Talk:Manila/Archive 1

"Manila" as disambiguation page
I would just like to question the change to this page as a disambiguation page. It seems that when you talk about "Manila" it almost always refers to the capital. If you look at the articles in Wikipedia, most of them refer to the capital. &mdash;seav
 * I agree. Tuf-Kat


 * Actually, if you look at the what links here page of Manila, it shows that most link to Manila, Philippines. Besides, shouldn't it be a consistent policy that whenever disambiguation pages are needed, the title "Foo" is for the disambiguation page, and "Foo, specifier" or "Foo (specifier)" for the actual pages? That would be unambiguous. The problem is that otherwise you would have to define just how large the 'majority' has to be to reserve title "Foo" for one of the specific meanings, and worse yet, it's likely to change as articles are added. The Disambiguation page is not entirely clear on the issue. --- Timo Honkasalo 09:49 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah..., but you haven't got the whole story. During the time you moved Manila to Manila, Philippines, almost all of the pages which linked to Manila indeed linked there. So I posted the above clarification instead of moving it back immediately in order to facilitate discussion. One of the biggest issues was that you would have to change all the links in most of those articles to remove the spurious "(Redirected from Manila)" notice when a user followed that link.


 * A day after you made the move, a helpful user went about and did exactly that&mdash;changing all the links to point to Manila, Philippines. I talked to him and he thoroughly agreed that Manila is better than Manila, Philippines, so I moved it back. He said he will probably undo all his changes if ever he had nothing to do.


 * Regarding Wikipedia's Disambiguation policy, it's very clear about the so called "primary topic" disambiguation (see the third bullet in the first list of the policy page). Basically it says that if a term is almost always used to refer to a particular object or thing or person, not just in Wikipedia but moreso in general, then that object/thing/person gets the primary article.


 * That is why we have Paris instead of Paris, France. Almost all instances of Paris refer to the city. There are only a few that refer to Paris (mythology) of the Trojan War or any of the other towns named Paris.


 * Now, going back to Manila, I'm quite sure that when you use the term Manila it would mean the city probably 90% of the time in general. Manila hemp, Manila envelope or even the various Manila towns in the US won't be referred to that much (and you almost always disambiguate them like Manila, Utah to avoid confusion). Even Manila hemp was named that because of the city. So I believe that Manila, the capital of the Philippines, is a good candidate for "primary topic" disambiguation.


 * Besides, I won't expect people to create new Manila, Philippines links and get the spelling of the country right. Even you yourself misspelled it as Filippines. &mdash;seav


 * Ok, I'm convinced. And sorry about not changing the links, I'll be wiser in the future. And since the whole mess is my doing, I'm going to do the Manila, Philippines->Manila changes myself. --- Timo Honkasalo 12:16, 26 February 2003 (UTC)

Official Website of Manila's problem
Sorry if this seems to be out of topic. I'm Mozilla Firefox user, and the official website of Manila requires me to have Internet Explorer installed, how do I overcome this problem? - w3bu53r


 * I don't have problems seeing it and I use Firefox. What problems are you encountering? --seav 21:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The website denied my access into the main site, it redirected my browser into a special page that basically asks me to have Internet Explorer installed first. - w3bu53r


 * Well, I clicked on the "View Intro" link, then clicked on the "Enter Site" link. Will that work for you? --seav 21:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That does the trick. Thanks.

University of Santo Tomas
Anyone familiar with this university, please offer your opinions at Talk:University of Santo Tomas, regarding a long slow-motion edit war. -- Curps 00:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed outline

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) City sights
 * 3) Location and districts
 * 4) Parks and open areas
 * 5) Commercial areas
 * 6) Educational and cultural institutions
 * 7) Religious landmarks
 * 8) People
 * 9) Demographics
 * 10) Languages
 * 11) Religion
 * 12) Sports and recreation
 * 13) Economy
 * 14) Manufacturing
 * 15) Transportation
 * 16) Public services
 * 17) Housing
 * 18) Government
 * 19) History
 * 20) Pre-colonial times
 * 21) Spanish era
 * 22) American period and WWII
 * 23) Post-war era and modern times

One problem is how to tackle the subject of Manila as opposed to the other cities and municipalities in Metro Manila. Manila is tightly integrated to the rest of the metropolis, that discussion of some topics might also apply unchanged to other suburbs. --seav 15:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What other encyclopedias have for Manila
Here's a sampling of how other encyclopedias have organized their "Manila" articles.

