Talk:Eat Bulaga!

Merger of Eat Bulaga! and E.A.T.

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.

Merge E.A.T. (TV program) into Eat Bulaga!.

A large majority of editors agreed with merging the two articles, but many of them did not explain their reasoning further. Consensus on wikipedia is not a WP:VOTE, so those were given lesser weightage but not discarded altogether.

There was vehement opposition to the move, but that it was not often based on Wikipedia policies. While it has been argued that the exact name of the article should reflect the show's name at the time, counterexamples like Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company and Atari were given. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia often summarises articles, which may include merging different entities that are closely connected.

There was a reasonable concern over merging the articles while the subject might undergo further litigation, but ultimately it was not widely shared. Ultimately there was consensus to merge the articles and clarify the history of the programme under both its names clearly.

There's a strong suggestion from Howard the Duck on how to clearly merge the articles (and add disambiguation for related articles), but it's not clearcut if that structure is well-supported for the other articles.

Overall, consensus is to merge the articles. Soni (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Since TVJ won the Eat Bulaga! trademark, I suggest the articles for Eat Bulaga! and E.A.T. will be merged into one. RMXY (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree 103.171.89.203 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. However we should increase the protection of both pages for the meantime until a consensus is reached and sufficient news articles about it have been published KuyaStephenAlaEH (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We should discard all of TAPE's history of using Eat Bulaga in the main page as they've done disgrace to the show's name. We should let the TAPE Inc. history stop on 31st of May, 2023. 103.91.143.6 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This a biased and emotional opinion not worthy of Wikipedia. Please remain neutral. The court decision doesn't change the historical fact that from June 6, 2023 to Jan 5, 2026, TAPE's iteration is the de facto Eat Bulaga. Tagaaplaya (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Myrabert01 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Since they all agree, permission to merge it now through Wikipedia:Redirect? Lowkeypedia (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I second the motion. The next thing is to conduct cleanups and grammatical fix KuyaStephenAlaEH (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree WikiTG99 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree Tagaaplaya (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a few opposes here. So, we should give it a few days. Apologies for some impatient users. 172.58.27.228 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I hate to say about this, but I can't count some users who agrees with no reason. That is in accordance to the WP:VOTE. 172.58.27.158 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. EAT was not the de facto nor de jure Eat Bulaga from July 1, 2023 to January 2024. De jure Eat Bulaga 2023-2024 didn't exist. De facto Eat Bulaga 2023-2024 via TAPE's iteration existed though. TV5's EAT stopped existing upon name change to Eat Bulaga as allowed by the court. The court doesn't say that EAT 2023-2024 should be considered Eat Bulaga. That's not point of the case anyway. Edited.Tagaaplaya (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as the histories of both EB and E.A.T. are included for objectivity. Nicco18 (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the proposition of Nicco KuyaStephenAlaEH (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. E.A.T. was first created as a separate show by different production companies, and TV network. TheHotwiki (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. EAT Bulaga and E.A.T wiki pages must be merged. Hanayorudango07 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Comment. It had just happened that after TVJ (and company) left TAPE/GMA Network, Eat Bulaga! was hosted by another group of hosts while there was (let's say) a court battle on which one has the right to use Eat Bulaga! (and the likes); meanwhile TVJ hosted a program in TV5 but with different names of segments and program, hence, E.A.T. Now there's a court ruling, in that case, E.A.T. might serve as the predecessor of Eat Bulaga! in TV5, but not the another version of Eat Bulaga! in GMA. To make it brief and simple, TV5's E.A.T. was a short-lived program aired while there was a legal battle and technically, had no connection with the production of GMA's (and TAPE's) Eat Bulaga! at that time. To be honest and straight, i find E.A.T. deserving to have a separate article, so to avoid any confusion, i suggest: just keep the page for E.A.T.. That's all for my vote.—Raider000 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional comment. (Sorry for taking a long time for this.) Reading user's (RMXY) suggestion, "Since TVJ won the Eat Bulaga! trademark..." implies that:

