Talk:Manila/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Manila. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Montage

User Mervynbunique added a new image to the article's intro. Since changes like this have always been discussed here first, I just thought I should open this up for an informal vote between the previous and current images. So which do people prefer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragosteaDinTei (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Manila City Montage 2011.JPG

Current

The caption "The entire skyline of Manila" for the previous image (not the montage) is misleading. Last I checked, both Makati and Taguig are separate cities. Both these cities skylines can clearly be seen in the previous image. Ortigas can also be seen there. If the caption stated that it was the "The entire skyline of Metro Manila" then that would be fine. However, this article is about the city and not the metropolitan area. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't we have a montage of six pics, one pic per legislative district? I can't pic a suitable pic for the first 2 districts, though... And most virtually omit the part of the city north of the Pasig. –H T D 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Manilagovt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manilagovt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Land area

Isn't the land area of 38,55 km² out of date? The NSCB publishes a land area of only 24,98 km² [1] (as well as different values for the other cities and municipalities of Metro Manila as those published in Wikipedia). --Septembermorgen (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the 38.55 number is for total area (land and water). Before the MMDA took down the information, they had differing numbers for the area of the cities. So I was guessing the smaller number is the land area and the larger number is the total city area. The infobox doesn't specify which is which either, so we could specify that. It's not specified either in the article unless I'm missing something. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Also conflicting info. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk)

File:Manila City Montage 2011.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manila City Montage 2011.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Philippine General Hospital.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Philippine General Hospital.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Philippine General Hospital.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Manila City hall at night..jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Manila City hall at night..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Manila City hall at night..jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:The port of Manila.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The port of Manila.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The port of Manila.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Paris of the East?

Please. I can cringe with the crappy sources, but slapping the other real nicknames with fact tags?
Please.
I can find similar, or better, sources stating that Manila is "Manny Pacquiao's adopted city" as a nickname. –H T D 10:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Howard, I responded re Manila nicknames, including this particular nickname among several others, below in the Manila nicknames section without having noticed this section at the time. Re crappy sources, I'll opine that the sources I supplied are better than no sources at all (the case regarding the remaining nicknames which you describe without support as "real nicknames"), and those sources do provide examples of "Paris of the East" having been used for Manila. That is, they support that they do say what they do say, and are adequate supporting sources for their own content. Note WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,".

I confess that I neglected to look at the template docs before editing the template content and before :responding below. The template used is Template:infobox settlement. Its docs describe the intended content of the |nickname= parameter as "well-known nickname(s)". I suggest that "Pearl of the Orient" be listed as the nickname, supported by Alicia Arrizón (2006), Queering Mestizaje: Transculturation And Performance, University of Michigan Press, p. 213 (note 7), ISBN 978-0-472-06955-2. Other similarly supported well known nicknames might be listed as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Manila nicknames

Re this reversion by User:Howard the Duck with the edit summary: [Reverted to revision 489652442 by Howard the Duck: Manila is N-E-V-E-R referred to as the "Paris of the East". Found it funny, nay, INSULTING the other nicknames were tagged. WTF ...].

Howard, think about WP:V and WP:OR. Content-wise this is not a big deal for me, but here you truncated "Paris of the East" off of a list of unsupported nicknames saying, "Undid revision 489592304 by Jmagsunod 13 (talk) Eh... Hanoi is the Paris of the East". I saw that on my watchlist, and wondered about it. Nicknames can be and often are applied redundantly to numerous cities. I don't remember seeing Manila referred to by that name, but I do remember a nickname with "Paris" in it. I did some googling for sources calling Manila "Paris of the East" and found some. I reinserted that nickname, cited the supporting sources, and {{cn}} tagged the remaining unsupported nicknames. You came back in an apparent huff and re-deleted the reinserted nickname along with the supporting cites I had supplied, asserting contrarily that the "Paris of the East" nickname is never applied to Manila.

The http://en.paperblog.com/my-manila-the-city-through-a-brownman-s-eyes-53874/ source ("My Manila: The City Through A Brownman's Eyes", which I had supplied and which you removed, said:

"Manila gives me a certain high that allows me to go into this state where I can dream about its past and how we could bring it back in the future. It inspires me to love beautiful things as I remember its grandeur when it used to be known as the Paris of the east."

Take that as one example of Manila having been referred to as "Paris of the East". Never say "N-E-V-E-R".

Actually, in my googling I had most often seen that nickname applied to Shanghai -- but that doesn't exclude either Hanoi or Manila from also having that nickname in some quarters.

The other nicknames, those from which you removed the {{cn}} tags which so upset you, were

Queen of the Orient
The City of Our Affections
City by the Bay
Distinguished and Ever Loyal City

I haven't searched for supporting sources for any of those, but I've never heard any of them applied to Manila and some of them seem quite a bit more improbable than "Paris of the East" (which, at least, can be supported).

Other than the apparent flaunting of Wikipedia policies here, this is not a big deal to me. I've seen your username in lots of edits which were better than what is exampled here, and I don't think this is a big deal. I've got other things to do, and I'm going to go do them. I may or may not revisit nicknames in this particular article at some point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Queen of the Orient" is just as bad as "Paris of the East", but "Pearl of the Orient" is way more prevalent and is actually a well-known enough nickname; it has even extended to the entire country.

"As early as in 1751, Father Juan J. Delgado, Jesuit historian, called Manila the “Pearl of the Orient.”

"The City of Our Affections" has also been used in literature and advertising campaigns.

"City by the Bay" is probably just a ripoff of San Francisco, California so I'd have no problems seeing it go.

"Distinguished and Ever Loyal City" was given by the Spanish king during one of the wars during the Spanish times. Probably either when the Dutch or Brits invaded -- it's even on the article I'm too lazy to look lol.