{| cellspacing=3 cellpadding=5
 * valign=top style="border: 1px solid #888;"|

MSN Encarta (1993+)
Introduction
 * Manila, capital, largest city, and chief seaport of the Philippines. Location. Metro Manila: area, list of cities and municipalities. Maynilad. Pearl of the Orient.

Population
 * Largest metro area in Phils., second after Jakarta in SEA. 12% of population, Cebu in comparison is 1/8th.
 * Population growth history.
 * Roman Catholic. Tagalog. English.

Economy
 * Manufacturing. Principal port.
 * Tourism, Roxas Blvd.
 * Railway to Legazpi and San Fernando. LRT, jeepneys, Manila Int'l Airport.
 * Natural disasters, Mount Pinatubo, Taal Volcano, within 80 kms. Typhoons.

Urban Landscape
 * Intramuros. Rizal Park. Daniel Burnham. U.S. Embassy. Landmarks. Suburbs (QC, Makati, etc.)

Education and Culture
 * UST (1611), University of Manila (1913), PWU (1919), FEU (1928), MLQU (1947), AdMU (1959), UE (1946). National Library (1901), Metropolitan Museum (1976), National Museum (1901), Santo Tomás Museum.

History
 * Miguel López de Legazpi. Rajah Soliman. Manila galleons. Chinese merchants. Seven Years' War.
 * 1872 Cavite mutiny. (Gomburza).
 * José Rizal. Emilio Aguinaldo. George Dewey. Manila Bay, Battle of.
 * World War II. Capital changes. Metro Manila.
 * Martial Law. Ninoy Aquino assassination. Coup attempts during Aquino administration.


 * valign=top style="border: 1px solid #888;"|

Columbia Encyclopedia (6th Ed)

 * City, capital of the Philippines, SW Luzon, on Manila Bay. Largest metropolitan area, chief port, center of everything. Airports, railways. Manufacturing center. Pasig River. Intramuros. Some districts and landmarks.
 * Cosmopolitan city. Mass Media, colleges and universities (examples). Luneta.


 * valign=top style="border: 1px solid #888;"|
 * valign=top style="border: 1px solid #888;"|

Encyclopædia Britannica (online)

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Physical and human geography
 * 3) The landscape
 * 4) The city site
 * 5) Climate
 * 6) Plant and animal life
 * 7) The city layout
 * 8) Housing
 * 9) Architecture
 * 10) The people
 * 11) The economy
 * 12) Industry
 * 13) Commerce and finance
 * 14) Transportation
 * 15) Administration and social conditions
 * 16) Government
 * 17) Public utilities
 * 18) Health and security
 * 19) Education
 * 20) Cultural life
 * 21) History
 * 22) Additional Reading


 * valign=top style="border: 1px solid #888;"|

World Book Encyclopedia (1992)
Introduction
 * Capital and largest city. Center. Maynilad.

The city
 * Location, geography, climate.
 * Description. Daniel Burnham planning. Districts. Landmarks. Transportation.
 * The people. POpulation growth. Cosmopolitan. Religion. Housing. Architecture.
 * Economy. Commerce. Port. Banks. Manufacturing. Public utilities.
 * Government. Metro Manila. Six congressional districts. Health services. Law enforcement. Education.
 * Cultural life. CCP. Mass media. Parks.

History
 * Rajahs. Legazpi. Spanish Title. Intramuros. Religion. Chinese immigrants. Seven Years War. Philippine Revolution, Andres Bonifacio, Katipunan. Battle of Manila Bay. WWII.


 * }

NAIA
Isn't it NAIA is at Paranaque/Pasay? If then, should we remove it from the article? Circa 1900 11:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's true, but you can not mention it since that's the airport's that services Manila. It was even called Manila International Airport before. Vancouver International Airport is not in Vancouver, but in Richmond, just south of Vancouver. But the airport gets mentioned in the Vancouver article. Just place proper context. --seav 11:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. How about the map? It needs minor updates, like the San Lazaro Racetrack is now SM City San Lazaro, etc.