• TVJ (Tito, Vic and Joey) (aside from several hosts) had been hosting Eat Bulaga! since its beginning in then RPN-9 in 1979.
• However, the legal issue (esp. trademark) began when TVJ & company left TAPE & GMA in May 2023. TVJ did not brought Eat Bulaga! upon their move in TV5, and produced one with different title instead, E.A.T. For a while, GMA's Eat Bulaga, while under TAPE, was starred by another set of hosts. Given such matters, productions of TVJ's E.A.T. and TAPE's Eat Bulaga! are two different things.
• With the recent court decision, TVJ eventually used Eat Bulaga! once again. E.A.T. was discontinued. TAPE/GMA changed its title Eat Bulaga! to Tahanang Pinakamasaya (might deserving also a separate article). Thus, "TP" replaces "EB!" (no longer to be used by TAPE) in GMA. "EB!" (w/ court decision in favor of TVJ) replaces "E.A.T".
• If TVJ trio (not TVJ Productions) is to be given a separate article, we can say they hosted Eat Bulaga! (1979–2023; 2024–present) and E.A.T. (while there was a court case, 2023–24). For Eat Bulaga!, this has been in existence since 1979 (hosted by TVJ et al, except 2023–24 while in GMA); but E.A.T. (as what i've said before) while with TVJ, was not another version of Eat Bulaga! (same case for Tahanang Pinakamasaya, that's no "EB")

It might take time for this such long comment, it might be "repetitive" statements as well; but please consider these (my) "specified" points. Just advising; that's a friendly advice to readers.—Raider000 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Either weak oppose or moderate support for now. [Removed some points.] Same explanations for the former; but i'm also agree with later ones by other voters. If merging is to be considered: there would be a history section for EB while in TAPE (until Jan. 2024; including that with different hosts since mid-2023), another for EB while in TVJ Productions (since Jan. 2024; including short-lived E.A.T. as a predecessor of TV5's "EB" considering the fact that while its production was totally different from that of GMA's "EB", TVJ used E.A.T while usage of Eat Bulaga! was the subject of the court case).—Raider000 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose and Comment. Even after the court ruling, E.A.T. has a similar, but different segments. Like Raider000 said, "TV5's E.A.T. was a short-lived program aired while there was a legal battle and technically, had no connection with the production of GMA's (and TAPE's) Eat Bulaga! at the time." Merging the articles into one would make it a lot more confusing for readers. So, I would say keep those articles as separate as possible. Support and Comment. I just retracted my other argument after learning more about the information. Within the longtime histories between TVJ and TAPE Inc., I suppose that those two articles has to merge into one going forward. I suggest that instead of putting I agree and I disagree, Support and Oppose is a better way of voting whether those articles have to be merged or not. If supported by the majority, then those articles have to be merged. If opposed by the majority, then keep it separated.172.58.27.228 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Although, it is a different name but the host clearly implies during their first episode on TV5 that, "Ang title po namin ay ang title kung ano ang alam niyong tawag sa amin". [1](which is Eat Bulaga)

The audience, the contestants thank the host and their program "Eat Bulaga" even though they used the name E.A.T.

Mayor Bullet even said that "Kahit baliktarin natin, hindi talaga sila pwedeng mawala, and 'Eat Bulaga' can’t live without TVJ, and [...]TVJ also cannot live without 'Eat Bulaga," [2]

So, it's still part of the history of Eat Bulaga, so it must be merged.

And hoping that the votes that said agree will be counted so that the decision of merging will be ASAP KnowlegdeFam (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

E.A.T. being philosophically Eat Bulaga doesn't make it factually Eat Bulaga! pre-court decision. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support To be completely fair, there is a bit of a precedent in the form of Atari with separate pages for all its numerous subsidiaries and corporate incarnations, but in the case of EB having separate articles for both incarnations of the show may be a source of confusion, especially as both the TAPE and TVJ incarnations had some shared history between each other. I am basing this on the fact that the page for Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company has mentions of how the brand was passed around through different owners but it's all concisely incorporated into one page. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

But the brand, specifically the trademark Eat Bulaga!, was not passed to E.A.T during its run from 2023 - Jan 5, 2024. Without the brand in that specific period, it's not Eat Bulaga! Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional comment. We should give it a week few days before it will be the time to close this discussion. Here's a link on how to close this discussion: WP:MERGECLOSE. 172.58.27.228 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification.

