User talk:Howard the Duck

Welcome!

Hello, Howard the Duck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! No Guru 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

There isn't??? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm writing it up. :) Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

You should have notified me (1) after you've written it up, (2) with the link to the relevant subsection. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Bloomagiliw originally posted this prior to the creation of a relevant subsection. User then edited the comment after fact. For reference on any future relevant discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hey you seem like you’re probably a competent content editor, so you should dial back the aggression by a factor of like 7. Like maybe write your comments elsewhere and then remove all the parts you think are particularly clever before posting them. Especially the comments about what you perceive to be the nationality of other editors—that’s super gross. None of this behavior is helpful in getting good outcomes in discussions. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

FWIW, I am a part of the nationality involved, and I do understand it's not "helpful in getting good outcomes in discussions". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi Howard, what made you think that actress was a bad category for this article? I get that the subject might fail notability - but that's a key part of the categorisation process, we add the categories based on the text in the article and sometimes that results in articles being deleted because the people who follow that category know who the notable and unnotable subjects are in that category. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Actresses and singer categories should have been on sex and medium/genre.

It's obvious you are not one of the people "following that category" as there are supposed to be no bio articles there as it's tagged with {{diffusecat }}. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

I already added more reliable sources on the article. What else could I do to avoid deletion of the article? Gbf's of Ashtine (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Participate in the AFD. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Templates you have created have been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2009 PBA All-Star Week, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 PBA All-Star Week until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

do I have your permission to take @Justthefacts to AN/I? ~2026-24464-63 (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't anyone can approve actions such as this... Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@~2026-24464-63: For what, may I ask? --Justthefacts (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

[画像:Information icon] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive behaviour by Howard the Duck involving AFD. Impru20 ^talk 21:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Howard the Duck - I've closed this with no action and the following comment: "Howard the Duck has acknowledged and is held to understand proper use of PROD; Impru is requested to consider that a challenge to "up the ante" does not necessarily require a response that ups the ante." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wassup Howard, Since you made and maintained the 2026 Antipolo's 2nd congressional district special election, i presume you may have an interest in another special election. see 2026 Cavite's 4th congressional district special election. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

shouldn't we wait until COMELEC schedules it? Howard the Duck (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

COMELEC DID announce it, that alone triggers the election. Comelec also stated the special election may occur somewhere in august. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

alternatively, we could move the name to Upcoming 2026 Cavite's 4th congressional district election. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

What is the COMELEC resolution number? Howard the Duck (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

there is no resolution number YET (basing from ts COMELEC), but sources do confirm that there will be a special election. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

So there is no announcement. Why do we have an article again? Howard the Duck (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

it is inevitable that there will be an election and sources say that the big Garcia himself or that COMELEC will hold special elections. If indeed that ts is too soon, i have three possible solutions for this.

1. Delete the article and bring it back when COMELEC officially declares it.

2. Move the article into a draft or sandbox, wait and then bring it back when COMELEC declares it.

3. Move to Upcoming Cavite's 4th congressional district election

I think that this article should stay up, as sources say that THERE WILL BE a special election that will be conducted. What do you think? There's no resolution number publicly available yet as COMELEC still hasn't updated their site. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

We are solely basing an article on "sources" and justifying it? Are we really doing this? Howard the Duck (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

sorry for late reply, after reading and analyzing, yeah u actually lowkey right. Moving the article to a draft FOR NOW. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was wondering if you can update the compositions of provincial boards in the country (I noticed that they were made way back in 2020 and are outdated)

If not then can you teach me how to make them? So I can do it myself Sarupuru (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

These are vectors. You can open with Inkscape or something similar. Local parties are purple while national party colors are at Module:Political party.

COMELEC hasn't uploaded 2025 winners up to now so zi haven't updated it. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

icon Template:Philippine House timeline has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

icon Template:Philippine Senate timeline has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Impru20 ^talk 11:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

icon Template:1947 Philippine Senate election results, a dependency of this page, has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This has nothing to do with FIBA statistics, but I think you might be able to help me with your expertise :) What's the procedure for adding club and federation logos to their Wikipedia pages? What exactly is needed? SerdarBar (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you'd be uploading these yourself, see Help:Upload. These are almost certainly copyrighted and thus can only be uploaded here instead of Wikimedia Commons. It's very important to add where you got the logo. Wikipedia:File upload wizard is better at this than the usual ones.

Once uploaded you can add it to the articles themselves. These can be in infoboxes and it's much easier to get this done on editing the source instead of the WYSIWYG edit. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NCAA Season 102 basketball tournaments, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • www.onesports.ph https://www.onesports.ph/story/?q=6a72218dd21b0900022c2276 . Retrieved 2026年08月06日.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can NCAA_Season_102_basketball_tournaments&preloadparams%5b%5d=1368005119"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Mr. Howard!

I am Sratcao42, a mapper for Philippine elections. I am also new to Wikipedia (even though I've been on it for 2 years, so if ever I sound stupid here I'm sorry huhu)

I noticed your map on the 1987 Philippine constitutional plebiscite article and I noticed the exclusion of Davao Occidental from Davao del Sur in the map which may be misleading as Davao Occidental started existing 2013 onwards. You may want to edit this map for this reason.

Here is the file for reference. Thank you!

P.S. Thank you as well for your contributions. I hope you don't mind me replacing your maps on some senate election articles; we can have another discussion about this if you wish.