 * I'd have to recreate the map again. My hard drive crashed bringing down with it all my source files for ALL the maps I did. And I don't have the time right now. Baka sa Christmas break na lang. =( --seav 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
Although the Infobox is elegantly designed and informative, why not try adding some colors and revising font styles to make it more attractive? --User:Matthewprc 9:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the first priority is the content. Right? --seav 10:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How about using the national colors? Like blue, red, yellow and white? Circa 1900 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Eww, I don't see that working out very well. I'd prefer something in the more standard Wikipedia colors. Take a look at the infobox I implemented at Valencia,_Negros Oriental... how about we make that the standard infobox? Coffee 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like that. Circa 1900 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Images
Please forgive me if I offend anyone, but I stumbled across this article and the images here were a bit of a mess. I removed some pics, moved others and changed the size and placement of some. Certainly the article looks a great deal neater now. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That stereo image is too small to view on the page and too big to view when you click on it. If someone who knows how to do that sort of thing were to arrange the size such that the two images of a central object (like the cart in the foreground) appeared about 55mm apart, we would be able to view the scene in stereo. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 08:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made it bigger. Is it OK now? -- Howard  the   Duck  08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SM Mall of Asia
is at Pasay City, not Manila. --Howard t he Du c k 04:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed Daimengrui 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Commerce or Nightlife?
Commerce talks about malls and nightlife. Shouldn't commerce talk about trade and you know... money in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.243.85 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you may add some info there. But malls are like markets, where you trade, so I guess it can be included. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Climate
To be added when a climate section is ready.

-- Howard  the   Duck  13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone know how to add colors for this like those found in other city articles? -- Howard  the   Duck  09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean like this one? I've copied this one from the Tokyo article, we can use the chart for reference. Xeltran (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I retained the "float" attribute so that it won't take too much space in this talk page. ^__^ Xeltran (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Incoming


Manila wikipedia article was mentioned in the currently-airing episode of Veronica Mars —Random832 2007-01-24T02:17:38UTC(01/23 21:17EST)
 * On a sidenote, Kristen Bell is hot :p -- Howard  the   Duck  10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Manila, being the capital and historic center of history and trade going on during the Spanish Empire naturally allowed Spanish to be the official language. There was no English yet - this only came later on in the mid-1900s with the Americans who overdid it there as their agenda. Spanish (and even broken Spanish) was in fact spoken, not by the majority, but it was used everyday and understood regularly like it was another dialect. There were even publications and radio in Spanish. Its population of those who had it as their native tongue was never majority, but put the whole population of then-Manila together, and most people had Spanish as their second or third language or had some knowledge of it, even throughout the country. This went all the way to the 50s or 60s.

Education
It's been a while since I was here, but doesn't the Education section seem a little "too much"? --Edward Sandstig 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll ask me, I'll leave UST, La Salle, PLM and MaSci and just leave a link to Category:Educational institutions in Manila. I think that'll be a good compromise (2 private schools, 2 public schools, 1 each from the U-Belt, Intramuros and 2 from Taft, etc.) But I'm betting the anons will start readding their own schools once the section is condensed. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we'll just have to be vigilant and revert. If push comes to shove, we could request semi-protection, but it would be nice if we had a basis (that could be verified) for choosing those four schools. Maybe just include universities and choose based on size of student population? There are a number of high schools on the list that I've never heard of and whose Wikipedia articles don't contain anything other than "Blank school is a high school in Manila". Clearly some of those schools don't qualify as notable? --Edward Sandstig 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability of schools is highly disputable and there were several AFDs that went forever. I'll support the deletions of these articles since Wikipedia doesn't need them.
 * As for the 4 schools, it's a good compromise. To say schools like UE or FEU should be here would open a Pandora's box which would lead to more additions. If we base it purely on student population, DLSU won't make it if we'll cut it into the top 4. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So do we use the Asiaweek's Asia's Best Universities special report to justify the inclusion of DLSU? The report's from 2000 though. UST makes it in by default being the largest university in Manila, and PLM by being the city's own university. Manila Science is a science high school, so I don't think more has to be said. --Edward Sandstig 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A similar problem has been raised with regard to the education section in the Quezon City article. This is the "problem" posed by having a large concentration of schools in large urban centers such as QC and Manila. I do not think the notability criterion will be satisfied by such things as an outdated Asiaweek report. The key issue will be defining criteria for inclusion as "noteworthy." The list will be defining what notability is, if the objective is to really cut down the list. Otherwise, we will have to put up with the current grocery list. As Howard has already pointed out, notability is highly disputable. This is especially true since many schools in this list have had some sort of historical significance at some point in time. However, one thing I noticed is that not all of these schools are mentioned anywhere else except in the list of institutions in this article and in their own respective articles. Perhaps for the sake of "notability," one of the criteria can be whether aside from this article, an institution is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia? Rmcsamson 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the four schools is the most representative; however we should add one private non-sectarian school. I'd rather include FEU to balance the 2 schools from Taft. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have been bold and edited. --Edward Sandstig 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually a decent edit. Congratulations. Rmcsamson 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about schools that are rich in history and excel in both in their academic and athletic programs? I would say the schools are La Salle, San Beda, Letran, UST, FEU, UE, Mapua, and San Sebastian. All are celebrated in UAAP/NCAA and have been proven in their academic programs plus each has its own rich history in relation to the city of Manila. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.145.37 (talk • contribs).


