Talk:UAAP Cheerdance Competition

Recent edits
I've commented out the results for all those teams or years that do not have sources. I've also reverted unexplained edits which appear to be vandalism. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

HISTORY OF UAAP CHEERDANCE
We need to include this section. There has been notable events in UAAP Cheerdance history, such as the introduction of point-system scoring in 2008 and new panel of judges in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiboowee (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 recorded scores
I think a top 10 recorded scores table is meaningless because the criteria is not the same every year. More meaningful would be winning margins, because these represent the difference of two scores based on the same set of criteria. In particular, if the scoring in a given year is high, it would affect all schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.209.83 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with this. There should be a table of top 10 winning margins. It is more meaningful than top 10 scores.121.54.54.49 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion. This area should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keljer (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Participating teams
I've noticed that there are two distinct sections concerning participating teams. One lists "participants" and another discusses "squads and their notable attributes." It might be better to simply combine both sections and include the discussion of "notable attributes" with the name of the participating squad, instead of having two rather redundant sections. If there are no objections, I'll make the changes within the next 48 hours. Rmcsamson (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Word Wars, Criticisms, and School Spirit.
I think this section should be deleted. It is a magnet for endless quarreling among the fans of the two squads. There is no way this can be kept neutral, because any information added here is by the nature of the section surely in favor of one over the other, which is an invitation for rebuttal.

This section has degenerated into another online forum where people debate endlessly. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Let us leave the quarreling in the already numerous online forums where these same topics are discussed.


 * Thanks Jerome for removing it. Please watch that it doesn't find its way back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.71 (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

400 (<) 100
The article says:

"In 2008, a banner bearing the inequality 100>397 was briefly flashed, which was "countered" by a larger tarpaulin showing the video game character PacMan eating the number 100, with the number 400 (probably pertaining to UST's upcoming quadricentennial) on PacMan's left."

This is wrong! The PacMan eating the number 100 was flashed FIRST. It was shown even BEFORE the event started - I first saw it about 12:20 pm, almost two hours before the program actually started on 2:10 pm. And it was a tarpaulin, meaning, it was prepared beforehand. It could not have been an answer to the UP banner.

On the contrary, the UP banner, reading 100>397, was constructed "on the fly" as a response to the well-prepared PacMan banner. It's message was that UST didn't know how to count - they are only 397 year old, not 400 as their PacMan banner claims, and that the 100 years of UP's existence is greater than the 397 years of UST's. The UP banner was briefly flashed just a few minutes before the start of the program.

In other words, the UP banner is written to counter the UST banner, and not the other way around!


 * Since my rants in the discussion did nothing to correct the error, then I took it upon myself and edited the page myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.220.86 (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the real gap between UP and UST in 2008?
The section "Chronology of Events" under "UP - UST rivalry" says: "UP Pep Squad won back the title in 2007[8] and defended it in 2008 with a record-breaking 8.03% points gap."

However the scores shown in the "Competition results" table showed UP winning by only 0.01 points, 93.30 - 93.29.

The Philippine Star article on the cheerdance results had the following scores, vastly different from the one in this article:

UP - 93.3 pts UST - 85.3 pts FEU - 83.9 pts

Source: http://72.14.235.104/search?hl=tl&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.philstar.com%2Findex.php%3FSports%26p%3D49%26type%3D2%26sec%3D30%26aid%3D20080907129&btnG=Hanapin+sa+Google&meta=

So what's the real score? My guess is the "Competition results" table is wrong, because the other two sources agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.69 (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok the table is now correct. Thanks to whoever fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.218.30 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

2000 or 2001 Competitions?
I think the top 3 for the either 2000 or 2001 competitions are UP, UE, and UST, in that order.

The other year it is: UP, UST, AdU.

May we know which year is which? And we should change the fdetails here.