Sratcao42 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

That was Davao del Sur (excluding Davao City), as its totals were not canvassed in time. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oh yeah my bad. Thanks. Sratcao42 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Update: What do you mean by "totals were not canvassed in time?" Unless I'm missing something from the original article from the Malacanang Journal, the Davao del Sur results are published and are separate from those Davao City's. Maybe just a need of coloring Davao del Sur green? Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.

Here's the reference if ever. Sratcao42 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

See the line on top of "See also" section of the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hmm, forgive me if I sound ignorant but I only note Eastern Samar, Tawi-tawi, and Zamboanga del Sur as the provinces with no returns. As far as I've seen in my reference/the journal, it does not state explicitly that these provinces returned late. It only shows that there are no returns; Davao del Sur is an exception to this as there is at least some data present for it there. I suppose what you are saying is that it is incomplete? I just want to make this clear, thank you. Sratcao42 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Manila Standard reports that when then President Corazon Aquino proclaimed the constitution, several places had not submitted its COCs in time. Some sources may had included totals from these places, and some places indeed may not have its totals added ever. FWIW, only Tawi-Tawi does not have the totals when Aquino proclaimed the result. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Manila Standard Article was published on Feb 12, 1987 which is the day after the constitution took effect. The journal I referenced which was published by the Malacañang, as far as I could see, was published after Feb 14. Sratcao42 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Question is what would you show, the "official" results as per the proclamation, or any other additions after that.

FWIW, in the 2021 Palawan division plebiscite, totals for Kalayaan were not included in tally, but was still colored in the map. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it would be best following the official post-proclamation tally given it is the only source we have. In that Palawan plebiscite, Kalayaan was colored because a separate source (Philstar) was able to verify the result there while this plebiscite's only source by province comes from said journal. And as I stated earlier, the journal came after the publication of the Manila Standard Article not to mention it *is* from the government. Sratcao42 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Should "journals" supersede actual proclamations, though? Howard the Duck (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

FWIW, the tally and map should show the same thing. If the tally excludes certain locations, so does should the map on those exact same locations. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The tally on the article includes Davao del Sur with results though? Your map shows Davao del Sur blank which may be inconsistent with the results table . Just following your "showing the same thing" logic. Sratcao42 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Are the totals different with the one on the main results table? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Checking out these myself:

• Proclaimed totals: Yes 16,622,111, No 4,953,375, Abstentions 209,730
• Sum of totals in by province/city: Yes 16,622,115, No 4,953,212, Invalid 210,315

Something's not right in either of these. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The issue about the totals is a separate discussion from what I am bringing up. I am pointing at the representation of Davao del Sur on your map, not the discrepancies between the totals. I am not the MalacaÑang and I am just basing this off of what is published.

As for 1981, that map is published under Own Work. There is no reference that supports that map being there. Sratcao42 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The reason why I brought that up is because the per-LGU totals should be exactly the same as the map. The map should follow the per-LGU table, which should follow the proclaimed results. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I suppose if the proclaimed totals and the per-LGU map don't match, it should be stated in the prose. Now as for the map, for me, it should reflect the proclaimed results; if that LGU was excluded from the proclaimed results, then it should be excluded from the map. Now, to reconcile, we can use the per-LGU detailed results to know which candidate/option won on that place, and nothing else, in the terms of coloring the map. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Following that logic using per-LGU detailed results to know which option won in which place, I would accept your original map but with Davao del Sur shaded in green. I think that would be the better option not just for us to reconcile but also for the sake of the reader who would probably be confused why Davao del Sur has numbers on the article's results table if the first map he/she would see has the province shaded in a manner that shows that it never had results. Sratcao42 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can go both ways here and would want to see how other people would think about it.

For example, in Congressional canvass for the 2022 Philippine presidential election, Argentina and Syria, which were not canvassed by Congress, were shown not to have results. We never knew what the results were for those places though, unlike your Davao del Sur example. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hmm, sure. I suppose we can also ask for a third opinion. Though as I said, for the sake of consistency and to save the reader from confusion, I still stand by coloring Davao del Sur. This also can help in reflecting the reality of the data given the existence of such for Davao del Sur following that 2022 canvass example. Sratcao42 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

FWIW, the 1981 map was created by me, and was created with the assumption that Marcos won on every province. Now, it seems that not all provinces had canvassed results and those should have been grayed out. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Are you also FiveGeekabytes? Or did you make a separate map? Just asking because he/she is the user linked to the main map on that article. Just want to clarify. Sratcao42 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's a different person. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hm? You said that this map was made by you? But its linked to the user above. So wdym by that? Sorry I'm confused Sratcao42 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I originally made the PNG version; the other guy made the SVG. SVGs are better for this so I prefer that myself. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oh alright that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Sratcao42 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Would you suggest I make an updated version to match what's written on the results table? Sratcao42 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you can edit SVGs without issue you can do it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Don't you have the number of registered voters for the 1987 plebiscite? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, you may find the numbers in the reference I linked above. Sratcao42 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Looking at 1981 Philippine presidential election and referendum, the presidential election had the proclaimed totals:

• 18,309,360; 1,716,449; 749,845; 6,499; 4,955, 4,224; 1,954; 1,945; 1,740; 1,421; 1,234; 1,185; 592

Then the by province/city totals have these:

• 18,309,180; 1,716,089; 749,858; 6,493; 4,955; 4,224; 1,954; 1,945; 1,740; 1,422; 1,234

The sub 1% candidates all summed up correctly, but the 3 didn't. What's with these detailed results?

Also, some places were not canvassed but were still colored in the map. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply