Talk:Kalyeserye

Requested move 28 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by User:nimbosa. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Kalye Serye → KalyeSerye – KalyeSerye (no space) is more appropriate since it is the one being used in tv and online articles/reports. EddieWow (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per common form. GregKaye 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree, will merge and move these articles to one #KalyeSerye page very soon. —-— .:nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support for KalyeSerye, Oppose for "AlDub" to be merged into KalyeSerye. "AlDub" warrants its own article per the WP:N guidelines and is listed under the WikiProject Fictional characters. And the two reasonably different, "KalyeSerye" is a comedy sketch/segment, the "AlDub" is a pairing. Chihciboy (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal with AlDub

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

do not merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

the rationale for merge proposal is because the concept and importance of AlDub cannot be separated out of context from KalyeSerye, the converse is also true: KalyeSerye CANNOT be discussed without AlDub because they are co-requisites, that is why a lot of duplicated material can be found in the two articles; KalyeSerye evolved out of the "Problem Solving" segment of Juan for All, All for Juan since AlDub became a phenomenon, with AlDub/KalyeSerye segment eventually replacing "Problem Solving" and all sources support this, can you find any article mentioning KalyeSerye without AlDub? or any article mentioning AlDub without KalyeSerye? that is impossible because they were born from the same womb at the same time and basically describing the same spontaneous phenomenon

therefore, AlDub deserves a prominent section in the KalyeSerye article (before the cast/characters) where both can be discussed with minimal duplication asnd repetition of the same material, I will be doing the integration of unique AlDub material and removing redundancies and maybe you can criticize later, this will be a very careful merge, I promise —-— .:nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that your notion of the KalyeSerye sketch and AlDub pairing being the same thing has led you to move the AlDub article without prior to discussing changing the direction of the it in its talk page. The article content of Aldub is independent from the KalyeSerye (e.g. commercial impact of the AlDub). And considering that the AlDub characters will crossover to different mediums apart from KalyeSerye, the AlDub pairing has merited its own article (per WP:Notability). Furthermore, the AlDub characters are listed under the Fictional characters WikiProject, which the Kalyeserye isn't eligible to be part of. Furthermore, there are sources mentioning AlDub WITHOUT the KalyeSerye (e.g. SunStar source, Manila Standard Today source, Philippine Star article). Chihciboy (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the consensus is about the renaming of Kalye Serye → KalyeSerye. THERE is NO consensus about merging AlDub → KalyeSerye, so I'm reverting it back to WP:STATUSQUO. Chihciboy (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Chihciboy the discussion is not yet closed, this is a merge proposal and I have finished merging the contents to KalyeSerye article.. pending consensus, AlDub page will be a redirect to KalyeSerye page, but because you rejected this proposal that does not mean there is a unanimous decision in your favor, right now, we have one vote for the merge (me) and one vote against the merge (you), I am sorry if you were offended, but I was being BOLD when I did the merge just like when you create a page and maintain it without anyone's approval, it is always our own initiative on Wikipedia, and I only want to minimize the duplication and discussion of the same content on more than one article when we can discuss this as a distinct yet prominent portion / chapter / heading of another article that contains a more general discussion; now if you INSIST on consensus, you should seek consensus based on our arguments mentioned here, right now we're even.. ONE ALL —-— .:nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with Chihciboy's stand. I believe that AlDub deserves a separate article because they are characters that can be discussed as a separate topic; as Chihciboy already said above, there are numerous articles already discussing AlDub without mentioning or associating it with KalyeSerye. Yes, KalyeSerye plays a huge part in the development of AlDub as a couple, but that does not mean AlDub cannot stand alone when it is being discussed without the KalyeSerye. Comparing the AlDub and KalyeSerye's articles here as of this writing, the audience and even cultural implications for this phenomenon is more directly attributable to AlDub, though KalyeSerye has its own fair share on this. Just to summarize my stand, both AlDub and KalyeSerye deserves to be published as separate articles. Although I would suggest that in KalyeSerye article, those that are considered redundant sections should be merged with AlDub, not the other way around. I hope these points will be considered. Geoffbits (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Chihciboy. I think the recent McDo commercial supports the argument that AlDub can stand outside of KalyeSerye. Jedjuntereal (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And the Talk 'N Text commercial. (this is a preemptive comment since the commercial itself has not yet been released as of this posting, but hey, nobody's doubting it wouldn't be, right?) Jedjuntereal (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Is KalyeSerye a portion or a segment of Eat Bulaga!? The article refers to it as a segment but KalyeSerye is part of the Juan For All, All For Juan segment of Eat Bulaga!. Or are segment and portion just means the same (in a TV Show)? (EddieWow (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