Hopefully the part of Tape Bulaga (without TVJ) will be moved to the new article about "Tahanang Pinakamasaya" to avoid confusion.

Atty Buko. (Legal counsel of TVJ), said that they can legally use "Eat Bulaga", but TVJ insists to wait for the court ruling to avoid conflict. [3]

Nevertheless, Let's wait for user @RapMonstaXY and other editors to close the merger KnowlegdeFam (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It's to my understanding that we can't merge those two articles. Within the neutrality of Wikipedia, I argued that the history of Eat Bulaga! and E.A.T. together while removing the existence of TAPE Inc. would create such biases, and it will also be a one-sided article. It wouldn't make sense to merge it ASAP. 172.58.27.205 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Still oppose. What makes a TV show, that TV show is its name. It's important enough that TVJ sued to have Eat Bulaga!'s name as theirs. TV shows are not like persons, organizations or corporations, who can still be the same entities and claim continuity even with multiple name changes. With that, no court ruling can reverse the historical fact that TAPE's iteration (sanctioned by law or not) was the de facto Eat Bulaga! from June 2023 - January 2024. This also means that E.A.T. was not Eat Bulaga because it was not named Eat Bulaga! from July 2023 to January 2024. Merging Eat Bulaga! with E.A.T. retcons what actually happened in real history. TVJ fought for the ownership of the name (trademark), not the production, in court, because who carries the name is Eat Bulaga, de facto or de jure.Tagaaplaya (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the merging because it will appear biased towards TAPE since TAPE also used the title 'Eat Bulaga,' and moreover, the program 'E.A.T.' has no connection to TAPE. Another reason is, this goes against Wikipedia's principle of being fair to both sides. To avoid biases, please oppose the merging of these two articles: Eat Bulaga and E.A.T.. Jumark27 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree with this. it won’t really be biased to TAPE, or APT. Also, TVJ (with Jeny Fere) filed an unfair competition case with TAPE. This was played fair. With the IPO decision and TAPE’s compliance. 158.62.39.36 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is how it should be done:

• Eat Bulaga! is the article title of the current TV5 program produced by TVJ. E.A.T. (TV program) redirects to his article. All history when TVJ produced the show, including editions from July 1, 2023 of the show aired on TV5, should be here.
• Tahanang Pinakamasaya is the article title of the current GMA program produced by TAPE. If you guys wanna redirect something like Eat Bulaga! (TAPE) or Eat Bulaga! (GMA) you are free to do so. The history of the TAPE produced program, including when TVJ were the hosts, should be on this article, from the start in 1979 up to now.
• Create Eat Bulaga! (disambiguation) linking to both programs.

Howard the Duck (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You simply desire to create confusion because of your illusion. You want to forget that TAPE Inc. was once a part of the history of 'Eat Bulaga,' even during times when they debated the program's name in the court. We should know the fact that 'E.A.T.' was never ever become a part of the history of 'Eat Bulaga,' hence it cannot be included in the Wikipedia article about 'Eat Bulaga.' I hope you understand this to avoid confusion and prevent bias that contradicts Wikipedia's principles. That is why I am very disagree with this merging. Jumark27 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

On my proposal, no merging shall be done. I know there is am education crisis, but wow. TAPE and TVJ programs each have their own articles. TVJ gets dibs on Eat Bulaga due to WP:AT. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The name E.A.T. was created as a temporary title for the show that TVJ brought from GMA to TV5 while actively fighting for the original title in court. Since they won, they scrapped the temporary title and are now back to using Eat Bulaga!. They basically are the same show.