 * Links to those schools can still be found when you visit the main article listing colleges and universities in the Philippines. Adding them to this list, when we've already attempted to specify criteria for the four universities and one high school would just lead to people adding more schools which would result in the same grocery list we had before. --Edward Sandstig 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, again, is how you can say a school is "celebrated," or "proven," or has a "rich history." This is why I said cross-referencing might help us weed out those other schools in the grocery list.Rmcsamson 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the encyclopedia at home, UST, UP and (brace yourselves) University of Manila were mentioned in the three-paragraph Manila article. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

UP is in Dilaman though67.101.145.37 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarified: the statement said "universities in the metropolitan area of Manila" and it included only UP and UST. Also, see the above, especially MSN Encarta.-- Howard   the   Duck  05:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Rule and WW2 sections
I removed two comments added by, since the article's page isn't the place for adding comments. Sources still need to be provided for the estimates of war-dead from the Philippine-American war and American carpet-bombing causing more casualties than the fleeing Japanese, otherwise, I'll rework them tomorrow, since the request for citation was added almost a week ago. --Edward Sandstig 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any source for American bombs causing more casualties than the fleeing Japanese, so I removed that sentence. I copied the references from Philippine-American War for the statement about casualty estimates. --Edward Sandstig 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is CCP?
Pasay or Manila? -- Howard  the   Duck  04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pasay City according to their own website. --Edward Sandstig 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then say bye-bye to the CCP pic here. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. rule - NPOV?
Unless someone gives a reason why the NPOV tag should stay it shall be removed. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it can be safely removed. Sounds pretty neutral, and the unsourced items have been removed. --Edward Sandstig 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This section contains adjectives and phrases exhibiting a level of emotion unbecoming of an encyclopedia article. First names for Generals Otis and MacArthur, a full name for "Howling Jake" (or the use of quotations if full name is unavailable) would be more even-toned. The factual content is fine, but I suggest it be rewritten, with links where necessary. I would have rewritten it myself but realized there was an ongoing discussion. --Shanghaijim 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead with your copyedits. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'San Francisco of Asia"?
Since when? -- Howard  the   Duck  00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's sit down and talk about Wikipedia Manila
I encourage everybody to participate in this meeting. Please post your replies to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Manila 2 --Exec8 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Isko Moreno
I believe we should use the real name of the Vice Mayor of Manila, which is Francisco Domagoso, or Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagaso because:

1. It is the name he used in his Certifacate of Candidacy for Vice Mayor in the May 2007 elections; 2. It is the name he uses in official communications and transactions in the City Hall; 3. It is the name the Official website of Manila uses in the [Office of the Vice Mayor page].

In his Certificate of Candidacy, Vice Mayor used his screen name "Isko Moreno" only as his nickname. Unlike Joseph Estrada or FPJ na gumamit ng kanilang screen names bilang official names in their Certificate of Candidacy at sa mga official transactions.Angeles624 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter on all accounts. The United States lists a certain "Dick Cheney" as president when everyone knows he's Richard Cheney. I doubt if Cheney's name plate even includes the name or signs with "Dick". -- Howard  the   Duck  01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ancient name :Maniola??
Ptolemy in his world map mentions Maniola(no wiki article). This may have been the ancient name of the Philippines and Manila. Maniola is now a species of butterflies. --Jondel 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Lately two anons had been reverting each other for the top photo. What gives? If you people don't stop I'll petition this article to be semi-protected. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

fact checking
I have noticed some misstatements of fact in this article. For example raja means king in Sanskrit. Not 'Muslim community leader'. If Tondo, Manila was referred to in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription in year 900 (822 Saka Era, a common Hindu calendar of Southeast Asia) then how does this fit with the statement about the 13th century Manila. If Manila existed at least 2 centuries earlier, then the sentence needs to be reworded.

Some sentences marked Original Research are not logical either. 'So severely beaten that ... breastworks' fails to follow. I suggest getting rid of the words 'so' and 'that', because the words imply a logical connection. A citation wouldn't hurt, either. Otherwise, those sentences ought to be removed from the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis 10:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
I tagged it because it really needs clean-up especially the lower portion stashing list of stuffs. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 05:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Places of interest
there are far too many lists in this section, that make this a travel guide or a directory. WP:NOT I propose removing and only keeping most notable examples as per WP:LIST Michellecrisp (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, remaining list should be written in prose. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 07:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prepare for the revenge of the spammers when they see their pet point of interest removed... -- Howard  the   Duck  07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can do nothing but to remove those embedded list. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would still be a good idea to keep that list in there, it just needs some serious amendments. Maybe, we should include only a few and wirte a 1 or 2 sentence desription.  If we need to decide, for a start, deleter anything red linked - if it's not significant enough to have its own article, it's not significant enough to be on that list.  We could keep the City Hall in there, as it is the centre of town, but then again, every established city has one of those.  Secondly, I think we should get rid of the hospitals section - I mean, what sort of tourist visits a hospital for leisure?  Thirdly, having all those shopping malls there is a bit of an advert.  However, it would be good to mention some sort of significance in the plethora of malls, like "Manila is one of the biggest hubs for shopping in Southeast Asia".  As for the spammers, anyway, we can bother them on their talk pages. æt 'ə' rnal  ðrAعon  09:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the anons will stop if they got tired. The Education section had LOTS of schools before but it was trimmed down. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This maybe an opinion but realistic; I hate lists. They ruin the beauty of the article. Although these might help improve the article for some additional information, writing these to prose is better. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with B&B, lists make articles messy, unless they are written in prose style. To start us off, I've dragged the list below, what say we start crossing off things that are irrelevant and discuss it if anyone wants to.  By doing it in prose style, it encourages anyone who feels like adding another landmark to elaborate on why it is well-known. Sorry if putting the whole list down is killing off the talk page. æt 'ə' rnal  ðrAعon  08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apolinario Mabini Shrine
 * Chinatown (Binondo district)
 * Embassy of the United States of America
 * Ermita and Malate Districts, a place for Bohemian night life
 * Fort Santiago
 * Intramuros, the walled city built by the Spaniards, originally considered to be the City of Manila
 * Liwasang Bonifacio (Former name: Plaza Lawton)
 * Malacañan Palace, the official residence of the President of the Philippines
 * Manila Baywalk
 * Malate Church
 * Manila Boardwalk
 * Manila Cathedral
 * Manila City Hall
 * Manila Yacht Club
 * Manila Zoological and Botanical Garden (Manila Zoo)
 * Metropolitan Theater
 * Museo Pambata
 * National Library of the Philippines
 * National Museum
 * Paco Park, the location of the hit Paco Park Presents
 * Plaza Lorenzo Ruiz
 * Plaza Miranda
 * Quiapo Church
 * Quirino Grandstand
 * Rajah Sulayman Park
 * Remedios Circle
 * Rizal Park, also known as Luneta
 * San Agustin Church
 * San Sebastian Church
 * The Manila Hotel
 * The Supreme Court of the Philippines
 * University Belt Area
 * Victims of Martial Law Memorial Wall - Bonifacio Shrine (near City Hall)

===Hospitals===

Manila has both public sector hospitals and private sector hospitals, and many are keen to become involved in medical tourism. However, to date very few have been subjected to international healthcare accreditation, whether of American, British or Australian origin.


 * Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center (Private - Blumentritt St., Santa Cruz)
 * Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital (Lope de Vega, Santa Cruz)
 * Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center (Rizal Ave., Manila)
 * Family Clinic (Private - Sampaloc)
 * Gat Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center (Tondo)
 * Hospital of the Infant Jesus (Private - Laong Laan St., Sampaloc)
 * Manila Doctors' Hospital (Private - UN Ave., Ermita)
 * Manila Center Medical (Private - Gen. Luna St., Ermita)
 * Mary Chiles General Hospital (Private - Gastambide St., Sampaloc)
 * Mary Johnston Hospital (Private - Juan Nolasco St., Tondo)
 * Ospital ng Maynila Medical Center (Roxas Blvd., Malate)
 * Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Private - Sanchez St., Santa Mesa)
 * Philippine General Hospital (Taft Ave., Ermita)
 * San Lazaro Hospital (Quiricada, Santa Cruz)
 * University of Santo Tomas Hospital (Private - España, Sampaloc)
 * Tondo Medical Center (Balut, Tondo)

Hotels
Manila offers a wide range of accommodations ranging from top-rated de-luxe hotels to more affordable universal lodges. Most of these accommodations are located within Roxas Boulevard overlooking Manila Bay, or in the districts of Ermita and Malate. Manila's hotel accommodations are 20 to 30 minutes away from the international and domestic airport.

Places of worship
The cosmopolitan atmosphere and cultural diversity of Manila is reflected in the number of places of worship scattered around the city. The freedom of worship in the Philippines, which have existed since the creation of the republic, allowed the diverse population to build their sacred sites without the fear of persecution. People of different denominations are represented here with the presence of Christian churches, Buddhist temples, Jewish synagogues, and Islamic mosques.

*Basilica Minore de San Lorenzo Ruiz (Binondo Church) *Basilica Minore de la Immaculada Concepcion (Manila Cathedral) *Iglesia de la Parroquia de Santo Niño (Pandacan, Manila)
 * Abbey of Our Lady of Montserrat (Benedictine Chapel inside San Beda College)
 * Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Jude Thaddeus
 * Basilica Minore de San Sebastian (San Sebastian Church), the only all-steel church in Gothic style in Asia (Built 1891)
 * Basilica Minore del Nazareno Negro (Quiapo Church)
 * Buddhist Temple (Malate, Manila)
 * Cathedral of the Child Jesus - Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Aglipayan)
 * Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament (De La Salle University Manila Main Chapel)(Built 1938)
 * Chinese Temple (Binondo, Manila)
 * The House of the Lord - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon temple in Greenmeadows Subdivision, Quezon City, Metro Manila. Also several public chapels throughout the city.)
 * Hindu Temple (Paco, Manila)
 * Iglesia de Santa Cruz
 * Iglesia ni Cristo (Cruzada Street, Quiapo)
 * Iglesia ni Cristo (Tayuman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.209.160 (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Iglesia ni Cristo (Solis, Tondo)
 * Mosque del Globo de Oro (Quiapo, Manila)
 * Nuestra Señora de Guia Church (Ermita Church)
 * National Shrine of St. Michael and the Archangels (San Miguel, Manila)
 * Nuestra Señora de Remedios Church (Malate Church)
 * Parroquia de San Fernando de Dilao (Paco, Manila)
 * San Agustin Church, Intramuros -Oldest Catholic Church in the Philippines (Built in the 15th Century)- Only Church in Intramuros that survived the destruction of Intramuris during the February 1945 Liberation of Manila
 * Sto. Niño de Tondo Church (Tondo, Manila)

Sporting venues
**Rizal Memorial Basketball/Boxing Stadium
 * Rizal Memorial Sports Complex (RMSC), Vito Cruz Street, Malate (Built-1934)
 * Rizal Memorial Track/Football Stadium
 * Rizal Memorial Baseball Stadium
 * Ninoy Aquino Basketball Stadium
 * San Andres Gym (formerly Mail and More Arena, the home of the defunct Manila Metrostars.)

===Museums===
 * Bahay Tsinoy
 * Intramuros Light and Sound Museum
 * Museo ng Maynila (Museum of Manila)(Pre-War Army-Navy Club Bldg.), Rizal Park
 * National Museum of the Filipino People, Rizal Park
 * Main National Museum, Padre Burgos Street
 * Museo Pambata (Children's Museum)(Pre-War Elk's Club Bldg.), Rizal Park
 * Parish of the Our Lady of the Abandoned - Sta. Ana (pre-Spanish artifacts)
 * Plaza San Luis, Intramuros
 * San Agustin Church Museum, Intramuros
 * The Museum - De La Salle University-Manila, Taft Avenue, Malate
 * UST Museum of Arts and Sciences

Cemeteries
*La Loma Cemetery *Manila North Cemetery
 * Manila Chinese Cemetery
 * Paco Park

Map of Manila Districts
Can anyone direct me to a map of Manila City showing the boundaries of the Districts? I've searched and searched and can't find one. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See this image, upper left corner. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is this map NOT LINKED to the relevant articles on Filipino elections? I have just spent several days constructing a similar map by painstakingly assembling district maps from various sources, and now I find there was one here all along, but not linked to anything. This is VERY ANNOYING. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno myself. I thought it was displayed everywhere so I didn't bother. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridges
why is this section included? it is rarely included in any city article? hardly something you would look up for in an encyclopaedia? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it shouldn't have its own section. But the World Book Encyclopedia article on Manila mentions these bridges so there's a precedent. --seav (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical perspective on manufacturing
Is way too long. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Manila
It should be interesting to mention that Manila is also a color in Spanish (Castillan).

Manila (color) is brown-yellowish.

Citing Everything ( http://everything2.com/title/manila%2520envelope ): It comes from the Manila envelopes are called such because they were originally made of a coarse brown paper called Manila paper. Manila paper, in turn, was made of Manila hemp, or what the locals call abaca. Abaca is a plant that is native to the Philippines, and its fibers are used as raw material for a wide variety of products, including the aforementioned paper, rope, and textile.

-- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

check coordinstes
120°98′W it isn't philippines--212.118.33.194 (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. I didn't check history, but it may have been a piece of vandalism which slipped through without being caught. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyline pic
Just curious... I distinctly recall this page used to have a skyline pic -- using the same daytime image we use for the Manila meetups. Is it possible that was accidentally removed in the effort to weed out vandalism? Alternativity (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, a newer, better one replaced it. Xeltran (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So much better, in fact, that I wasn't sure about its provenance. I do recall the older pic having had better documentation. But yes, I do agree this one looks better. -- Alternativity (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Weather / Climate
Can someone please add a section describing the weather and climate?

Thanks
 * There already is, found in Metro Manila. I don't know if we have to make another one for the city of Manila itself. Xeltran (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Manila Skyline Pic
That is Makati City's skyline, the right one can be found in here. I live in Manila, some section of the article is a bit inaccurate. Please insert some referrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.204.252 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles as Sister City
Los Angeles is not a siter city of Manila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.123.124 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Manila is not the financial centre of The Philippines
Manila itself is not the financial centre of The Philippines despite the location of the BSP. Makati has a higher and a more active economy when it comes to finance. Themanilaxperience (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia reference
Look in Tagalog Wikipedia and there are references about the sister cities of Manila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.174.79 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia's featured article
In Tagalog Wikipedia, Manila is listed as one of the Nomination for Featured Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.123.124 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Luzon Empire = fringe theory at best
Let it be known that the whole Luzon Empire article has been identified as a fringe theory at best, a hoax at worst...This is getting frustrating. - Alternativity (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

BPI's location
It is said on the article Bank of the Philippine Islands that it's headquarters is located at Makati. But when I went to Quiapo, I saw their headquarters near Isetan and an LRT Station. --124.106.123.124 (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Bank of the Philippine Islands, which is the appropriate place for this question. --seav (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Map
I saw the map and it doesn't include Laloma Cemetery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.123.124 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you find a reliable source that says Laloma is in Manila? I've seen maps that say that it's in Caloocan City and some that say it's in Manila. I won't update the map unless you can provide proof that Laloma is in Manila. --seav (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, it is in Laloma.

--124.106.123.124 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Openstreetmap is not considered a reliable source by WP standards, for the same reason that Open Wikis are not considered reliable sources. Anyhow, I make it at lat=14.6385&lon=120.9877. Wikimapia (still not a reliable source) confirms that location and (mouse over the map) says that it is located in "Caloocan City (South)". Google Maps (still probably not OK as a reliable source) locates it in the same place and also says that it is in Caloocan City.
 * Hmmm.... Caloocan announces traffic re-routing scheme for Nov 1, 2, GMANEWS.TV, 8 October 2008, said: "Also, Cabatuan corner C-3 Road and Rizal Avenue, which leads to the city’s portion of the La Loma Public Cemetery, will be closed to traffic.", implying that a portion of the cemetary lies outside of caloocan (that would be either to the South in Manila or to the East in Quezon City). Grubbing around, I found G.R. No. L-23118, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 26, 1967, which described La Loma at that time as "The La Loma cemetery located within the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Caloocan".
 * I've seen some other stuff, but have not seen a recently dated, clean, unambiguous, reliable source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon, it's funny that you brought up OpenStreetMap, since I had long ago posted an OpenStreetBug entry for La Loma to correct the border. But as Boracay Bill has said, OSM is not a reliable source. --seav (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, ManilaDailyPhoto is a blog, which makes it a non-reliable source. See the reliable source guidelines to understand what are reliable sources. Second, Maplandia is also not reliable. The link you added points to the La Loma area in Quezon City, not La Loma Cemetery, and Maplandia mistakenly places La Loma area in Manila. So Maplandia is therefore automatically not reliable because of that. --seav (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As another example of how unreliable Maplandia is, here's their link for Cubao. It says there: "Welcome to the Cubao google satellite map! This place is situated in Manila, Ncr, Philippines" which is absolutely wrong. Maplandia is not to be trusted. --seav (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree that La loma Cem. is in Caloocan, but do you trust PLDT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.123.124 (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Map used in Wikipedia suggesting Laloma is in Manila