"Portion" and "segment" are synonymous. I think that in the broadcast industry, the term segment is used most often. In the context of KalyeSerye, it is a segment within a segment. By definition, a segment is any of the parts into which something can be divided. --Jojit (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clearly discussed in the article that KalyeSerye is an introductory/prefatory (sub)portion of the segment called Juan For All, All For Juan in fact it evolved from and eventually succeeded the portion called "Problem Solving" within the Juan For All, All For Juan segment. In the broadcast industry, a program segment usually has its own segment producer and production staff, while a portion is a distinct part of the program/segment but usually has the same producer and production team as the rest of the show/segment. So for the purpose of this article, it is clear that KalyeSerye is a portion of the Juan For All, All For Juan segment of Eat Bulaga! I hope this makes sense. NOW folks, Jojit and (EddieWow please chime your votes in regarding the merge proposal above, I think there is a lot of duplicate material discussed in both articles AlDub and KalyeSerye enough to merit to merge AlDub as a section/subheading within the KalyeSerye article to discuss it further without redundancy on Wikipedia —-— .:nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

I think that the ratings section should be removed. We already have that on the List of KalyeSerye episodes. So, it's already redundant. What do you think? --Jojit (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jojit fb The content is unsourced, so it's in danger of being removed anyway. Check MOS:TV for the suitability of inclusion in the main article. If this is a daily show, it may become overwhelming to log ratings. Additionally, are these ratings for the entire Eat Bulaga! show, or the individual segment? If it's for the entire Eat Bulaga! show, I don't think the ratings belong here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, the ratings if for the whole show of Eat Bulaga! and not specifically for the Kalyeserye segment. There are sources for these ratings that we can add to the article but I agree with you that the ratings section does not belong here. --Jojit (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jojit fb Ah, good! Thanks for your reply. I'll wait a little while for more input, but since Kalyeserye is not its own show, I think the content should ultimately be removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic content

In this edit, I removed some problematic content with the explanation: Poorly written content, and character summaries should be brief, should describe the character, should include real-world information, like about casting, etc, and should *NOT* just repeat plot points. That's what episode summaries are for. That pretty much sums it up, but to expound, the relevant guideline is MOS:TVCAST. The character write-ups are getting bloated and need to be trimmed. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the dubbing

This series confuses the hell out of me. Based on what I can tell from some videos on YouTube, it looks like some characters don't actually speak, they just improvise movements based on spontaneous vocal performances from other actors or the hosts or something. Is that correct? If so, it needs to be clarified. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot devices

In this edit I boldly removed the Plot devices section. It contains too much fan cruft, (i.e. trivia) and doesn't tell us anything particularly useful except to rehash episode events. It certainly doesn't belong in production. It seems like the kind of thing that's just going to get bigger and bigger as episodes continue. There is a lack of references, so no clear indication that the content is noteworthy to anyone other than fans. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Big cuts to character list

In this edit I made a massive cut to the character section. Character sections should briefly describe the character and provide sourced, real-world information. What was there before I made the cut, was mostly original research, interpretive statements about the meaning of various characters names, and faaaaar too much plot detail. The place for important plot points is in the episode summaries, and this excessive detail was just encouraging other editors to add more excessive plot detail. Character summaries should be brief, with sourced, real-world information. See MOS:TV. Frankly, I don't see much of a point of going into too much detail with this series, since it's done live and it's very unlikely that any of the content will be retained (like in a DVD collection) for future verification. That makes it very difficult to conform to WP:V. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

One-off characters

In this edit I removed a couple of characters that look like one-off, insignificant characters. The encyclopedia is not interested in cataloging every aspect of any TV series, only the most important aspects. That means we need to be focused on recurring characters, and really we should be tying in real-world information per MOS:TV. At the rate the article is growing, I may have to ask for page protection to prevent the addition of undiscussed fancruft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Date/ Episode of Debut