But we should also include in the history section the odd period when there basically were two versions of the show: the TAPE-produced Eat Bulaga!, and E.A.T. airing at the same time. Astro.nick20 (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck But that doesn't mean that we can change the history that there was once a program on Philippine television titled "E.A.T.". And we cannot change the history that TAPE Inc. was once still used the title "Eat Bulaga" after TVJ left TAPE Inc.. The court decision cannot erase and change the history. And one of the principles of Wikipedia is transparency. That is am totally disagree with merging of these two articles: Eat Bulaga and E.A.T.. I hope you, you will understand that it is better to be transparent to avoid biases between two sides about this issue. And that is the principle of Wikipedia. Jumark27 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That there was once a program on Philippine television titled "E.A.T", which is now renamed "Eat Bulaga". This was like renamings of PBA teams, like from San Miguel Beermen to Magnolia Beverage Masters then back to San Miguel Beermen. TAPE's show is at Tahanang Pinakamasaya and will have Eat Bulaga's history from 1979 until 2023. The Eat Bulaga article will encompass TV5's program EAT, then was renamed Eat Bulaga. If anything that should have been done, This should have been an WP:RM at the "E.A.T." article... or even a straight up move as the TV5 show is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck "E.A.T." is de facto not "Eat Bulaga", because the "Eat Bulaga" at that time was already existed through TAPE's iteration during June 2023 to 1st week of January 2024. And that is the history of "Eat Bulaga" that we need to recognize. We cannot change the history, our goal as Wikipedian editors is to remain transparent and avoid biases. Court's decision cannot and never ever can affect to change the principle's of Wikipedia. And do not compare "Eat Bulaga" to "San Miguel Beermen" because those are different matters. "Eat Bulaga" is facing a naming dispute between TVJ and TAPE, but "San Miguel Beermen" did not face any naming dispute because they only aimed to diversify their brand image within the PBA. So, it's far-fetched to compare "Eat Bulaga" to "San Miguel Beermen". That is why I will still be disagree for merging these two articles: "Eat Bulaga" and "E.A.T.". I hope you will understand why I am so much disagree. Jumark27 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

TVJ's "E.A.T." was renamed into "Eat Bulaga".

TAPE's "Eat Bulaga" was renamed into "Tahanang Pinakamasaya"

These are renamings (or rebrandings), and not totally new programs with new identities. If it was indeed new identities, then a separate article can be argued (e.g. TVJ's "E.A.T." vs. TAPE's then named "Eat Bulaga"). But since these are renames, what should have been done is to rename "Eat Bulaga" to "Tahanang Pinakamasaya", and "E.A.T." to "Eat Bulaga". Howard the Duck (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The "renaming" of E.A.T. to Eat Bulaga! heavily relied on the court decision. We should present E.A.T. as it was when we still don't know what the court decision would be because that's how it really happened in history. Do not retcon what actually happened from July 2023 to Jan 2024. And let me remind you that court decision is not yet final. It can still be reversed by a higher court. When that happens, does it mean E.A.T. was not again Eat Bulaga! for you? Tagaaplaya (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The TVJ-produced program airing on TV5 and CNN Phililippines that was entitled "E.A.T." then and "Eat Bulaga" now are the same thing. The TAPE-produced program airing on GMA that was entitled "Eat Bulaga" then and "Tahanang Pinakamasaya" now, and previously aired on RPN and ABS-CBN are the same thing. We do not need a court to tell us that. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We do not need a court to tell us that? Then we have no basis at all to call E.A.T Eat Bulaga. And this discussion should have not started in the first place after the court ruling. And by the way, the court decision doesn't include ruling if E.A.T is Eat Bulaga. And TVJ never directly claimed that E.A.T is Eat Bulaga. The interpretation of E.A.T being Eat Bulaga is based on nothing. Tagaaplaya (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If a higher court reverses a lower court's ruling, we'd have to know then what comes next, and what would have happened to this article. If there would be two programs using the "Eat Bulaga" name, we'd probably need a disambiguation as the primary topic. The TVJ-produced program, if it is renamed, would have its article be renamed, keeping the same "lineage" from when it began on July 1, 2023. If the TAPE-produced program reverts to "Eat Bulaga" and is the only show using that name, it gets dibs on that name.

