Talk:Tacloban City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

````too many irrelevant information. The city could have highlighted interesting points in it's history, scenic spots, etc.

Contents

[edit] MORE OF TACLOBAN, PLEASE!

This article is so dry. I studied in a college there so I know Tacloban is a small but beautiful city and it has more to offer aside from those written in this article. Could somebody from Tacloban please contribute more information and some scenic pictures of Tacloban? Bornok 20 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content

[edit] Accommodation

  • Asia Stars Hotel
  • Baluarte Beach Resort
  • Casa Anson
  • Casa de Tacloban
  • Casa Real
  • Five Stars Hotel
  • Golden Key Inn
  • Hotel Alejandro
  • Hotel D' Angelo
  • La Rica Hotel
  • Leyte Park Resort Hotel
  • LNU House
  • Manhattan Inn
  • Primrose Hotel
  • Quarter House Pensione
  • Rosevenil Pensionne
  • Tacloban Plaza Hotel
  • Vic-Mar Beach Resort
  • Villa Jessica
  • Village Town House
  • Welcome Home Pensione

[edit] Shopping Area

  • Asia Trading Supermarket and Department Store
  • Dynasty Square
  • Gaisano Supermarket
  • Highway Supermart
  • Robinsons ( future mall of the City )

and many more..

[edit] Restaurants and Cafe

  • Bo's cafe
  • Gloria Jean's Coffee
  • Giuseppe's Restaurant
  • Leyte Park Floating Restaurant
  • Ocho's Seafood Restaurant
  • Tempura Haus
  • Luck 6 seafood restaurant
  • Stephanie's Smokehaus
  • Barrio Fiesta Restaurant
  • San Pedro Bay reataurant
  • many more to choose!


[edit] Fastfood stores

  • McDonalds
  • Mister Donuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.66.202 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Jolibee
  • Chowking
  • Greenwich
  • Shakeys
  • JCO
  • Dunkin Doughnuts
  • Elenas
  • many more to choose from!
  • Many more soon to open!

[edit] Telecommunications

[edit] Television Networks

Reason: WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIR. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed the external link to MyTacloban.com since it is falls under #2 of "Links normally to be avoided" section of Wikipedia:External links guideline. In particular, MyTacloban.com is a small project using a Google Maps interface to depict places in Tacloban City. The information there is unverified and the website itself is not notable. Anyone can create such a website, and so we prefer established and "authoritative" websites. According to Google, there are no authoritative/established websites linking to MyTacloban.com making the inclusion of the link to the website in Wikipedia a purely promotional reason which falls under #4 of "Links normally to be avoided" section. --seav (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't find any authoritative sites linking to anything in the smaller cities here in the provinces. So, by setting your standards so rigidly, you're reducing the amount of usable and decent material that is available. There are a few other small and pathetic sites to which I was going to link with nice collections of local photos, not run by me, not intended to promote, but to show Tacloban. --Marasbaras (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's how rigid Wikipedia is. If you wanted to show photos of Tacloban, then a good fallback is Flickr. See Interesting photos tagged with "Tacloban" in Flickr. Flickr is a very popular Web 2.0 site and so linking to it is is acceptable to WP:EL. There are plenty of photo album websites that depict specific places in the Philippines. Of course we can't link to all of them so there has to be a rigid inclusion criteria, otherwise people may endlessly argue which of several non-notable photo galleries to choose from.
If you really wanted to show pictures of Tacloban, then upload them (as long as they are licensed under the GFDL or CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses) and include them in the Tacloban City article. That way, you don't even need to link to external web galleries. --seav (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how I could possibly upload photos since I'm nobody of note and not an authority. And then, there's the issue of verification. What authority could we trust to verify such photos? Why, anyone could take photos and upload them. Can't have that.
