User talk:Howard the Duck/Template

Is there a way to facilitate standard footnotes for area and population?

-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah this can be easily added. – H T  D  03:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you post the template that you're using here? – H T  D  03:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the same one as I posted at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Here is a blank copy. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)




 * I tried making out infoboxes for British places but they're too complicated and feature the "districts" on another part of the infobox, and might not even use Infobox settlement; another one is the one used in Australian places. It makes sense they'd put the "districts" somewhere else as they're not strictly political divisions. It's probably a good idea to nix list of city/town council members and just put the party composition.
 * I'm also thinking of having one universal infobox for barangays, towns,cities and provinces. With optional parameters this can be easy. Or probably separate infoboxes for each LGU "level". – H T  D  17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not productive to reinvent the wheel. Let's just complete the LGU infoboxes, and then revisit it when Wikidata comes live. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're into adding infoboxes, can we just wait after the elections so we can add the newly elected mayors too? Unless mayors aren't included in infoboxes; the infobox has a separate parameter for the mayor's (and other officials') party(ies) that has to be used instead of being hardcoded like what is currently being done for all infoboxes for all LGUs at all levels. As I've said at WP:PINOY, I don't see the rush in doing all of this, since there are things that aren't exactly right or, as you've said, aren't updated. There is no deadline. – H T  D  04:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is no deadline, but waiting for elections is no reason to stall either. There will always be the next event to wait for. Since WP is continuously in progress, updates are also continuously needed. There will never be a point at which we can say: "it is perfect, no more improvements needed." If there is no other reason to stop, I will incorporate the changes you described on my talk page, and continue my work. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right; while waiting for the election to happen maybe a good idea, only a few people would add who won in some town in Bukidnon or Siquijor, for example. At least the census results have been released.
 * As for the changes you can edit them yourself. My only issue was on the issue of districts, capitalization, default parameters and standardization. Once they are added we can tweak it by adding optional parameters. For example, I bet no one knows what's the highest point in places such as Batangas (that's for provinces, though).
 * Once this is done, we can hire a bot to do the edits on articles that already have infoboxes; the changes should only be the template name and the removal of the default parameters. Then we can fix up regional, city and provincial articles which should be easier as they are fewer. – H T  D  15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, in summary, I will change the following: Am I missing anything? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) District → Legislative district
 * 2) Lone district → Lone district of
 * 3) Zip Code → ZIP code
 * Do the zip code. There's some issue I'm threshing out at Template talk:Infobox settlement on electoral districts. – H T  D  17:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me other "foundation days"? Foundation, incorporation, what else? – H T  D  17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean in the "established" section? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It says "founded" but there are more terms used. Manila has "settled", Trece Martires has "cityhood" (both are cities), and it doesn't state when it was really "founded". Infanta, Quezon has "Founded", Pateros, Metro Manila previously had "Incorporated (town)" before you changed it to "Founded". Personally, "founded" is quite ambiguous as for most PH places, there are already people when a town is founded; hence I prefer "Incorporated". We can use "founded" when there is a fixed date that people long ago really "founded" it. For example, New Bataan, Compostela Valley was taken from Compostela, Compostela Valley, so using "Founded" in the infobox is wrong. – H T  D  18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that over history, towns or places are established in many many different ways. That's why the template allows for different titles. And since the PH also has a long history, it would be impossible to standardize this entry. "Incorporation" as it is used now, is a relative modern concept, certainly not applicable to the year 1700. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "Founded" implies it was founded "out of nothing" when most places were split off from another place (such as New Bataan), or there were people already there (Cebu City, Manila, etc.) I'd rather go with "Established" for pre-Philippine Legislature places; even during the Spanish era there were even "charters" back in the day, so the concept of municipal corporation was common already back in the day. Manila wasn't really "settled" on June 10, 1571 as Lakan Dula and his friends got there first, unless we're talking about Spanish settlement. 103.5.63.143 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The example of Manila shows that there are different ways of looking at it... Anyway, I like "established" too. -- P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More on district confusion, Alabel, Sarangani states it is in the "Lone district". Lone district of what? Sarangani? Alabel? At least Bacoor stated it better, plus it used "incorporated (town)" and "incorporated (city)", it's wrong on "districts", though. Taguig looks better. – H T  D  18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will improve the links as per above. What about my suggestion at Template talk:Infobox settlement to move this info to the "government" section? -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd see where the discussion goes but I'd favor a separate section for district seats with a horizontal line immediately below the political divisions. This is an entirely different concept altogether; in theory, lower house members have nothing to do with how the town is being governed; the only legislators responsible to a place are those who control the legislature for that place (in short, the Sangguniang Bayan for towns). As much as possible we shouldn't have names of members of legislatures on infoboxes outside infoboxes on articles about the seats/districts themselves except when it is a lone district; otherwise we'd say "6 Liberals and 2 NPC". – H T  D  19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for simplicity sake, I still like adding it to the "government" section. But otherwise, I've no opinion on it. I'll leave this matter to you. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)