Template talk:Philippine Census

it doesn't change in the page "Philippine census" even though i change it

Propose using Template:Historical Populations

There was an error in the Philippine Census template introduced a couple of months ago. I fixed it and subsequently found several calculation errors. I have rolled up the calculations into a generic template call but I have been exploring the possible meta-use of the Template:Historical Populations which is a much more mature and capable template. I have done the conversion work in the sandbox and have created a few testcases.

The one thing that I think the Historical Populations template is lacking is the option to report annual population growth rate instead of percentage change (regardless of year). Percentage change is fine when the years of the population census are at regular intervals but when you have irregular intervals, an annual rate is more useful. I am sand-boxing the change to Historical Populations to add percentage=pgr (because others have expressed interest) but I wanted to start the ball rolling on discussions about using Template:Historical Populations for the back-end of Template:Philippine Census.

Thoughts? Vernhart (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Version
Census	Pop.	Rate
1970	58,579	—
1980	110,043	—
1990	180,288	4.94%
2000	259,728	—
2010	337,320	—
Est. 2011	346,693	2.74%

Sandbox Version
Year	Pop.	±% p.a.
1970	58,579	—
1980	110,043	+6.51%
1990	180,288	+5.06%
2000	259,728	+3.72%
2010	337,320	+2.65%
2011 (est.)	346,693	+2.78%

Newer version deals with missing years better than that older version. Vernhart (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the maths here is certainly wrong. It should be straightforward enough to get it right. I'll take a look. John of Cromer in ~~China~~ Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 11:45, wikitime= 03:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per annum growth rates incorrect?

Hello, I believe some errors in the calculation of the "per annum growth rates" have been introduced two years ago. The per annum growth rates in the periods 1990 - 1995 and 1995 - 2000 and 2000 - 2007 and 2000 - 2010 are all incorrect now. User:Vernhart who changed the math in may 2012 probably assumed (incorrectly) that all census data of the various years have the same reference dates. This is not the case however. The census in 1980 was on May 1st, the one in 1990 was also on May 1st, but the census of 1995 was on September 1st, the census of 2000 was again on May 1st, the one of 2007 was on August 1st en the last one in 2010 was again on May 1st. This means that the per annum growth rates for the last four periods are incorrect (when the data for the years 1995 and 2007 is used), Magalhães (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magalhães: I can adjust the template. but, just to be clear, it sounds like it would be easiest to make May 1 the zero point. so, 1995 would be (1995 + 4/12) and 2007 would become (2007 + 3/12)? Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes:Not sure how to change the currect template, because it uses Historical Populations. Here you can see how it is done on the Dutch template. Magalhães (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Template talk:PAGR somebody has given the suggestion that using the number of days extra of less should give the correct growth rate. Magalhães (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magalhães: Which page are you referring to? This is a template that is used on many pages. And what do you propose? The parameters of Historical Populations and Philippine Census both only accept years. (This includes the older version of Philippine Census.) To make the per annum growth rate account for different months of when the census counts the people, you'd have to include month (and day?) as parameters to the template. It occurs to me that the date that the census data is publish is not the actual date that the survey was conducted. For instance, the 2010 US Census surveying occurred from January thru July 2010 (see this article: http://people.howstuffworks.com/census5.htm). I think the consensus in the people-counting field is that if you count the people every 10 years, the exact month that you count them is much less important than the year. I suspect that the reference dates (source?) that you refer to are not the actual dates that the census was counted but are actually the dates that it was published. Vernhart (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vernhart:Yes the template is used on many articles about Philippine cities, municipalities, provinces etc. That's exactly why it should be corrected as soon as possible.The situation in the Philippines is different from the situation in the US. In de Philippines the reference dates are the dates the data applies to. For example: when a city or municipality has 10,000 inhabitants according to the census of 2007, it had this many inhabitants at the reference date: September 1, 1995. It is not true that the reference date is the date of publication: Usually the date of publication is a year or even more after the reference date. The census for 2010 was published almost two years later, see here. Another source: Here you can see the reference dates for the census of 1995, 2000 and 2007. It differs up to four months, which (depending on the figures) can change the growth rate by 0,1%; 0,2% or even more. You're question about how to change this template, I cannot answer. I am not an expert on templates. Using the Historical Populations apparentely is not an option. I would suggest to switch it back to the version before you started "correcting the math" in may 2012. I did not check thoroughly whether all formulas before that date were correct, however. It is very well possible that there were one or two errors present at the time. On Template talk:PAGR somebody has given the suggestion that using the number of days extra of less should give the correct growth rate. Magalhães (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC), PS the reason why I noticed the differences in the growth rates is that the template on nl.wikipedia resulted in different growth rates. Also: when the Census 2007 was published a couple of years back, I noticed that the Philippine statistical departments also use the specific reference date to calculate the growth rates. Because at first the rates from the template (on nl.wikipedia) differed from the published rate, until I used August 1st (so 7 years + 3 months), instead of just 7 years.[reply]

