Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

Active discussions
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
MainDiscussionFeatured contentNewest articles!Most viewed pages
This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.

Find us on Facebook   Find us on Twitter   Find us on YouTube   
This box: view  talk  edit

Possible online meeting with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama (and possibly government-published images)Edit

Good evening po sa lahat! I emailed Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) yesterday (January 26, 2021) about freedom of panorama matter and the matter on Philippine government-published images. In their response, they made a reference to an email by @Higad Rail Fan: regarding freedom of panorama issues that was sent last October 30, 2020. Though there was no response or reply on that email. Now, IPOPHL is extending the same invitation for a Zoom meeting in the second week of February this year (2021). Though the invitation was addressed to me, I may not be available due to hectic school schedule and personal reasons.

I'm humbly requesting any interested users and/or parties in the Tambayan community (yes, "any") who are willing to participate that meeting with IPOPHL. It is the only chance to have freedom of panorama introduced in the Philippines, at least gradually. We are facing more than 300 pending deletion requests on Wikimedia Commons, majority targeting modern buildings and sculptures, and perhaps those case pages involve hundreds of images. Through this dialogue, freedom of panorama may hopefully be introduced in the Philippines (perhaps through exchange of ideas and proposals and suggestions).

May I also request that those who would like to participate in this meeting with IPOPHL to please indicate after this message your willingness to attend.

The email address to IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights is Hopefully many (or at least several) will attend, for the benefit of all Wikipedians here in the Philippines. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I will listen in and contribute to the conversation but only if necessary. The forthcoming audience with IPOPhil will provide us much-needed clarifications about effective FOP regulations in the Philippines or their lack thereof. But ultimately, talk will be a bargain there unless we seek professional legal papers to be authored, moving forward. Buszmail (talk) 12:15, 03 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz12345! I am interested to attend. carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
IPOPHL cannot do anything. You guys should be lobbying Congress, instead. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: at least this will serve as a "bridge" to the representatives there. At least the two sponsors of the House Bill 8062 (Reps. Garin and de Venecia) which will amend Republic Act No. 8293 (to keep up with the challenges of intellectual property enforcement in the digital and new media age, but still the proposed bill has no FOP provisions). @Howhontanozaz: told me about this proposed bill on my Commons talk page last December 1, 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
We don't need bridges; we should be way past that. We've had this issue for years now. How sure are we that any bill that has FOP will at least get out of committee? None of the bills resolve the issue, and plenty of pictures in the Philippines will be rightfully deleted.
If anything, we'd need an exact phrase that can be added as an amendment to the current bills that will ensure FOP. Otherwise, almost all of the Commons images that are tagged would have to be deleted. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a Zoom meeting with whom? Just the IPO? Or is this more a public forum-type of thing? Pinging Seav as well so we can make ourselves available if they've set a date.
And to respond to Howard, I'm of the opinion that the relevant government agency can influence the legislation that would regulate it. At least it gets us somewhere as opposed to us having to wait for the politicians to respond. --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested too in attending. I hope it's not a Thursday or Friday though, I have online classes on those days. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: perhaps you may want to join Philippine Wikimedia Kapihan Group, the recognized FB equivalent of Tambayan (you may comment on my post there providing link to this Tambayan thread, and in this way other Filipino Wikipedians who have recently contacted IPOPHL by email can inform you and, if in case, send you the relevant Zoom link) regarding the meeting. Thanks po sa response. :) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Good to see there is actual collaboration in real life among WPPH editors. I think i recognize some of the members in that FB group. Is Berniemack an active contributor here too? Lol. Thanks for that link and good luck with the FOP dialogue.--RioHondo (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Berniemack has a Wikimedia account but he hasn't edited in any project since 2016: [1]. —seav (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Seav! I used to collaborate with him and a few others here and in the PH for a different information website back in college, like 15 years ago, shucks im getting old lol ;) This virtual meeting would be a good start, just keep in mind there are far more pressing matters this govt is dealing with, like its sinking economy and vax issues, so participants need to manage their expectations from this dialogue. Have fun nevertheless ;)--RioHondo (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I may have a virtual sit-in considering the copyright situation here in the Philippines, assuming I have ample time to listen and perhaps offer my own two cents as I am a content creator concerned with fair use and parody provisions in the country. 02:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I have done my part in this process. Details of this invitation is on the Kapihan Facebook group. Meeting via zoom will happen Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 10:00 AM PhST. I also extended communication to PhilWiki as well. I will not directly participate in this meeting as I have day job commitments being an OFW. --Exec8 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Some points from the dialogueEdit

Here are some points, according to some Filipino Wikimedians I talked to on Messenger:

  • There is now a pending bill at the Congress (House Bill 8620, authored by Congressman Deputy Speaker Wes Gatchalian) which contains a freedom of panorama provision at Section 184.1, (m). This FOP provision is modelled after Section 65(2) of the Australian copyright law (hence based on Australian freedom of panorama).
  • However, while the bill is pending, the current status for the Philippines is "no freedom of panorama", as there is no suitable provision under Sectiom 184.1 that is equivalent to an FOP provision. Currently, request of permission and license from the copyright holder of a certain work (e.g. a building or a public sculpture or monument) is required before uploading an image of a work here on Wikimedia.
  • FOP cannot be established by means of legal interpretation, as the copyright laws are statutory rights. FOP must be indicated and defined.
  • The only option now is to give support to the pending bill, perhaps sending a letter of support, or to submit position papers to the HOR. On how freedom of panorama will benefit the Wikimedia community (more so here in the Philippines) and the general public.
  • If ever the bill is passed into law and the FOP provision is now inserted in the IP Code of the Philippines, an accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations will also be formulated to better define the rules for the future Philippine FOP. Relevant stakeholders will also be invited, and it is highly encouraged that some representatives from the Filipino Wikimedians will participate in the drafting of the IRR.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


Additional remarks: all pending bills aiming to amend the copyright law are being consolidated (e.g. House Bill 8062 by Reps. De Venecia and Garin, House Bill 1597 by Rep. Romero, and House Bill 8620 by Rep. Gatchalian, with the last-mentioned containing the FOP provision), with the consolidation being conducted by the "Technical Working Group (TWG) created earlier this month by the House Committee on Trade and Industry." (based on IPOPHL article). This update added to Tambayan by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like our little WPPH community is starting to attract the attention of a few our lawmakers. Who here is actually working for any of those reps? Or are actually those reps editting here anonymously? Lol. Reminds me of an encounter i had with this contributor making conflict of interest edits for a certain senator's blp. He/she said that senator was a colleague. I know people lurking and engaging in tug of war editting in Marcos, Arroyo and Duterte-related articles are from a close circle of partisan members as they are the same people visible in those opposition politicians' blps and in that little project to create individual articles for each of the supposed hukbalahap "heroes and martyrs." ;) Anyways, this is a good development that is definitely nonpartisan. Thanks for that update and more collaboration of this kind here in WPPH please ;).--RioHondo (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@RioHondo: I'm more of a bridge/"news man" hehe. I'm not directly involved here, though I'm promoting this FOP on Facebook using a certain hashtag. But I don't want to be aggressive in such posts because these might be treated by the stupid FB algorithm (sorry for my term) as "spam posts". Hmm, for the FOP. Actually, per the dialogue (relayed to me by a few Filipino Wikimedians on Messenger), IPOPHL said that the Bureau of Copyright was just created in 2019, and last year (2020) FOP was already being considered as one of the potential additions to our copyright law. It's just that the bureau which is relevant to copyright matters was just "born" in 2019, so it took some years from the time of the first deletion on Wikimedia/Wikipedia (due to no FOP in the Philippines, was that around 2010/2011?) before FOP was truly realized. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


Can someone verify this user's edits? I saw some of his edits claiming that the People Power Revolution was a communist one. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 12:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not Communist-led, otherwise we'd have a different form of government without Cory. But if the question is whether the CPP participated in or mixed in with the crowd during that demonstration, what do the sources say? You can even type in Filipino anarchists as among the participants so long as they are supported by sources hehe. The Mendiola massacre that followed People Power was more associated with the CPP though ;). But again its all about the sources, and their prominence vis-a-vis other sources. If no sources provided, remove immediately.--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Electorate and population dataEdit