--

i dont recall Ateneo taking 3rd in 2000. that performance sucked. and i'm from Ateneo.
 * Was that their cowboy/cowgirl getup? -- Howard  the   Duck 

Obviously this page doesn't cite references so I dunno who made this up. But I think the last 4 years are correct. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I listed the champions from 1995-2001, those from 2002 had the rankings and scores, where available. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

UST YJ
Anyone have an idea on how to incorporate the YJ into this? -- Howard  the   Duck  14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Result
This is inconsistent with the scores and ranking in UAAP Season 70 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.121.48 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has bias in favor of UST. This is not a reliable article. NPOV tagged 121.97.10.51 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

--Yes this article is biased in favor of UST. The sentence "However, the Salinggawi Dance Troupe opt to focus on their commitments in UST as a dance troupe and perform in different university functions and programs." was edited to "However, the Salinggawi Dance Troupe claims to focus on their commitments in UST as a dance troupe and perform in different university functions and programs."

So what else is not neutral here? You can edit it anyway. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1994 or 1995?
i think the UAAP Cheerdance Competition started in 1994 and UST has won it's 3-peat from 1994 to 1996, FEU won in either 1997 or 1998, and then there was no competition for a year because it was cancelled, allegedly after a member of the UP Pep Squad was injured during practice and went into a coma.

Here is an article from The Varsitarian that partly supports this:

‘Gawi targets ‘four-peat’

onyxguapo 2:21, 20 September 2007


 * i agree, however, there are other articles in the web (inquirer, FEU Cheering Squad in wiki) that supports consistency in info in this page. The 1994 establishment MIGHT be derived from season 57 or academic year 1994-1995. The UAAP Cheerdance then MIGHT be held January-March of 1995. I am not sure but i've read articles that the UAAP Cheerdance Competition has started in 1995. However though, there were some claims in PinoyExchange that there was a year where UAAP CDC was not held. Luiboowee 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Luiboowee

UST WINS THIRD STRAIGHT CHEERING TITLE The Salinggawi Dance Troupe of the University of Santo Tomas fashioned a grandslam finish by winning their third straight cheering crown at the start of the 59th Season of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines(UAAP) held at the Araneta Coliseum. Displaying their traditional three-man high pyramids and flashy dance steps, the UST cheerers got the nod of the judges over first runner-up University of the Philippines. Back-to-back second placer De La Salle Pep Squad finished only at third place. 71.121.17.8 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add, according to this article: http://web.archive.org/web/19990420031505/pdx.rpnet.com/uaap/news.htm, the 1996 (UAAP Season 59) Cheerdance Competition was definitely the third staging of the event. The competition was held at the start of Season 59
 * Here's the article in the link:


 * I also think that it started in 1994. The above article supported it. Should we change it? Okeencosc (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias in Trivia Section
"The highest and lowest scores garnered by each team are omitted and the remaining scores are averaged. This rule was removed in 2005 (causing the UP Pep Squad to fall to 1st Runner-Up) but restored the following year."

that part was written in favor of UP, has no basis and is purely a hearsay.

a separate section entitled something like "Controversies" should be written separately if they want to discuss this. but i personally think even that would be irrelevant to this article.

deleted by onyxguapo 09:01, 23 September 2007

Since Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, "some people" had the opportunity to take advantage of this. As a physical manifestation of this taking advantage or whatever term is appropriate, this Wikipedia article is, evidently, one-sided. Instead of having a balanced, objective (without any UNDERSTATEMENTS) format, this has been depicting UST as the star of the limelight. And all other rivals are fallaciously depicted as "cheaters". I recommend removing this entry or revising it, to avoid the spread of ignorance and misinformation which may cause detrimental effects to the already being misled Filipinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.205.40 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Claim that UST cheated in 2005
I have removed the note that UST cheated in 2005 in the "Consecutive Wins" section. This is a highly controversial claim and must, at the minimum, cite a reputable source in order to keep its wording ("though 2005 was a cheat"). It might be reworded to "although there were claims of cheating in 2005" but there must be citations. Full Disclosure: I am a UP graduate and currently a graduate student of UP. - Ianalis 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Entries Deleted
"Ateneo Blue Babble Battalion was among the firsts to do Scorpion in their cheerdance routine." --the year when Ateneo executed Scorpion should be indicated to prove that they were the first to do this. Besides, I personally believe this is not a notable event at all.

"Before the UST-UP-FEU triopoly begin since 2003-2007, UE Pep Squad is the last squad that enter the top 3 spot where they grab the 2nd place spot in 2002." --before 2003, AdU and DLSU were also able to make it to the top 3. i think this is not a notable event and is irrelevant to this article.

"FEU Cheering Squad makes use of floor effects in their cheerdance routines." --this cannot be considered a trademark of FEU since other squads including UST, AdU, and UE also use a lot of floor formations in their routines.

"The "Motorcycle Race" is UE's trademark routine. It was introduced in 2003." --the "Motorcycle Race" was done by UE only in 2003 and was never repeated for it to be considered a trademark.

deleted by onyxguapo 03:19, 26 September 2007

Average Ranking
I don't know who keeps on editing the Average Ranking, trying to insist that UST placed 3rd place in 2001.

As clearly stated there, Unless there are recorded rankings prior 2002, the avarage ranking should be based from 2002 to most recent. onyxguapo 7:07, 30 September 2007


 * In that case why include the information before 2002 at all? UST is clearly 3rd in 2001, and the table is misleading. I myself saw the table first, and thought that UST never placed third. The title only says "Average ranking (2002 to present)" but doesn't say that the high and low is also 2002 to present. I was surprised at the other table showing UST got 3rd in 2001. If you insist on placing 2nd, then the table should be reorganized to make it clear what it contains. Otherwise, I say it is definitely misleading.


 * Thanks to whoever removed that table. It didn't serve any purpose after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.218.30 (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tsk! Tsk! Ano ba yan! Eto lang pinagtatalunan niyo pa?! Sige sa Uaap Season 71 sa inyo na ang Araneta Coliseum, kayo ang magpeperform sa floor!!! Ang babaw niyo eh, parang umasta pa kayo eh kayo ang nagperform sa dancefloor nung time nila! Hello?! Alam niyo kesa problemahin niyo ang nakuhang score ng USTE nung 2000 or kung hindi trademark ng PIYU ang floor effect or kesehodang naging trademark ng UE ang motorcycle step.. so what?!!!!! Kapag ba pinag-usapan niyo yan 24/7 dito may mang-yayari bang milagro?! Bababa na ba ang presyo ng mga bilihin?! Yung bigas ba ng gobyerno na NFA rice pwede na ulit ibenta sa palengke?! Hindi na ba yun dudumugin ng tao?! Si Gloria ba bababa na sa pwesto?! Si "Probinsyanong Intsik" ba aamin ng "Laos" na sya?! Tumigil na nga kayo sa mga kababawan nio pwede ba?! Nakakairita eh! Kesa problemahin niyo ang UAAP mag-aral na lang kayo!


 * And you think your political ramblings are important? Get a life. We respect your priorities in life. Learn to respect others too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.218.30 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These things need to be discussed to ensure that the article has a NPOV and passes the wiki's criteria. OTOH it is your post that is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.218.30 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Unless no one objects I'll be removing the NPOV notice by Thursday. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. If you people still find anything POV-ish I suggest editing it yourself rather than re-adding pov-check. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing the article name to 'UAAP Cheering Competition'
Good day. May I propose for a change of the article name? It should be 'UAAP Cheering Competition' rather than 'UAAP Cheerdance Competition'. I believe that we all agree that it has a significant difference. If this proposal is not possible, then a large-scale editing is in order because some articles contain information that involves either only the 'Cheerdance competititon' or the 'Cheering Competition. Please enlighten me on this matter if anyone finds it a little complicated. Many thanks. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the event is officially called the "Cheerdance Competition," not the "Cheering Competition." Rmcsamson (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that was AFTER the Jollibee Chi-Cheer Kayo Contest. Cheerdance officialy came to be in 1998. :) Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.28.171.211 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the event is now called the "Cheerdance Competition." Hence, the present title is accurate, whereas changing it to "cheering competition" is misleading, especially since the competition doesn't really focus on cheering but on cheerdancing.Rmcsamson (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe some information in the article needs to be removed. Because like what you said, the competition doesn't focus on cheering but on cheerdancing. In 1995-1997, it focused only on cheering. 1998 was the year the competition changed into cheerdancing. I shall make the changes tonight. Good day and thank you for proving my point. cheers. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What point? You're saying 1995-1997 emphasized "cheering," whereas in 1998 onwards, the competition was called the "cheerdance" competition. Two things have to be made clear: There seems to be no substantiation as to what was emphasized in any of the periods that you wish to distinguish, which means making an unproven distinction the basis for any deletion will make that deletion problematic, if not vandalism. The only thing which is clear is that there was a change of name for the event, along with the possible natural development of the craft. So again, what point? Rmcsamson (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're a real fan of cheerdance, then I believe you will understand. Cheers. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That retort is illogical. Again, what point? Rmcsamson (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you know all about logic huh? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently. And again, your retort is illogical. So again, what point? Rmcsamson (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

READ. :)


 * Illogical. Again, your point, if any? Rmcsamson (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

READ. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Illogical. You claim to have a point. You have failed to substantiate your point. You have failed to satisfy the burden on your part. Again, your point, if any? Rmcsamson (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. We both sound like mechanical junkies. :) Again, please read. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.55.46 (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * o have a point. You have failed to substantiate your point. You have failed to satisfy the burden on your part. Again, your point, if any? If none, say so. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"UAAP Cheerdance Competition" is the most common name for the event described in this article so that'll be the name despite it's other names in the past. – Howard  the   Duck  04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UE Red Warriors logo.png
The image Image:UE Red Warriors 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:


 * File:University of the East Official Seal.jpg
 * File:USTLogo.jpg
 * File:UST Growling Tigers logo.jpg
 * File:National University Philippines logo.png
 * File:NU Bulldogs logo.png
 * File:FEUSealNew.png
 * File:FEU Tamaraws logo.png
 * File:DLSU-Manila Seal.png
 * File:DLSGreenArchers.png
 * File:AteneoBlueEagle.jpg
 * File:Adulogo.jpg
 * File:AdamsonFalcons.jpg
 * File:ATENEO-SEAL.png
 * Image:University of the East Official Seal.jpg
 * Image:Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.png
 * Image:Uaap logo.gif
 * Image:USTLogo.jpg
 * Image:UST Growling Tigers logo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 110.55.255.160, 17 September 2011
Please remove the Top 10 recorded scores table.

Reason: The scores garnered through the years cannot be considered as comparable since the criteria for judging and even the procedure/protocol for judging has changed through the years.

Notice that the recorded scores are all from the years 2008 and beyond. In 2009, the composition of the panel of judges changed (as indicated in the same article page), and the criteria for judging also continue to change after that year.

Scores can only be comparable if they all came from the same criteria and the same manner of judging. A performance, for example, can gain a score garnered through method A that is different from a score garnered through method B. This way, method A can rate a performance as 90% while method B would rate it as 85%, but both speak of the same performance. The 94% of UST in 2006 or the 93% of UP in 2008 may be scored differently if the recent criteria or manner of judging is used.

Thus, ranking them, which effectively compares all scores garnered throughout the whole history of the competition, is not possible as criteria and manner of judging was never constant.

110.55.255.160 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to segregate prior to 2009, and 2009 and after? – H T  D  04:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can segregate, but then again what for? If UAAP changes the criteria and the manner of judging again in the future, you'd have another segregation again. That means 3 time-periods: before 2008, 2008-20**, and 20** and beyond. And the whole dilemma continues if they change it again. If they change it twice or thrice more, you'd have 3-4 tables just for this section, and each period would span around 1-5 years only.