@Magalhães: and @Frietjes: As I read back through the history of Philippine Census I see that I changed some population change rates that used fractional years. I believe I thought they were in error. I see now that they were done that way on purpose. I read Executive Order 135 (http://www.census.gov.ph/content/executive-order-no-135) which states that for "census years" (years divisible by 10) the reference date would be May 1 but for all other years, the reference date would be the "middle of the year".

I would be inclined to fix what we have now rather than roll back since the old version didn't deal well with missing years (which seems very common with the pages that use this template). Since PAGR (the template that calculates the per-annum growth rate) will accept decimal numbers (as talked about on Template talk:PAGR) then that seems like a good solution.

The way I see it, implementation is two-fold: First we have to enhance Historical Populations to allow years with decimals -- displaying just the integer part for the year but using the full parameter as arguments to Template:PAGR. After Historical Populations properly handles fractional years, we can change Philippine Census to rewrite the dates to the appropriate fractional value. (i.e. 2010 becomes 2010.3315, which is May 1, 2010 in fractional year notation, etc.) Vernhart (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vernhart: Thanks for reading into this. Your suggestion about the implementation sounds fine to me. Like, I said, I'm no expert on Templates, so 'm hoping either you or User:Frietjes can do the implementation, Magalhães (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: I've staged some changes Module:Historical populations/sandbox to handle the Historical Populations part of this. Can you sanity check my modifications? Vernhart (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vernhart: nice work! looks correct on the surface. I changed the sandbox historical populations template to use the sandbox module, so you can see if there are any errors in the Template:Historical populations/testcases. if there are no problems there, I say we make your changes live. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: @Vernhart:, thanks again for your work on this. Let's implement the changes! Magalhães (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magalhães and Vernhart: I updated the module from the sandbox, so all that is left is to change this template to rewrite the years as fractional years. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes and Vernhart: Done for the last couple of censuses. It seems to be working fine, because the results are now identical to the template on the Dutch wikipedia. For the other years I will need to find out what reference date was used in each year. Magalhães (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the actual date is hard-coded into this template. I think that is a mistake, because it then makes it very difficult to use {{PAGR}} free-standing, outside of this. For instance look at Tagbilaran#barangay. I think it would be preferable to have an additional template, eg. {{pcensus year}}, whose input is an integer year and which returns the fractional date. This would also reduce the logic in this template. 112.198.82.163 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote request

Apparent consensus of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Infobox_changes_by_IP_editor is that we request a footnote added by this template. Should go next to the growth rate column heading. This is what is needed:
{{efn|1=Executive Order 135 §6<ref name=eo135>{{url | http://www.census.gov.ph/content/executive-order-no-135 }}</ref> states that for "census years" (years divisible by 10) the reference date would be May 1st, but for all other years, the reference date is to be the "middle of the year".<br />This means that growth rates, although correct, are not necessarily simple year-on-year comparisons. }}

Thanks Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 13:50, wikitime= 05:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! I think it needs a name, so:

{{efn|name=eo135|1=Executive Order 135 §6<ref name=eo135>{{url | http://www.census.gov.ph/content/executive-order-no-135 }}</ref> states that for "census years" (years divisible by 10) the reference date would be May 1st, but for all other years, the reference date is to be the "middle of the year".<br />This means that growth rates, although correct, are not necessarily simple year-on-year comparisons.}}

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 22:30, wikitime= 14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait even longer. I remember that footnotes (and references) in templates can make a bit of a nuisance of themselves, if the invoking page has no {{notelist}} ({{reflist}}). I see too that there is a mouseover popup thingy already operative on the column heading. So no work to do here at all, I'll just go over to {{Historical populations}} and get the popup text extended. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 08:39, wikitime= 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Visayas is wrong

In fact the percentages shown are too high even for one year, let alone ten. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 10:04, wikitime= 02:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. In fact, for some reason, population census at region level seems to show absolute growth over the decade, not percentage annual growth. I wonder why not. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 17:16, wikitime= 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

because someone set percentages = on, rather than percentages = pagr. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]