Could you please just add when (date or episode) did they make their first appearances??? I think it is better with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.168.181 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Episode referencing

Please use {{Ref|Day|Day X}} when referencing a character's description and action to episode X. I've done a few at the beginning of the main characters for starters. This should help detail the characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Character list major changes

I've done some major reorganizing of the characters that should help it meet MOS:TV standards:

• Common names: Use "Yaya Dub", "Alden Richards", "Lola Nikora", "Dre. Dora" and so forth for the character's common name. They do not need to be slashed or listed with their full names or nicknames.
• Full names should be placed in their character descriptions and cited to a particular episode.
• The nicknames (outside of AlDub) should be ones commonly attributed to the characters within the show, not fan-given or one-off names like "Menggay".
• On the common names, you can specify last names if there are multiple instances of the character like if there are multiple Cindys then Cindy Kournikova is okay.
• Removed minor characters and one-off guest stars. They should be listed in the episode list summary writeup like "Yaya's father Dodong Smash (actor name) visits".
• Debuts for the character in the episode list should be linked to the character list. The link is good enough to show when they debuted. The episode summary doesn't need a separate note indicating the debut or the return of a character. You can also add their introduction to the series in the character's description like "He is introduced as Yaya's fiancee by arranged marriage.(Day X)"
• Child actors that portray the main characters when they were a child do not need to be listed in the characters list unless they are recurring and a major part of the story. That they guested in an episode does not make them a major member of the cast.

Questions? Comments? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry again AngusWOOF, short of beating a dead horse, I just want to clarify what I meant in my response here:

In the realm of Kalserye, people who watch the show know who Cindy is...but other than that, and in terms of referencing articles, for example, how would you differentiate this Cindy from other Cindys?"

I did not mean that there is more than one character named Cindy on the show. I meant it as, how would readers (who are not familiar with Kalyeserye) differentiate this particular Cindy of the show, say from the model, Cindy Crawford, in terms of referencing?

I see it more like how the characters on "Friends" are listed here where, for example, "Rachel Green" is on the list, and then "Rachel Karen Green" on the description.

Unless, you see it in more profound terms, as I highly doubt, like how the Characters_in_Romeo_and_Juliet are listed, in first name basis.

Except for the Lolas and the bodyguards, I am suggesting that all the other characters have only first and last names as vanchors (no middle names), such as "Alden Richards" is retained.

Please advise. Tankytoon (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's like how you mentioned it with the Friends. If she is referred to with her last name then add it to her common name, but if it is only referred to in one episode as a joke then leave it out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, AngusWOOF. FYI, I added back Maine Mendoza's portrayal of Lola Nidora (under Lola Nidora), as it is not a one-time event like the others, which I agree should not be included. She is currently playing (already more than a week's worth and counting) Anselmo's love interest as Lola Nidora's story is unfolding. Tankytoon (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Overview (moved and trimmed)

The overview of Kalyeserye is more pertinent above the background section as it gives a general summary of the series. Details usually follow after a summary section. Some of the content is repeated numerous times in the article, thus it is arranged as such to help with the continuity of the article. Character portrayals are also trimmed from the overview, because details can be found on the “Cast and Characters” section. Although in other articles, some plot summaries may include the actors/actresses playing the characters; in this case, however, when several characters are played by the same cast members, or sometimes even a single character can also be played by multiple actors, confusion can arise especially for those who are unfamiliar with the series. Please see these Wikipedia guidelines as reference: Information style and tone; Context for Audience; Clarity. Regards, Tankytoon (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Kalyeserye / Aldub Content (redundancy & re-appropriation of content)

Hi All,

cc:nimbosa, Chihciboy, Geoffbits, Jedjuntereal, Jojit fb, EddieWow, WayKurat, AngusWOOF, Cyphoidbomb

Short of beating a dead horse, as the merger proposal above resulted in a "Do Not Merge" decision. Since this is the case, what do we do about the redundancy (in both articles)?

I am of neither viewpoint but I am proposing arguments (or questions rather) about in favor and in opposition of the topic, we have to find the "answers" to the following, to determine how we will proceed with redundancy in both articles:

1). Are the tweets (and twitter records) a result of Aldub or Kalyeserye? Conversely, are people watching Kalyeserye for the story or for the tandem?