Need help with codifying those latest electorate (number of registered voters) and population statistics in each of the congressional district articles created thus far. I know these numbers are embedded in each LGU article, although the electorate data still arent. See Congressional districts of the Philippines for the sources. 2020 PSA data is coming up soon while comelec will release their updated figures after next year's elections. That way these numbers get automatically updated in all those 200+ articles. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Maybe we should add the electorate data on Wikidata (if we haven't already) and then use {{PH wikidata}}? —hueman1 (talk contributions) 07:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
That's the thing. I dont know how any of these works lol. No idea what those links are or what they can do, but i know Exec8 and P199 can help you on this? Thanks in advance.--RioHondo (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@RioHondo: I'll fire up AutoWikiBrowser real quick to see what I can do. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hue, but take note those existing population figures in wikidata only works for at-large congressional districts. So on top of the electorate figures, we also still have to codify those of the numbered districts per province or city.--RioHondo (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@RioHondo: Working on it. You can see the progress here: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force congressional districts/Wikidata. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything you cant do? Lol, thanks for this and for your effort in creating district maps as well. I look forward to seeing both! Btw, the representatives names dont need to be included in the data, only cos they change more often, like electoral protest, vacancy from death or resignation, etc so better to leave this flexible and changeable anytime hehe.--RioHondo (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

San Jose del MonteEdit

An IP editor (or maybe a group of IP editors) is vandalizing San Jose del Monte by changing the official name and adding speculation of unsafe water. The references used to support these statements are clearly wrongly applied and misused. In order to avoid WP:3R, can some more editors keep an eye on this? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9   03:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

LGU MapsEdit

Hi. Have you had seen the UP NOAH website? here I think it is a good source for accurate provincial, municipal/city and barangay boundaries. (tested it myself a day ago) The tab for the boundaries is at the left side and it says that data are from the PSA and the UI is great, too. I think it would be great to be applied in LGU locator/location maps, especially the town/city maps because some of the lines at present maps are soggy and are surely inaccurate. And most of these I believe are outdated. Thanks. Crear2000 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is indeed accurate, then it proves that Isabela's 4th congressional district is contiguous only as much as you can consider that a quadripoint on the summit of Mount Dos Hermanos means two jurisdictions border each other if they "face" (Utah-New Mexico or Arizona-Colorado) each other. Our current maps don't show this quadripoint, instead showing Echague separating Dinapigue from the rest of its district. Would be an interesting court case if someone brings it up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, it also shows that Santiago-Cordon does not border Jones-San Agustin. This was a bad gerrymander. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Like HTD says, hopefully it is accurate. If so, I agree that it would be nice to update all the maps of the 1634 LGU's and 120 provinces. Big task though, we'll need some volunteers with good graphic skills. Unfortunately, I have no time to take that on... -- P 1 9 9   15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it is accurate at least in places I know where there are welcome arches or signages separating political entities, and some usual border conventions that I am aware of. It is also noteworthy that, according to these maps, much of the political boundaries up to the barangay level are shared with waterways and rivers or at least run near the said water courses. I am just unsure why PSA didn't "explicitly" publish the maps. Well, yeah, it'll need much time to update the maps here. Crear2000 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK, most of the boundaries in the Philippines are unofficial based on the fact that these have not been surveyed yet, especially on mountainous areas. There are still court cases with LGUs disputing barangays. If we're following the U.S. precedence, the actual surveyed boundary will be the boundary instead of what was in the law, which was supposed to guide surveyors. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be very much willing to help make these maps since I've already been doing it for about two years now (maybe even three). Unfortunately, Felipe Aira's PhlMapCit.svg, the basemap that I used for my projects, came out to be inaccurate so I had no choice but to halt the rest of the project and make a new map out of scratch (it's right here). Though, it is worth mentioning that I did "finish" all regional/provincial locator maps but they were only used for a brief moment and were replaced by the ones we're currently using. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It says in the NOAH municipal borders maps that those were based on both PSA and NAMRIA, which is again where we should be basing all our maps from, the central mapping agency no less. i doubt PSA makes maps other than demographic so my guess is they also rely on NAMRIA. Hows the progress on our district maps and new more accurate province locator maps? :) The current ones we use are fine, i like that they are plain and without labels or too many colors making their locations stand out. Although i would suggest adding like zoomed insets for those really small provinces like Camiguin, Siquijor, Biliran, Guimaras, Romblon, Batanes, etc. They are barely noticeable in those maps :)--RioHondo (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Tambayan Philippines".