Again, this is what should be done:

• TVJ-produced program that is airing on TV5 and CNN Philippines starting July 1, 2023 as "EAT" and now called "Eat Bulaga" is one program. Its scope should be from when they began looking for a network to carry their show. That should be dealt with one article, excluding any other daughter articles.
• TAPE-produced program that is airing on GMA and previously on RPN and ABS-CBN, previously called "Eat Bulaga" and now called "Tahanang Pinakamasaya", is one program. Its scope should be from when it began its show in 1979 until now when it was renamed. That should be dealt with one article, excluding any other daughter articles.

Howard the Duck (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are exactly the reasons why solely relying on the court for "truthness" of which is Eat Bulaga is problematic. We should favor what happened in actuality because that's an unchanging fact. Tagaaplaya (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It was named as such because the producers can't claim at the time. And we should record as such that it wasn't Eat Bulaga! And let me remind people that merging Eat Bulaga with E.A.T. now is careless because the court decision maybe executory now but it is not yet final and is still under appeal. We don't want to be put in a position in the future that we undo the merging when the next higher court or the Supreme Court sided with TAPE, Inc. Tagaaplaya (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if the courts make a final decision regarding the ownership of TVJ in the title "Eat Bulaga," if they agree to merge the two articles: "Eat Bulaga" and "E.A.T.," it would appear that they are denying the existence of the "E.A.T." program in the history of Philippine television and that TAPE Inc. once used the name "Eat Bulaga," even if it violates copyright infringements and trademarks of TVJ. That is why I still disagree and will still disagree with the merging. Jumark27 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I don't understand why they are so biased with the law and completely disregard actual history. The court decision only covers legitimacy not factuality. Tagaaplaya (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree 2001:2042:33D7:FC00:6973:C23E:9DB4:35B (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If you agree, you are denying the fact that the temporary use of TAPE Inc. in the name "Eat Bulaga" did not happen, and you are also denying that there was no "E.A.T." TV program that existed in the world of Philippine television. Therefore, the content of the "Eat Bulaga" article on Wikipedia would appear to be misleading, which goes against its principles of being transparent and free from biases. Jumark27 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Can we at least postpone the decision to merge E.A.T and Eat Bulaga! or not until TAPE Inc. stopped appealing or the case had been decided with finality by the Supreme Court. While Marikina RTC's decision favors TVJ now, it's subject for review by higher courts and so can still change. Tagaaplaya (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, it's wrong to have a proposal for merging these two articles on Wikipedia. The decisions of the court have no real relevance when it comes to the history of the program "Eat Bulaga" if it is to be placed on Wikipedia. History cannot be altered even by the Supreme Court. We should acknowledge that the "E.A.T." program existed in the history of Philippine television, and there should be an article for "E.A.T." There should also be a part for TAPE in the history of "Eat Bulaga", so the contributions of TAPE to the article "Eat Bulaga" on Wikipedia cannot be erased. As Wikipedia editors, we should maintain transparency and remain unbiased, siding only with the truth. This is the principle of Wikipedia, fairness to all sides. Therefore, we should oppose the merging even if the court decisions become final. History is history and can never be altered by anyone. Jumark27 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. 158.62.39.36 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone way out of hand. It seems like the fact of the matter is, the version of Eat Bulaga! produced by TAPE from 2023 to 2024 was the same program as before with new hosts, and as a result, the previous hosts organized a facsimile of the show on TV5 called E.A.T. while filing a claim for the Eat Bulaga! trademark and format in court. When the court sided with the hosts and ordered an injunction against TAPE, Eat Bulaga! was immediately considered cancelled and then revived by TV5 the next day with the original hosts, while TAPE launched a replacement show entitled Tahanang Pinakamasaya (Naturally, this also means that claiming these shows had a de facto and a de jure run sounds rather ridiculous; aren’t these specific legal terms?). Ultimately, I think that this is the first time in the history of television anywhere in the world where there was such a dispute on the identity of a major entertainment show. It would be like if, for example, NBC fired the entire cast of Saturday Night Live and they retaliated by organizing a program called Night on CBS or something. I think this needs attention from experts on trademark law, television, and God knows what else. Image2012 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I introduced the concept of "de facto and de jure" run of show here. I really think it's accurate even I don't think it's necessary to mention. But it was necessary to mention at the time when confused (or even unintentionally biased) editors were so adamant to "overcorrect" after the court decision was released and were refusing to accept that GMA Network & TAPE were able to air their version of Eat Bulaga! in factuality. And I guess it worked. No need to mention it now. Tagaaplaya (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2024 (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.