So information like this on the Aldub page,

"As of late, different media outlets had hailed AlDub as a "social media phenomenon" following its success in trending everyday on Twitter and other social media platforms. Record-breaking tweets correlate to a pivotal episode of Kalyeserye, mostly about AlDub's continuing romance. Such is the case on September 5, 2015, as the couple finally saw each other for the first time after their respective performances in the Bulaga Pa More! Dabarkads Edition wildcard round. Subsequent meetings for the pair happened in the weeks that followed, advancing the storyline of Kalyeserye."

"Anna Leah Sarabia, a Filipino anthropologist, cited the "Kalyeserye"'s use of fairy tale and soap opera's tropes helped in tandem's increasing popularity, saying that "It’s a 'Cinderella' story that's fake and true-life at the same time."[8] Filipino television executive Malou Choa-Fagar also cited the unpredictable nature of the Kalyeserye had largely contributed to the AlDub success."

To whom we should attribute the twitter record? On which page should we place such information? Aldub or Kalyeserye? I opt for the latter.

2) Granted, that Aldub can stand outside of Kalyeserye, as evidenced by their numerous endorsements...but are they because of the actor/actress themselves, ie Alden or Maine? When they appear in commercials / ads / magazines...is Yaya Dub / Alden endorsing or Maine / Alden endorsing?

If the latter is the case, then the endorsements or achievements can go under the actress/actor's wiki entry.

If Aldub is the case, why not have a separate article for other love teams like, for example, Brangelina or Twilight's Edward and Bella - I don't see a separate article for them...and these tandems have similar or even arguably greater weight/impact...Edward and Bella spawned a whole fandom and merchandise and Robert and Kristen appeared as their own characters in magazines...(I know this is digression, but I am trying to show a point)

3) What about this section re: their careers?

It states:

"The success of the AlDub tandem also contributed to the careers of Richards and Mendoza. The AlDub's success has helped Richards secure a four-year film contract ...."

So which is it? If the above is the case, shouldn't it be under the Aldub article, and not under the Kalyeserye article?

4) Speaking of which, what about this MMFF section?? Aldub is not playing here, but the actor Alden Richards and actress Maine Mendoza as different characters, so Should this section even be there? Shouldn't they be under Alden and Maine's articles?

So tempted to move things around, even if there is a consensus, but just to move content especially with the citations intact...can't begin to think...

Just to reiterate, THIS IS NOT A MERGER PROPOSAL, (it will be akin to the chicken/egg argument - which I don't want to be part of), but about the Redundancy and re-appropriation of content. Any thoughts? Tankytoon (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would treat AlDub as a character page for those two, so follow MOS standards for characters on those two Yaya Dub and Alden (the Kalyeserve character, not the actual actor) would redirect there. Then you can have role in Kalyeserye, reception, effect on the creation of other supercouples, analysis and criticisms, promotions and merchandise, concerts and other sponsorships where the actors are in character as those two in particular. Some may be redundant with Kalyeserye or the individual actor pages but those have different focus. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding awards, I would allocate them to whom it best belongs. MMFF would go to the individuals (Alden Richards and Maine Mendoza). Any award given to AlDub like Best Love Couple would stay on the AlDub page. They should also be real awards that are given in a ceremony. The ones where some writer calls them their favorite of the year just goes in reception. Sa Tamang Panahon can go in AlDub as that is an AlDub specific event. Ones for the show like best episode or ratings would go to the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kalyeserye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803145808/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/07/28/make-way-for-alden-and-yaya-dub/ to http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/07/28/make-way-for-alden-and-yaya-dub/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818064113/http://www.interaksyon.com/business/116149/lto-promises-for-p1-97-billion-2016-budget-new-plates-in-1-week-drivers-license-in-1-hour-etc- to http://www.interaksyon.com/business/116149/lto-promises-for-p1-97-billion-2016-budget-new-plates-in-1-week-drivers-license-in-1-hour-etc-
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150821162007/http://veritas846.ph/aldub-of-eat-bulaga-is-social-media-hit-raises-barometer-of-kilig-to-fandom-definition/ to http://veritas846.ph/aldub-of-eat-bulaga-is-social-media-hit-raises-barometer-of-kilig-to-fandom-definition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)