This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The articles on this template is arrange alphabetically and not by date of establishment, since the Magdalo and Magdiwang are factions of Katipunan, so they must be grouped and joined together, please clarify this statement...- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Only the events are in chronological order. The rest are in alphabetical order. Nevertheless, the two factions were established after the Katipunan was established. –HTD 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I just want to clarify, Magdalo and Magdiwang factions is the two grouped organized under the organization Kaitpunan, so they must be joined together to avoid misconception and misunderstanding to anoy one who reads it. They mus be formed lik this
As you see the two factions are grouped by the parenthesis under Katipunan, Im not referring in what date the two faction establish but how they are grouped, pleased consider my ideas and suggestions...- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That gives the impression that they were factions from the start. I'd rather list them as:
I'd also want to ditch the italics in proper nouns which are not titles. –HTD 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As i further known about this topic, i want to share that Katipunan was formed on July 7, 1892, Magdiwang faction was formed on April 10, 1896, while Magdalo faction was formed 2 days after the establishment Magdiwang as a faction. Again i repeat that Magdalo and Magdiwang factions are not separate group, they under the governance of Katipunan, This factions were formed due to clash between the members and leaders of Katipunan.
Please understand my statement... - 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hence there is the word "faction" on the Wikilink. My proposal doesn't hide this w/o breaking the alphabetical order and it further emphasizes that they're factions w/in the KKK. Putting them as a parenthetical clause after KKK doesn't explicitly state to the reader what they are. People? Places? Events? –HTD 09:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't there's a redundancy of word Katipunan, It seems that it just serve as padding when it's used inside the parenthesis...-188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It won't if they're separate from Katipunan and not enclosed in a parenthesis. –HTD 18:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The Magdalo and Magdiwang factions is part of Katipunan, so they must be joined together. The word Katipunan also must be separated because it acts a padding.
If you disagree with my idea and suggestions, then i'm just wasting my time. Think again...-184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, it should be like this:
American Anti-Imperialist League · Aglipayan Church · Katipunan · La Liga Filipina · La Solidaridad · Magdalo faction of the Katipunan · Magdiwang faction of the Katipunan · Philippine Constabulary · Philippine Revolutionary Army · Pulajanes · Propaganda Movement · Republic of Negros
Placing them in a parenthetical clause right after Katipunan gives the impression that they were factions when the Katipunan was founded in 1892, but as you rightfully said they only came about in 1896; placing them separately from the KKK justify their actions as actors in their own right while still impressing the reader that they're KKK factions. –HTD 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Clarifying about this issue, I just want to grouped Magdalo and Magdiwang as a faction of Katipunan, just like my proposal above. Furthermore i also want to clarify that my idea is already done in other template like:
As you see, some of topics are grouped according to their classification. It seems that your reasons seems to be wrong that when they are grouped and joined together they meant that they established and formed on the same day.
Please don't insist on wrong information, perhaps, when you already agree with my idea at first, the issue doesn't grow like this anymore... -220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason. This is a historical template; neither among those are. Hence either they're chronological or alphabetical -- in most cases navboxes are alphabetical. Navboxes on battles of wars and office holders are mostly chronological. Hence when there's a parenthetical clause in a historical navbox, what do you immediately infer? Those inside the parenthesis are with the word/phrase immediately before it from the start.
I fail to see what you still insist on this, as it is an extremely minor, if trivial, issue. It's the first time I encountered a discussion on a minor matter such as this. The benefits, if any, far outweigh the costs. –HTD 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to argue anymore. It seems that no one of us wants to yield. we are pointing two different ideas. I seems that you have more wisdom and experience in editing than me. I don't insist my idea again. But i just want to clarify that this issue shall not end, I'm not contented with this issue, perhaps, let us help one another, together with some users to improve and develop this template. I hope that you will cooperate... - 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)