Again, garnering the highest recorded score (or the second highest, or the third highest) became irrelevant since the criteria and manner of judging can be changed whenever UAAP wants to. Since you can't say anymore that a score garnered is the highest (or second-highest or third-highest) for the whole history of the competition, what point is it to segregate? So the score becomes highest for that period, and you have another score for another period, and you have another score for another period, and so on? I think that would just be a grueling job - to continually compare without any application to comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.184.191 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, we can segregate endlessly. If you don't want to do it, someone will, it's a Wiki. – H T  D  03:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disabled the request, since the article is no longer protected. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove it though, since it has no sources. – H T  D  04:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To Howard The Duck: so we just segregate, who cares if it has a point right? Sabagay, in life we do things nga naman kahit walang point, or wait, expired na ata ang ganyang thinking sa modern society? But since Wikipedia, last time I checked, is edited continuously to provide information that is factual and RELEVANT (meaning it should have a point), I believe it should removed. :)

Last, yes Wiki is not paper. It's actually aptly labeled free ENCYCLOPEDIA. May irrelevant information at comparisons ba sa isang encyclopedia? Ang isang encyclopedia ba nagsesegregate lang endlessly, kahit walang relevance ang segregation? Thought so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.191.39 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, nor is it Pinoyexchange. Please use English in talk pages. Thanks.
 * Segregating does have a point, as you can compare between periods that used the same scoring system. It's like gymnastics when Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique changed the scoring system from the "Perfect 10 (gymnastics)" system to the current system. You can't compare Nadia Comaneci's score from Shawn Johnson's, but you can compare Johnson's and Comaneci's with their respective contemporaries. That's the point. Comparison within the same scoring system. Comparison with different scoring system, now that's pointless. I'd probably accept your argument if they change it annually, but it seems they haven't, so relevance exists. – H T  D  09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh well would you look at that. The criteria this year changed. Even the system of declaring how a squad wins changed this year too! :D Relevance? :) UAAP fully exercises the right to change the criteria for judging every year. If it continues to do so, as I predicted, you will be left with multiple tables depicting multiple comparisons. And if they change it again next year, then you can't compare that year to any year. :) I concede that wikipedia is not paper; that was a very enlightening article. And you're right, someone will make it if they want to and if they derive meaning out of it. I just hope they won't change the criteria or the system of declaring winners again next year, which they most probably will, so that whoever the person will be would not have such a hard time. Relevance will continue to exist unless it changes annually, i agree; but so long as it changes, albeit not annually, relevance diminishes up to a point that it would only have meaning to those willing enough to create those multiple comparisons. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.109.84 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Keljer, 18 September 2011
I believe that the to 10 record scores table should be removed. There should also be a new section for the Group Stunt competition. The article/s seem to be redundant as some always states the 8-time victory of UST SDT. UP and UST rivalry section is also meaningless as to new students now wouldn't get what it's all about.(it lacks information that's why it becomes useless)

Keljer (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any edit to a protected page must have consensus before being done. There's a suggestion at the section just immediately above this one concerning your first request. As for the second request, that's outside the scope of the edit protected template as that's not as simple as removing sections, although I'd quickly oppose such removals and instead make sure present-day students "get it" by rewriting it. – H T  D  13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

> new students now wouldn't get what it's all about. This claim is not true. When the 1st runner up was being announced, the UP crowd was chanting "Go USTE!". Everyone in the coliseum was stunned when DLSU was announced. This means that UP still considers UST as their main competitor, even though UST has not been to the top 3 twice in the last 3 years. The rivalry between UP and UST in CDC is like Ateneo and La Salle in Basketball. Even when one is on a losing streak, they are still considered rivals. Outsiders may not feel the rivalry, but it is felt in the culture of the students, especially those who went out of their way to watch the CDC live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.19 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Trivia" section
I've twice removed it, per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. Continued edit-warring, especially to insert content that is against guideline and policy, will cause this page to become locked again (and/or accounts lose their edit privileges altogether). DMacks (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and semiprotected the article. DMacks (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Lock-Down Request
Can this article be locked down so that butthurt university babies don't bring their personal school wars here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.175 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)