If the irony is lost on you, let me be more clear. I was inclined to help with the page and actually looking forward to doing so. But, your condescening tone really just puts me off. It's hilarious that a photo gallery in Flickr is acceptable while a Google mashup or a photo gallery elsewhere isn't. Some "standards" you have.
You talk about notability, verifiability, authority, etc., and yet the page had glaring errors. It still does. It's also missing a few rather significant sites, including a couple globally unique ones. I'll be good and just leave those for you to fix. You clearly don't want my help.--Marasbaras (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Anybody can upload photos just like anybody can edit the text of the articles. No authority is needed for the editors/uploaders just as long as the information and content can be verified from reliable resources. For pictures, most of them can be verified to depict the correct subject easily, so there's no problem with that. The content of external websites is not controlled by Wikipedia so we have to be quite choosy with which sites we link to. So your "ironic" comparison does not follow.
Many articles have errors, some more glaring than others. That's why people are free to correct these errors. Wikipedia is a work in progress and I don't see how the fact that the Tacloban City article has factual errors has anything to do with including the Google mashup as an external link. Just because en external website has useful information does not mean it should automatically get a link from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory; we leave the web directory stuff to sites like the Open Directory Project or Tanikalang Ginto for Pinoy websites. As it says in the external links guideline: "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." I don't see how that Google mashup is meritable enough. --seav (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Google mashup and your factual errors are separate topics. Try to keep up with the conversation. Regarding the factual errors, you had a link to a park in Manila. Brilliant ... your "no problem" with verification is just bluster. The irony still holds. The others, I'm going to leave for you to fix. Because clearly you know better. I'm just some idiot who lives here who goes around town taking pictures of things, talking to people, and trying to learn the history.
Regarding the Google mashup and the other non-Flickr pictures page, what makes meritable? At what point do pictures depicting the place you're trying to show become meritable? Or, pictures on maps?
By the way, I've received a lot of e-mail from people regarding that low-merit Google mashup. They think it's quite representative of the town. You know, using real pictures, GPS readings, maps ... to show the town as it is. --Marasbaras (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while you're quoting rules, perhaps you should read WP:BITE. If you've read it, try reading it again. --Marasbaras (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Google mashup and your factual errors are separate topics." Yes, but you conflated the two: "You talk about notability, verifiability, authority, etc., and yet the page had glaring errors." My talk about notability, etc., was solely about the external link. I don't know why you had to bring up the page having errors with the discussion about my removing the external link. You might be the one not keeping up with the conversation. And I really don't get why my arguing about removing just that one external link had you thinking that I, or Wikipedia, does not want your help.
"Meritable" is defined as being deserving of reward or praise. I interpret that to mean that a website (other than official websites) is quite exceptional in providing and presenting reliable information that other established third-party organizations, like mass media, feel fit to cover or mention that website, or that knowledgeable people in the field would say that the website is a great resource. While there are certainly plenty of shades of meritable-ness, a search in Google or Yahoo! shows that MyTacloban.com is clearly not meritable, yet. (In the future it may merit an external link from Wikipedia, but clearly not now.)
As for WP:BITE, yes I've read that, and I don't think I've been hostile to you. Read everything I wrote. I never once wrote that I think you're stupid, or an "idiot" or even implied it. All I've been doing is arguing about the merits of the discussion. You haven't seen me make any ad hominem arguments. Besides, when you added back that external link, you cited the External Links guidelines (even using the "WP:EL" jargon) without me linking to the guideline when I removed the external link the first time. That shows that you are not quite the newbie you imply to be when you cited WP:CITE, despite having a recently created account.
Finally, you said that you received encouraging e-mail for the Google mashup. This implies that you are involved with MyTacloban.com. This clearly falls under the conflict of interest guideline and the external links guidelines has this to say about conflict of interest: "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." (Emphasis is mine.) If you really feel that the Google mashup deserves the link, then wait for other disinterested contributors to link to it. It does not appear good that the very first edit you made under the User:Marasbaras account is to place an external link. --seav (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Nice little flame war you've got going here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.171.91 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)