"Paris of the East" was sourced on a blog. I haven't read the blog, but that probably fails WP:RS. As a long-time Manila resident I haven't heard it bill itself as the "Paris of the East." There was a Vietnamese paid newspaper ad several years ago that stated either Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City as the "Paris of the East", which makes sense, since France colonized Vietnam. I wouldn't start calling Manila as the "Madrid of the East," though.

I know you're really keen with citations, and there's no problem with that, but let's just keep it to ones that pass WP:RS, and which are actually used in real life, not just what we encounter on somewhere and automatically add it here because we saw it. –H T D 13:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pearl of the Orient" is probably the only one worth including. Most of the others seem far too limited to be notable (although "Distinguished and Ever Loyal City" could go in history somewhere). CMD (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's my story on this. Quite a long time ago, I removed "Pearl of the Orient" thinking the nickname stood for the entire country; turns out it was originally for Manila, then applied to the Philippines. I'd weakly keep "The City of Our Affections" as it's quite well known, while placing "Distinguished and Ever Loyal City" somewhere in the history section, if hasn't been there yet; after all that nickname only applied as long as the Spanish were in town. –H T D 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard it in reference to the whole Philippines (except in cases when they symbolically use Manila to represent the whole Philippines, it being the capital and all). I've never seen "City of Our Affections" in anything serious, nor does it seem like anything but a generic statement that could be made for any city, but I don't strongly feel like removing it. Agree with the rest. CMD (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the designation that "Philippines = Pearl of the Orient" but maybe it really was meant that Manila represented the Philippines -- check out the reference I used above stating that "Pearl of the Orient" recently came to refer to the Philippines in general.

As for "City of Our Affections" while it seems generic (and cheesy) I still have to see a city that is referred to that. I think the "City of Our Affections" originated after World War II where Manila was decimated and the people remained because it was "the city of our affections." I also think I saw this in some monument somewhere.

Anyway, What ticked me off in this regard was when someone added "Paris of the East," I promptly removed it as vandalism (probably a bit harsh but it had to be removed anyway. Then it was reinstated, then re-removed, then re-reinstated, with not less than two crappy references to justify it's inclusion, then slapping the other nicknames with "citation needed" tags. I dunno if I'd LOL, facepalm myself, or be pissed with what happened. –H T D 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's actually a story behind "City of Our Affections" and it's not some pointless marketing campaign or somesuch, I have no objection to its inclusion. I suppose the nickname spread from Manila to the whole country in a sort of Pars pro toto like linguistic twist. Anyway, I suppose we can remove the other nicknames now, leaving just Pearl and Affections. CMD (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much tells you all of the original nicknames in the infobox (Pearl, Affections, and even Loyal), all had stories behind them. Unlike "Paris of the East." Interestingly, it was "Venice of the East" before (now taken by Bangkok). After some snooping, the "affections" name actually came from Nick Joaquin, though I dunno on what context. –H T D 16:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Map of Geographic Districts Needed

Looking at the articles on the individual districts of Manila (e.g. Paco) I noticed that the map used was often the congressional district map which I found misleading. It misled me. So I replaced them with a slightly better map. A good district map or individual district maps are needed. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if these districts have strictly-defined boundaries; I saw some at Wikimapia but I'm not sure if they're right. The Manila street map image shows the approximate locations of these districts. –H T D 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've followed Wikimapia (lol they're not right, but fortunately some barangays denote which district they're under despite not being within it's "shade" there (effectively making them district-less there in the wider scheme of things). I may have also effed up on their sizes but their locations are basically right. –H T D 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image at the Infobox

It seems that I should bring here the attention about what should be the image in the lead. As far as I know, it did not come into a discussion just like the one they did at New York City. Apparently, I am lobbying to add the image I created as a replacement for the current image which seems like a tourism advertisement and somehow I find it "noisy".--PH 0447 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a comparison between the two images.

File:Manila City.png

My proposed new image.

File:Manila Montage.png

Current image.

Can't we have 1 picture each from each leg. district? As I've said earlier, these montages have "south-of-the-Pasig bias". We can also have 1 photo for Dist. 1 & 2 (Tondo isn't very picturesque), and 2 for Dist. 5. As much as possible, I'd want a montage that does not look like a postcard; why not a picture of a busy Manila intersection, for example? See this:




	File:Malacanang palace view.jpg

Clockwise, from top:

Manila skyline (Dist 5)
Carriedo Fountain (Dist 3)
UST Main Building (Dist 4)
Malacanang Palace (Dist 6)
Rizal Monument (Dist 5)
Tondo Church (Dist 1)

These should also be safe from Freedom Of Panorama issues. –H T D 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For me, it seems that the current infobox image is not quite bad, considering it that Manila has a variety of iconic and prominent landmarks. The current infobox image is not noisy and doesn't look like a tourism advertisement because it just showcases the important cultural and historical landmarks of the city, which we should be proud of. Please look at the current infobox image of Mexico City, as you see it may look a tourism advertisement and it may also look like "noisy", but it showcases it's important and prominent landmarks, which Mexico City is known for.--Miguel raul (talk) 1:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Both images have its faults, and BOTH are noisy. For example on noise, on the current image, you don't know what was being featured in the Rizal Park picture: the flags or the Rizal Monument? he last picture looks like a dirty block of ice, and I dunno what's on the second picture. On the proposed pic, the Roxas Blvd picture is not focused on anything, there are two images on Intramuros (Intramuros is awesome but that's too much). I like the Manila sunset though. –H T D 05:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you think? which infobox image should be placed, the current or the proposed?--Miguel raul (talk) 2:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I am in favor of creating a new infobox image erasing the "south-of-Pasig" bias. As with your statement, the Mexico City infobox ain't that noisy, unlike this one in Manila in which the lines separating the picture is contributing to its noise. Nice suggestion sir HTD. --PH 0447 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What are your suggestions for each district? I'm amenable to two paronamas: one of the skyline, and another of the sunset. The Rizal Monument is reserved too (that's three District 5 pics already). I realized the Carriedo Fountain also has the Santa Cruz Church, and that's 2 churches already, so I'm also amenable to replacing that. Also, what's a nice place in Gagalangin? People might be angry with the UST pic (WHY NOT MY SCHOOL?) so I'm also amenable to something that is representative of U-belt. So our format is like this:

