
 * And ABS-CBN, GMA and PDI aren't encyclopedias. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:12, 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 objectiveness67.101.145.37 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not sort alpha? Because the only way to sort them is via number of votes. If COMELEC assigned more "quick counters", then we can use sortable, to compare the different quick counters. But there is ONLY ONE quick counter so using sortable would be stupid.
 * Journalists are haste and appeal only at the present; encyclopedias are used for historical purposes. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:22, 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 should67.101.145.37 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which would bring me to... why sort them alphabetically? Answer me, I answered your question. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:30, 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)
 * The whole point for the table is to show who is leading. If you'd want, I'll arrange alphabetically the candidates list on the political parties section.
 * Again, ABS, GMA, etc. aren't encyclopedias; and they placed their media counts, NAMFREL and COMELEC on one table, making it 3 ways to sort, ours only has 1. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:39, 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 suggesting67.101.145.37 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ABS-CBN has a graph, not a table. If you'd want a graph, I can do that.
 * You want it to be easier right? The easiest way to convey info about an election is to show who's leading, right; not showing who's first alphabetically, right? -- Howard  the   Duck  07:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O come on be serious now.67.101.145.37 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything else? Am I right? -- Howard  the   Duck  07:49, 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)


 * You said, and I quote:
 * "In this way it can be both easier for the editors and the for readers"
 * IMHO, the easiest way to convey information on elections is to list the candidates votes' on descending order, not by alphabetical order, by party, by number of goons, spent money, TV commercials, etc. I don't care if editors will have a harder time encoding, since Wikipedia is voluntary, if you don't want to do it, then don't, someone else will do it for you. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:00, 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)
 * But is there another easier way of conveying election data aside from the number of votes? What?
 * You maybe be right about that but it all boils down to which is the easiest for the reader. If I were the reader, I'd want to know who won (or in this case were counting is very slow), who is leading, not whose name is first alphabetically, even his party/coalition.
 * But you're certainly wrong on "I don't care about the editors or the readers" part since I haven't stated anything that I don't care about the readers on that statement. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:13, 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)
 * To end this: By this time, nobody cares how many votes Pichay got on ABS-CBN or GMA, what matters for these media counts is the "scoreboard", not the total votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Joselito Cayetano
Do you agree that we should the Cayetano issue under NPOV since that matter is controversial --Rizalninoynapoleon 02:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The language used was neutral enough. How could it be tagged with NPOV? You may have a wrong understanding on what the NPOV tag is for. -- Howard  the   Duck  01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My take: A controversial matter in itself is not NPOV. But if the topic was discussed using biased language, then that makes it NPOV. However, if my memory serves me right, there is a template that we can use to indicate that a certain topic or subject is controversial; the template's purpose is to warn members that debates and disputes about the topic are are to be expected. (I'll go and look it up). I found it! The templates that I'm referring to are for talk pages. It's and .  --- Tito Pao 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cayetano issue is still debated at the Supreme Court especially since Alan filed for a disqualification and an election protest at the SC. Rizalninoynapoleon 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? -- Howard  the   Duck  06:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gomez
Accdg. to the COMELEC, Goma is an independent and not from the NPC. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NAMFREL counts
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)
 * Inquirer has them. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Party-list elections
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)

Eddie Panlilio
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)

Comment on Jamalul Kiram
Howard please watch your language you can get blocked by the Wikipedia Administrators. No Offense. rizalninoy 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded sarcastically to the anon user. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

13 senators will be elected?
If so please provide any citation or source about it thank you.69.3.237.71 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only 12 candidates will be elected, the vacancy will happen after the election.
 * And the ballot only has 12 slots so only 12 candidates would be elected. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too much information
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)
 * What do you think should be done? -- Howard  the   Duck  11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Making sub-pages for the senate and house results. And only present a summary of them on the first page, which should be at the top. --Jonte-- 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that there were articles for Philippine Senate election, 2007 and Philippine House elections, 2007 but they got all redirected. The question is, there'll be 12 elected candidates; do we include all of them, or just say "Coalition A" got 6 candidates, "B" got 5 plus one independent? -- Howard  the   Duck  12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, usually there in a summary it only says which coalition, and then there can be more precise information about each elected candidate on a sub-page. I really don't have time to work on this article right now but I can give a helping hand later on. --Jonte-- 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

tabs

Manny Villar
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)
 * Perhaps candidate Panfilo Lacson is meant, in the section about Genuine Opposition? Magalhães 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The NP is under the GO coalition. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is my point. If he is a member of NP, than he cannot be independent (as stated in the article). I thought independent means that you are not member of a political party. Magalhães 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That escaped me, maybe it was meant to say that Villar wasn't supposed to within the GO coalition (hence independent from the GO? Early in the campaign Villar and Panginilan were thinking about leaving the coalition; only Sharon's husband left. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted party article
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)

Proposal to divide the article into Local, Gubernatorial, Senate, House, Presidential and Parliamentary
We should divide the articles in all elections (Presidential and other articles) Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the very first discussion on this page. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GenuineOpposition logo.png
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


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:TeamUnity logo.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)