Completing the merge

I have closed the discussion but someone more experienced with the article should complete the merge itself (copying the relevant text from E.A.T. article before redirecting it). Tagging RMXY who started this discussion. Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Revisions

I firmly believe that my revision dated 26th of January 2024 was of much better quality than the succeeding revisions. Why was it reverted so much? Image2012 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Merge Suggestion Template Without Final Consensus

Whoever removed the merge template in the article DID NOT read the WP:MERGE properly. Please put it back until the discussion is closed, and whether or not it will be merged. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

The merge template needs to be put back. The discussion for Merger of Eat Bulaga! and E.A.T. has not been closed just yet. In accordance to WP:MERGE, the merge discussion has to be closed with final consensus, and then the merger will go in effect or not. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Correct me if I'm wrong --

As an uninvolved user, it seems there is no clear consensus on a discussion that has only been idle for nearly a week now. (Or since 23 January if you don't count the excess commentary.) Thus, the discussion is likely to close soon. In this event, WP:NOCON (and WP:NOCON?) states that no changes should be made.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 17:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Urropean I was having the same thought about that merger discussion, it seems there wasn't any proper consensus on why they agree to merge those two articles. One question. Should I closed this discussion or request for closure? 107.185.128.255 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing WP:MERGECLOSE:

"In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be posted at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is not involved, close the discussion can be made at the Requests for Closure noticeboard."

If you see fit, you can make a request for closure. Otherwise -- or if you'd like for the discussion to continue -- you can make a request for comment to get more feedback on the conversation.

Upon further review of my own: I can't say whether it should be closed now or later. It's been inactive but, as someone who has stayed out of the discussion, I don't know if enough has been talked about yet. If you'd like me personally to help decide, just let me know and I can look into it more.

So,  Done for now. I recant my original conclusion and say that the merge template should remain until the discussion is officially closed.

P.S., I'm new to Wikipedia myself, but am merely referring you to the relevant meta pages. If you're ever unsure about how to do something, there's probably a page for it. I usually just search online, for instance: Close merge discussion Wikipedia. Any page in the namespace Wikipedia (aka with "Wikipedia:" in the title) should be of use. :)
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

E.A.T. is just an interim title for TVJ's Eat Bulaga show due to a legal dispute with TAPE Inc., which favors them. The court ruling states TVJ was the originator, E.A.T. should be merge to EAT Bulaga page. Nestor i. sangalang (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but this is not the place to continue the discussion, nor do I know enough about the topic to contribute. I hope the discussion comes to a close soon enough.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 14:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Urropean Thanks. That's very helpful. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be okay with the merger of the two pages to avoid misrepresentation since TVJ owns the rights of Eat Bulaga as per court ruling. Nestor i. sangalang (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't continue this discussion going forward. I'm leaving it to the uninvolved editors by requesting a closure of merge discussion. If there is proper consensus, then the merge will proceed. If there's no consensus, then the merge will not proceed. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Lenten Drama Special" portion

Can we move the portion about "Lenten Drama Special" in this article? Currently, the portion can be found in TAPE Inc.'s wiki article entitled "Eat Bulaga! Lenten Drama Specials". EJA9398 (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you'll need to changed as "Special Episodes" not your planning to change to header to "Eat Bulaga! Lenten Drama Specials", because the show aired a drama anthology for holy week special. Matthew24kyle (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)