Skyline
Pic	Pic
Rizal monument	Pic
	Pic
Optional sunset

Also, take care to ensure photos pass the freedom of panorama rules. Short explanation: Get pics of old buildings. –H T D 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


File:Malacanang palace view.jpg

	File:PUP Campus.jpg
* * * Optional sunset * * *

Heres my proposed image. Further suggestions may help improve the image. I really can't find any image that may represent U-belt as a whole. --PH 0447 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How old is the Chinese arch at Binondo and the PLM building, which we probably can't get a better (and closer) picture? Binondo and Quiapo are both at District 3, we'd only need one. Also, can't we get a representative picture of Tondo? –H T D 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long, I change the representative image for Intramuros to Fort Santiago instead of PLM. There is not other image to represent Tondo instead of the Tondo Church, which would be redundant since there is already a church in the pic. Will PUP do good as a representation for District 6? --PH 0447 (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If we're having 2 church pics, I'd rather retain the Tondo one as it's much easier to look for pix from other districts. As for District 6 I'd prefer Malacanang over PUP. –H T D 07:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Found two images that may represent Tondo, one is the Tutuban Centermall and the other is the Smokey Mountain. Will any of these two images do good as a replacement for the PUP image?

More pictures of Manila here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Manila_2011

--PH 0447 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Smokey Mountain

Tutuban Centermall

A new candidate... Carriedo Fountain and surroundings!

Smokey Mountain is no more, and I dunno how old the Tutuban Centermall is to prevent freedom of panorama issues. That's why we're stuck on churches... –H T D 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this article, the building of Tutuban railway station (which is now a part of Tutuban Centermall) was constructed in 1887 (perhaps it has been renovated overtime?). Also, there's a new candidate for the position of the last pic...

--PH 0447 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New infobox image

I've been searching for various images from Wikimedia Commons about Manila and i have created a possible new lead image for the article. Since that the current infobox image is surrounded by issues, such as it is like a tourism advertisement and it is noisy, I've decided to create a new infobox image, which for me is not noisy.

File:Manila Montage.png

Current image.

File:Manila Montage II.png

New image.

The difference between the two is that the new one has all of it's images from Wikipedia Commons and I've also adjusted the lines separating the pictures. All criticisms, suggestions, and comments are welcome.

Here's the comparison between the current one and the new one:

Can't we have less of District 5 bias? Can't we use a picture of the Rizal Monument without the flags? The Roxas Blvd. pic doesn't show anything, save for nice asphalt. I dunno what's the picture above the Rizal Monument, TBH, and the dirty block of ice returns. Let's use pictures that:

Focus on one building/structure.
FOP-free issue pics.
Can be distinguished on the singly on the montage.

–H T D 07:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that this picture should not be the lead image for Manila?? Well, i can create another one.. --Miguel raul 03:51 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, let's agree on what exact pics to use first... –H T D 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New infobox image for Manila

File:Montage of Manila.png

New image.

The previous infobox image was harshly criticized, so I've decided to create a new and better one. This time I've choose various landmarks not just from District 5 but also from District 1, 3, and 6. The previous infobox image was almost filled with landmarks from District 5, so I've created an infobox image which contains landmarks from District 1 (which is represented by Tondo Church), District 3 (Which is represented by Binondo) and District 6 (which is represented by the Malacanang Palace).

Difference between the two images:

1.The new infobox image has a picture of the Rizal Monument without the flags, unlike on the previous infobox image.

2.The new infobox image is not just filled with landmarks of District 5, it also contains landmarks from District 1, 3, 6.

3.The new infobox image doesn't include Roxas Boulevard because it doesn't show anything except for it's nice asphalt.

4.The new infobox image doesn't include the dirty block of ice (CCP).

5.The new infobox image contains the Manila Central Post Office.

Almost all of this where suggested by H T D (Thanks a lot dude!)

All criticisms, suggestions, comments are always welcome!--Miguel raul (talk) 2:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can do away with that last foto of that church in Tondo as it is plainly a very "unrecognizable landmark". I was also hoping to see at least 1 img of the original Manila that is Intramuros, and the city's nerve center that is Plaza Miranda in Quiapo. Im sure there's a better foto as well of the Luneta monument.

The Tondo church is the landmark in Tondo, as there's nothing else that's pretty (and at the same time useful) as that one. If you're a tourist going to Tondo (God knows how many there are), the only place they'd go is the Feast of the Santo Nino, Manila's not-so-good answer to the festivities in Cebu. I'd also wanna see Plaza Miranda but I dunno which would be landmark? The pylon there? We can't have another (Quiapo) Church. We can ditch the Binondo arch as I dunno how old is that (freedom of panorama issues), and the Central Post Office, as while it's the prettiest (modern) building in the vicinity, I'd also agree with something from Intramuros. Probably Fort Santiago.

P.S. I also liked the perspective on the Tondo Church. Tondo is treated as if it's a separate "place" vs. the rest of Manila so there has to be one representative picture from Tondo, and the Tondo church is useful as it serves as the "other" "pedestrian" church in Manila (aside from Quiapo; by pedestrian meaning the people go there to actually hear mass and not to see how pretty/historic the church is (compare to Santa Cruz, Binondo, Manila Cathedral and San Agustin, and even the likes of San Sebastian and Malate)). –H T D 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that i did not add at least 1 image of original Manila such as Intramuros because i was really focus on other landmarks from other districts apart from District 5 and about Plaza Miranda, i can't find a nice and better picture of it and i also don't know which is the landmark, the Quiapo Church or the pylon? About that church in Tondo, like you said, Tondo is treated as a separate place vs. the rest of Manila and we really need a representative from that district (apart from Tondo Church; i think there are no other recognizable landmarks in Tondo) so that's why i added the Tondo Church as a representative of Tondo and District 1.--Miguel raul (talk) 9:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While I do realize we'd have to present the city in the most favorable light as possible (at least via the montage), the montage should show as how the residents there "use" the city: that's why a pic of Plaza Miranda looks like a good idea. As for the ~~pylon~~ obelisk, it's the tall thing at the lead pic of the Plaza Miranda article. I do realize there's nothing pretty there, aside from the obelisk and the church per se. Perhaps we'd need an overhead shot. –H T D 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There has to be a foto of Intramuros and I agree that Fort Santiago best represents that area. As for Plaza Miranda, an image with the basilica in the background is certainly a "must have" also when it comes to distinct Manila landmarks, being the focal point of the single largest festival in the whole city and metropolis (the world famous Black Nazarene fiesta) aside from its role as the city's main hub of course. Forget Tondo church, that looks like it could be any church in the country with its dull generic design. There's the classic Tutuban railway station which to me best epitomizes Tondo's heritage and its economic importance in the past. There's also the North Port foto with all the slums or one of the big bargain malls north of Recto/Divisoria near Tutuban which also belong to Tondo.

Btw, if you really want a more "representative" foto, (which sadly this montage isn't, what with 5 of the 8 images still from District 5 and 3 from Ermita alone) i'd suggest including the following landmarks also:

Sampaloc - UST Main Bldg or the Arch.

Santa Cruz - Plaza Goiti/Lacson with the old BPI bldg or Plaza Carriedo with the fountain.

Santa Ana - the eco-friendly Santa Ana Public Market which reflects the city's traditional economy.

Makati - The CBD skyline. Manila and Makati are contiguous and are divided only by political lines (like the rest of Metro Manila). ;) -- RioHondo (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I considered adding UST's Arch of the Centuries but then someone will ask why something from La Salle or even UP Manila is there. It's an argument waiting to happen.

The old BPI building looks good, but that's District 3, and Quiapo is already in District 3.

Santa Ana is in District 6, and Malacanang Palace is already reserved one slot.

Makati CBD shouldn't be here. I know you've been pushing for that, but unless Metro Manila gets to be moved to Manila, and Manila gets to be moved at Manila (city) (or is no longer the primary topic), no Makati skylines here. Binondo has several new, bright and shiney buildings, though.... and that's District 3 too, and we've already reserved that for Quiapo already.

Tondo's Santo Nino's feast isn't that covered well enough when you compare it with the Black Nazarene feast, probably because there's plenty of Santo Nino feasts elsewhere, and it comes about a week after the Black Nazarene's feast, but that's one of only other two religious feasts in the Metro that gets some coverage (the other is at San Juan where they bathe each other). I'm amenable to the Tutuban train station though,; I dunno if any of the Manila North Port structures, or of the new Tutuban train station would pass Freedom of Panorama issues though.

I'm also amenable to a pic of the City Hall, but that's the subject of a slow motion edit war... –H T D 05:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, i guess your right but we really need a nice photo of Plaza Miranda, maybe together with the Quiapo Church or the obelisk? How about the Central Post Office and the Church of Tondo, should we retain it?--Miguel raul (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an overhead photo of Plaza Miranda? Or even better, a photo during the Black Nazarene feast?

On Tondo, I've considered Tutuban mall as a good pic, but there's a chance it violates freedom of panorama. That's why I'm uneasy on it.

I really do want to add the Post Office, but we reserved District 5 to something from Intramuros and the City Hall already. It's a pity. –H T D 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, is it just me or do other people find the description of Manila in the article, being just "one of 16 cities that make up Metro Manila" as disturbing? To me, it doesnt sound right when the city that gave birth to the Metro, and also literally and geographically the center of the metropolis (you can even check the map) is passed off as merely "one of the cities in Metro Manila". At least the Metro Manila article gives that distinction to Manila as the center of the region, which it truly is (otherwise we'd have been called Metro Makati or Metro Ortigas. Teehee! - RioHondo (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

VERY DULL AND UGLY INFOBOX IMAGE. IT IS AN EYESORE. THE PICTURE DOESN'T PROMOTE TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES. THE PICTURE HAVE NO SENSE OF PHOTOGRAPHY! I WILL CHANGE IT AND PLEASE DON'T CHANGE IT ANYMORE.!!!!!!!!!!!!! Theurbanhistorian (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Promote tourism?? For your information Wikipedia is not a travel guide website and i suggest that you must check out Wikivoyage if your really interested in promoting "tourism in the Philippines".---Miguel raul (talk) 5:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FIRST, WE (yes, you see it clearly. "we" are a group of historians) KNOW THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. SECOND, WE DIDN'T SAY THAT WIKIPEDIA IS A TRAVEL GUIDE WEBSITE SO DON'T GIVE US A SUGGESTION TO CHECK OUT WIKIVOYAGE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THIRD, WE FIND THE INFOBOX IMAGE VERY DULL AND SINCE THIS IS AN "ONLINE" ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT CAN BE ACCESSED BY ANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, WE GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR HISTORIC CITY OF MANILA AND AT THE SAME TIME WE GIVE THEM A SCENIC GLIMPSE OF OUR CITY WHICH IS THE REVISED INFOBOX IMAGE. THROUGH THAT, THEY WOULD FIND IT INTERESTING AND GIVE IT A CHANCE TO VISIT IT. THAT'S HOW WE HIT TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. THANK YOU!Theurbanhistorian (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage really deserves your group's "agenda" for Manila. That kind of agenda that your group has deserves to be on a travel guide website, tourism blog, history blog or maybe on the Department of Tourism website but definitely NOT on an encyclopedia website like Wikipedia. Here in Wikipedia we need to follow rules regarding tourism promotions. Thanks for understanding.---Miguel raul (talk) 6:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Our photo is almost the same as your photo but ours is more enhanced and it gives the readers the real glimpse of Manila (it is the manner how we, the majority of the residents of Manila, viewed OUR beloved city) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theurbanhistorian (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your right the two photos are almost the same but the photos on the current image are from Wikipedia Commons, was created by Wikipedia users, and did not undergo photoshop.---Miguel raul (talk) 7:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The photographs on the current image are not "photoshop"-ed. Set aside the thought of tourism and widen your mind. A montage should show how the people of Manila, just like us, use the city (From history, political, economic, lifestyle, culture, and etc.). And, the [[:File:City of Manila Montage.png|current image] is the more accurate than previous image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.152.100 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought of tourism?? This is an encyclopedia not a travel guide and the two montages are almost exactly the same..---Miguel raul (talk) 8:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The photographs on the current image are not "photoshop"-ed. Set aside the thought of tourism and widen your mind. A montage should show how the people of Manila, just like us, use the city (From history, political, economic, lifestyle, culture, and etc.). And, the [[:File:City of Manila Montage.png|current image] is the more accurate than previous image. 203.87.152.100 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not taking sides here, but the newly proposed montage is not at all geographically balanced:

District 1: 0
District 2: 0
District 3: 0
District 4: 0
District 5: 7
District 6: 1

It was previously agreed upon that any montage has to be somewhat geographically balanced.

Also the source photos have NOT to be previously copyrighted, and most not violate freedom of panorama. –H T D 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to create an infobox image that is geographically balanced, and will convince some SSC members to allow me to use their photos in Wikipedia. I'll try to scout for better photos of Manila. Any suggestions are welcome. I'll take some time off to create this montage.

Also, please stop changing the infobox pic in favor of a Wikipedian/contributor. It must be discussed what pic is to be used first. Thank you.--PH 0447 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am also not taking sides here but the newly proposed infobox picture is missing essential source information and it may be deleted after seven days.--Mezus360 (talk) 9:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 3 days. If the edit warring/breaking the three revert rule continues after protection ends, editors may be blocked. --Michael Greiner 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems with the article

From unreliable sources such as Yahoo answers (now removed) and at least one source that uses Wikipedia as it's source to the number of sources lacking proper citation, we're looking at the possibility of a declassification as a GA. Personally, titles such as "Sovereign Philippines" I consider odd and not very professional looking.

In addition, POV or non-neutral wording has been introduced by Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and their IPs with edit such as this, this/this. Others have also marked similar edits as POV problems with this comment and this warning.

I think a major revamp is needed in the article. Elockid^(Boo!) 15:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol you accuse me of being non neutral? Yet, you remove an entire paragraph concerning the American occupation of Manila without even bothering to replace it with your "more neutral version" and put it straight to the part where the Americans rebuilt Manila. Oh so sunny and oh so glorious Americans.

Seriously, how can the Americans have rebuilt Manila without burning it first? Which they did in the 1889 Battle of Manila (but then you erase that entire paragraph) It's seems like white-washing to me. Still, I agree with you that this whole article needs a revamp though.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing? Yeah right. Using description like "grail" to describe Manila as seen from the "heavens", you're definitely pushing your POV. There is nothing professional or educational by using sources like Yahoo answers either. That's a totally unreliable source. This isn't even the first time. I highly suggest that you actually read what other people are saying instead of pushing your own agenda. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I give up have it your way. I hope you're happy. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Manila, City of Man an explanation

People are wondering why I placed Manila, City of Man as a title, and I'm here to explain why. Imelda Marcos (Governor of Metro Manila during Martial Law) Literally renamed the City of Manila into the City of Man. She built all those new building, "Cultural Center of the Philippines", "Philippine International Convention Center", "Coconut Palace" because of this re branding campaign.

Info about that can be found in Section 5 (City of Man) portion of this article. http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/09/30/city-of-pigs/

And in this wikipedia article: (City of Man)

And from Carlos Celdran...

http://www.spot.ph/print_article.php?id=50447&post_name=livin-la-vida-imelda-with-carlos-celdran (Second Page, First Paragraph)

And in this E-Book published by Ataneo De Manila University: http://kritikakultura.ateneo.net/images/pdf/kk19/thirdspace.pdf

In which it put into detail Imelda's Book Entitled "Manila: The City of Man (1976)". The Title "Manila: City of Man" is a long and scholarly one already written across many books, websites and newspaper articles. I am not inventing this out of thin-air. And I am horribly horribly hurt by the constant accusations of the people here saying that "This is merely an insert" or that I am using new material. No no no.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With lines like "Our cultural DNA says we are beautiful." or "... could have been a shining, beautiful Pearl of the Orient.", I can already tell that this in no way a good source. Not only that but, a source with a format of a story is something I would hardly call as scholarly or reliable. The Spot source is just so bad in so many levels. It's basically an ad... Elockid ^(Talk) 21:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I have totally lost all interest in this. ^_^ I hope you continue on with your life. Cause im taking a break from all this. Good luck. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Manila as the world's first Global City clause.

This issue has been a sticking point between me and Elockid for while, he stressed that Manila is not the world's first Global City. But as for my perception, you see: according to the article Manila Galleon. The Manila Galleons were the first instance in world history wherein trade truly become Global.

Indeed, it was only in Manila wherein both the Old World trade routes of Portugal and the New World trade routes of Spain, united to form one interrupted chain across the surface of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:16th_century_Portuguese_Spanish_trade_routes.png

Furthermore, this book reasoned that, and Manila's cosmopolitan nature of being inhabited by Chinese, Arabs, Malays, Indians and Spaniards and MesoAmericans during it's first years under Spain caused it to be the world's first Global City.

The Book: Williams, Glyn. 1999. The Prize of All the Oceans. Viking, New York. ISBN 0-670-89197-5, p. 4

Furthermore, a cursory look through Manila actually proves that. (I.E. It has the World's Oldest Chinatown, Binondo and is home to Asia's only Latino-Quarter, Cavite, where up until now, they still speak Chabacano, a Spanish derived language.)

Geeze, it has the world's oldest Chinatown, it has the only Latino-quarter in Asia and is the city that inaugurated the Manila Galleons which made history as the first instance of uninterrupted trade-routes across the surface of the planet.

And it's not the world's first global city? Lolz. The sooner we put up this Global city fact, the sooner I can go to sleep.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Add what you will, just make sure they are supported by your RS. As for my take on this: Manila is indeed one of the first global cities. And im referring to Manila as in the city that also includes the Makati CBD, Ortigas Center and Bonifacio Global City centers, not just the City of Manila or old downtown core (which has long lost its global and cosmopolitan character in favor of those new districts). Like everyone knows London is a global city. You just can't say the same for the City of London though. If we can combine Metro Manila to this article, so that the topic becomes both the city and metropolitan area (as is the case for most global city articles), then the world's first global city tag would be more justifiable imo. --RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you there. All the other cities immediately put you to their Metro area but ours is towards this. We should make a new article appropriate entitled "City of Manila" (Lolz "City of Man", my other bone of contention with Elockid) and we should transfer all our content focusing on only the city of Manila, while Manila Metro should direct to just Manila. Also, if no one is complaining about Manila being the first global city and all... (Elockid, where are you?) Then i'll be posting the addition that Manila is the world's first Global City.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm here and will be commenting shortly. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A statement like "Manila was amongst the World's first global city" is better than "Manila was the World's first global city" is better in my opinion. However, a global city to my understanding is a city that serves an important economic and political role in the global affairs. While the text points out trade relations between the New World and Old World as a basis for supporting the statement that Manila was the world's global city, I don't believe it takes into account that other cities were already trading on a global scale. While not necessarily trading with those from the Americas, cities such as those found on the Silk Road have traded on a global scale. One can even argue that X city on the Silk Road was truly the world's first global city because they were able to establish trade links between the East and the West. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There were plenty of other cities on those trade routes. Something as potentially specious as "first global city" (or even the term global city for that matter) should not go into encyclopaedia articles without a large backing from academics. CMD (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Have you seen in that pic how the Manila trade united the Portugese and Spanish Empires' trade routes and united the entire planet for the first time?

@Elockid: if you don't want to admit that Manila is the world's first global city how about we settle on a compromise. "Manila is the world's first modern global city in terms of inter-hemisphere naval trade" since those previous global cities you alluded to, along the silk road can be called "ancient global cities via the land route." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.31.218 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Silk road was more eurasian trade. Anyways, Manila is a beta+ global city according to GaWC. I think many of those global cities mention that in their articles. --RioHondo (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks ok. Making up our own definition, eg Manila is the world's first modern global city in terms of inter-hemisphere naval trade" is just original research and we can't do that. As Chipmunkdavis says, any claim to be the first global city of any sort needs considerable backing from academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't let this truth be written here. Then the next life will be far more Byzantine/Castillian for you kinds of people. You know what I'm speaking of. You who prioritize the law more than the spirit that createth the law. But at this point, I will humbly defer to your law-guided judgment as I await the higher truth of those that liveth in the spirit. God Bless You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Article sections based on main articles

See WP:SUMMARY. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wars section

This should go. There's a tiny bit in the first para that can be added to the main history section, but the rest is just duplicating earlier material (and what is a "reasonable amount of casualties"?). Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

National symbol

Is it worth mentioning here one senators bill to have Manila declared a national symbol? It doesn't seem to hold any real importance, it's the capital either way. CMD (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding, "Disasters and Recovery" section to the article.

Did you know that Manila was totally destroyed by 7 fires, 5 Earthquakes, 4 wars, 10 battles and constant flooding in the course of it's history? Yet, despite the constant challenges and periodic destruction of the city, it always manages to rise up again and be reconstructed. I think this feature of resiliency within the city of Manila is uniquely its own (The only city comparable to it in resiliency is Tokyo which also suffers the same Earthquake and flood tendency and Jerusalem which also suffers the same fate as Manila in being the center of many wars and battles) and this feature is important enough that it should be a subsection within this article so that people could at least be informed about the many many times Manila has fallen yet has always managed to rise again.

I would like to know your opinions concerning this matter since, this feature is at the heart of many Manileños.

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all unique. Cities all around the world suffer from natural disasters and wars, and they tend to stay there. In addition, you'd need a WP:Reliable source to add a sentence to this article, let alone an entire section. CMD (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it may not be all-that unique but if you realize it, the quantity and magnitude is what sets it apart. Sure, places like Visivius in Italy or San Francisco in the USA also get struck by earthquakes but not as much as Manila which is stuck in the fault-lines of the Pacific ring of fire. There has been no less than 5 Earthquakes that destroyed it in the 20th century alone. (I did not mention the earthquakes that destroyed it from the 16th to 19th centuries that's why the Philippines has the architectural style called Earthquake Baroque. Likewise the city has been systematically emasculated around 3 times: 1st when the Spaniards invaded wherein not a single structure was left of Selurong: 2nd, when the British invaded and again, not a single structure was left behind and 3rd, during World War II when the Japs invaded and not a single structure from the prewar era was left unscathed. Add to this, the constant fires and perrenial floods (at least 3 per year) that constantly batter Manila. Yet through all these, Manila survives. Although, I am conceding to the fact that Natural Disasters and Wars are not unique to Manila but what is unique is the frequency and intensity of the said natural disasters and wars. As for sources, I already have 3 sources lined up:

1) (Fires and Quakes in the Construction of Old Manila: By Greg Bankoff)

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/pdf/History-Bankoff-fire2.pdf

2) (Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila: University of Auckland)

http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/31/IIASN31_11.pdf

3) (The Battle of Manila: Combat Studies Institute Fort Leavensworth Kansas)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a165904.pdf

These are mainly university papers but there are also hundreds of newspaper articles and websites detailing the 10 Wars fought over Manila, the dozens of Earthquakes and Fires as well as the recent flooding. Obviously, information about this is quite copious. Furthermore, the eminent Playwright-Historian, Nick Joaqin mentioned the great Manila fires, floods, earthquakes and wars in his "Manila: City of Our Affections" whereas, in this article, there is not a single mention of these anywhere. And that is a great disservice. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Thank You.

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources say Manila is special or unique. Fault lines occur all over the world, as do floods and fires. That Manila retains a vast number of slums and other areas susceptible to large amounts of damage is not a reflection on some special attribute of resiliency. Anything titled "Manila: City of Our Affections" should be treated with at least a bit a skepticism. A sources sentence about the frequency of flooding, or of earthquakes, would be useful if sourced, but it should not be used to try and support anything it doesn't actually say. 11:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How about, instead of naming the sub-section: "Resiliency", let's term it "Disasters and Recovery". Considering that inserting the 20+ Earthquakes, 10+ fires, reoccurring floods and 9 Battles that happened in Manila and reshaped the city's urban landscape can disrupt the flow of the narration in the history-section (Manila's history is so complex therefore it can't be like San Francisco [Where the great fires and earthquakes can be placed in their history section [2] or like that of Tokyo [3] where the great Kanto Earthquake can be mentioned because their history is not as complex) Therefore, this subsection is necessary. As for the sources for the frequency of flooding and earthquakes: there are tons more out there, I don't need to cite them here because its so copious. A cursory Google-search will reveal hundreds of studies about those and any one can be cited for it. Nevertheless, I continue to stress the necessity of having this subsection since it explains why such an old city as Manila, established in the 13th Century, 3 centuries earlier than New York which was established on 1624, but lacks historic architecture (due to repeating natural and man-made disasters) Furthermore, it explains why urban planning in Manila is so Byzantine.

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Manila's history is no more complex than any other city. It's also much younger that many of the wor'd's cities. As for the lack of historic architecture, that's quite typical of many East Asian cities that have bulldozed the past in the strive for industrialisation (whether that's positive or negative of course depends on opinion). A study on a single flood is not a source for frequency of floods. Please see WP:SYNTH. CMD (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol no, if you compare Manila's history section with that of Tokyo, New York, London, Taipei, Dublin or Johannesburg: you have to objectively admit that these cities have qualitatively varying degrees of historical complexity and since according to you, "Manila's history is no more complex than any other city", Manila which has been contested by seven nations and has changed religion four times; "is no more complex" than the industrial city of Kobe or the mining city of Perth. A notion that is not only false, but also absurd. Furthermore, Manila may be younger than most cities that arose from the Europe, Africa and Asia but it is older than most cities that arose from the Americas and Australia. A city's youth is relative to it's hemisphere.

And I regret to inform you over the ignorance of your statement: "As for the lack of historic architecture, that's quite typical of many East Asian cities that have bulldozed the past in the strive for industrialization" because the fact is, the lack of historic architecture in Manila is not due to bulldozing but due to systemic dismantling by the Japanese forces during World War 2: (Here's the direct quote) "During the battle in Manila, over 100,000 Filipino men, women and children died from February 3 to March 3, 1945. At the end of World War II, virtually all of the structures in Intramuros (The historical district) were destroyed, with only the damaged Church of San Agustin still standing" SOURCE: ^[1]

As for the floods, here's a source detailing the floods which have destroyed the city, http://www.japanfocus.org/-James_F_-Warren/4018, Typhoons: "Meding, Yoling, Gloring, Norming, Didang, Yaning, June and Ike" and this list is still incomplete as it only lists the floods from the 1970-1980s, the floods from before the 1970s and from the 1990s up to the present are not even mentioned.

Now that I have educated you over the common misconceptions with the city of Manila, I respectfully want to write this subsection now, as it has already been 4 days since I wrote this discussion in this talk-page and up to now, all our topics merely revolve around the non-essentials of the matter: i.e. "sources" or "personal interpretations", whereas the fact still remains that Manila is a disaster prone area (Both in man-made and natural) and that several academic works accede to this fact [I supplied you guys with only 5 out of the hundreds of works available in a cursory Google search of this topic] but this wiki article has no mention of it. This, despite the NECESSARY nature of this sub-section. (Disasters affect the everyday life of the Manila resident and has irreversibly shaped the course of the city). Still, despite the NECESSARY nature of this section, I'm afraid that if I just talk and talk about the merits of this and that, then this project will never get off the ground. So I ask that I proceed to write this section now and if there be any objections or constructive criticisms over this matter, then they are welcomed to edit that "Disasters and recovery" section according to what they deem fit and good, as long as it is in the best interests of our community.

Truly Yours...

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of ancient cities in East and Southeast Asia, if you want to start comparing histories. As for the history of Intramuros, I'm quite aware of it. I'll note that quote doesn't support "systematic dismantling". However, there's more to Manila than Intramuros. The reason old cities in other areas have their old buildings is in many cases restoration. The parthenon has been rebuilt after being destroyed, for example. Again, I have supported the idea of mentioning the frequency of floodings and earthquakes. However, there's no evidence presented that Manila's recovery has been in any way special or unique. Please read WP:Consensus. CMD (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok fine, I concede that Manila is not unique in having experienced wars and natural disasters. And I am willing to compromise. I will just state the bare essentials, wherein Manila has been frequently visited by natural and man-made disasters and then, list the major disasters that have befallen the city and Manila's response to it. Furthermore, the section shall have no mention over Manila's uniqueness or any allusions to Manila's "special resiliency" and shall merely mention the BARE FACTS: i.e the battles, earthquakes and floods that have historically destroyed the city. This, without violating the neutral POV and having a streamlined narration. Is this an agreeable compromise with you?

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be better to separate the various types of destruction; wars, floods, earthquakes, or perhaps just wars vs natural disasters. What you suggest sounds reasonable, and as you say above, once it's written we can edit it further. CMD (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Then lets get to work now.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok I finished it, what do you think about the section? I followed your advice and I made separate areas for wars, floods and earthquakes.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess there are no complaints to me about the Disasters and Recovery section in this article, now. Unto my next addition...

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the War section is redundant, and let us reduce the scope just to the City of Manila itself as much as possible.

PH 0447 (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --121.54.54.46 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Massacre of 1603 - questions

Hi, it would be very interesting to have a good and reliable text about the massacre of 1603 where more than 20,000 Chinese were allegedly slaughtered by the Spaniards. There are different indications in the Internet claiming that

there was a rebellion of the Chinese

(Payer: http://www.payer.de/hbiweltweit/weltw43.html)

or

there was a visit of Ming Mandarins and the Spaniards only reacted with fear and aggression.

(a forum: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/1393-massacre-and-slaughter-of-the-overseas-chinese/)

So, what is right? Are there sources? How reliable are they? Was there a Chinese war ship? Were the Ming Mandarins legally on the Philippines or not? Was there one single Chinese shot? How the dead bodies were buried? This would be interesting.

Michael Palomino, July 12, 2014

213.196.219.102 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Manila's southern border...

...isn't actually at Vicente Sotto street. It's a straight line from the western end of Zobel Roxas Street to the Manila Bay coast near where Fernando Ma. Guerrero St. ends. That puts almost all of the buildings in the CCP complex at Pasay (with the fountain at the straddling border itself), while those very near to the coast, such as Harbour Square, as within Manila. That means the "Tourism" section has to be edited to reflect this; Coconut Palace is in Pasay. Interestingly, the main building also straddles the border but has a Pasay address. –H T D 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Manila

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sons and daughters of the town

Sons and daughters of the town is an interesting theme. You can find it very often in articles about towns. So I can't understand why my edit was removed without grounds.--Buchbibliothek (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Now the list is separate, like for example in the article New York City.--Buchbibliothek (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Where Manila Got its Name

Manila comes from the word Maynila which so much sounds like chinese word Mai is to buy ni is you and la is an expression used by overseas chinese like in Singapore.Would you buy lah or where are you going lah. so this could be the nearest truth about Manila as center of buying and commerce for early chinese.Mai ni lah or ni mai lah.--121.54.58.136 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Manila comes from the original name Maynilad which means "There is nilad." Nilad is a small flower-bearing plant that grew all-over the place in ancient Manila. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.7.187 (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Two Mentions of Density Above ToC

I think it only needs to be mentioned once most likely :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.233.92 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20061111-31901/Pasig_now_one_of_world%92s_most_polluted_rivers
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manilacityph.com/pdf/population.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578132/Manila.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430234102/http://www.tourism.gov.ph/Downloadable%20Files/RA%209593.pdf to http://www.tourism.gov.ph/Downloadable%20Files/RA%209593.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308214134/http://robinsonsmalls.com/malls_manila.php to http://www.robinsonsmalls.com/malls_manila.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206221239/http://www.upm.edu.ph/letter.html to http://www.upm.edu.ph/letter.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.ph/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=23170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Population densities

Hi guys. The demographics section has some strange population density numbers. The claim is that the population density for the city as a whole is 71,263 per km² in 2015. It then states that the most dense district in the city is District 6 at 68,266 per km². The maths here is wrong. Does anybody know why this is, or have better figures?

Many thanks, Tomagar89 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Manila for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Manila is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Manila until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Other faiths

I am concerned about the wording in the "other faiths" section. Are Indians/Filipinos of Indian origin only allowed to worship at Hindu or Sikh establishments? I am not very familiar with Filipino law, but am vaguely aware of some countries where people aren't allowed to convert away from certain religions if they are brought up in them. Is that the case here, or is this simply an assumption on the part of an editor that all Indians in the Philippines are of one or the other faith? Feather Jonah II (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

0338jfSanta Cruz Escolta Binondo Streets Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 01.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

^ Quezon III, Manuel L. (2007-02-07). "The Warsaw of Asia: How Manila was Flattened in WWII". Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Arab News Online (archive.arabnews.com). Opinion. Archived from the original on 2010-08-07. Retrieved 2010-08-07.

[1] Quezon III, Manuel L. (2007-02-07). "The Warsaw of Asia: How Manila was Flattened in WWII". Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Arab News Online (archive.arabnews.com). Opinion. Archived from the original on 2010-08-07. Retrieved 2010-08-07.

[1]