 * Please View
 * According to the CitiAtlas that I have, La Loma Cemetery is in Manila. The northernmost limit of Manila is approximately 5th Avenue (but NOT exactly at the center/island of the highway). – Howard  the   Duck  13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The La Loma Cemetery article says (clumsily, confusingly, and without support) that the cemetery is located "... mostly in the city of Manila and the northwestern part to Caloocan." Seeing your comment above, I checked a travel atlas which I have (EZ-Map Philippines Travel Atlas, 2003, United Tourist Promotions). Map 1 on page 88 of that atlas shows Caloocan in pink and Manila in light green. All cemeteries are shown in darker green, and this one is shown lying mostly overlapping pink-shading with a bit of the southern part overlapping light green shading. The cemetery is shown as bounded on the north by C3 road, the west by Rizal Ave., the east by A. Bonifacio Ave., and the south by Aurora Blvd (with some light green shaded area between it and Aurora on the eastern of its southern border, and some pink and orange areas between the northern parts of the cemetery and the streets which bound the east/west of the southern portion). Given that, the question is: Where does the boundary between Manila and Caloocan lie? The area bounded by the streets I mentioned contains some light green shaded Manila area and some pink shaded Caloocan area in addition to the cemetery area. The illustration you supplied above shows the area bounded by Bonifacio and Tagaytay (and C3 on the north) as being in Quezon City. My map shows that area as being in Caloocan out to Cabanatuan St., and the area between that street and Bonifacio Ave. as being in QC (orange). You say above that the northernmost limit of Manila is approximately 5th Ave., My map agrees with the boundary shown here (not a WP:RS) for areas outside of the cemetery but is not clear about placing the Manila/Caloocan boundary as far as the cemetery is concerned. It seems to me that we're still lacking a citeable supporting source on this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on the edition of the Citiatlas you're using. The older versions have La Loma in Manila while the newer ones have La Loma in Caloocan. According to Scorpion prinz when he visited the Manila City Hall, La Loma is in Caloocan. --seav (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the CitiAtlas that I have is quite old. The San Lazaro Racetrack is still there. – Howard  the   Duck  03:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, the 2003 edition of the CitiAtlas which I have clearly shows the cemetery and indicates the Manila/Caloocan border outside of the cemetery boundaries, but it does not indicate where the Manila/Caloocan lies at the cemetery boundaries or (perhaps, if the border follows a straight line) within the cemetery boundaries. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the edition currently sold at book stores and La Loma is within Caloocan. – Howard  the   Duck  04:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
A lot of the introduction really needs to be in other sections, such as the name of Manila in an "etymology" section because that paragraph discusses the origin of the name or the history info on the bottom of introduction. It goes too much into depth considering that this is the introduction section where it supposed to be at a glance. I'm going to move some of this information to their appropriate sections. I'll undo my changes if anyone objects. Elockid (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tornado in the city at May 27, 2009
Hey guys, should we add this event in the history or geography climate?

Here's some vids:


 * From Downtown Manila
 * From Manila Ocean Park
 * From Baywalk
 * From somewhere in Ermita
 * From Tondo #1
 * From Tondo #2
 * From Paco

--119.92.161.175 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of Bruneian hoaxes.
Bruneian intervention in the Philippines is a hoax how come this lies are written here silly nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Manila open city declaration
Re this edit, "Doesn't seem right" didn't seem like a solid reason for revert, even if the reverted edit was unsupported. I did some googling and edited the article a bit so as not to specify whether it was Quezon, MacArthur or both who issued open city declaration (the sources I checked varied, but most said MacArthur). The date of the declaration mentioned in various sources also varies from 24 to 26 December&mdash;FWICS, the declaration was issued at 7:30 AM Manila time on Wednesday December 24, 1941, which would have been about 7:30 PM the same date Eastern Standard Time (or later, depending on Daylight Savings). Perhaps it didn't get announced in the US until 26 December due to announcement and news cycle delays. Perhaps some authors use date of report in the US rather than date of announcement in Manila. Anyhow, see (I'll cite that in the article),,  (actually, look at the top of page 27), , ,.

This probably needs to be cleaned up, clarified, and better sourced in this and other articles and conformed between articles (e.g., I see that the Battle of Manila (1945) article says that the declaration was in 1942, etc.). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(added) It looks like I may have opened a can of worms here regarding the date. I see on looking further that most sources I can find on the web say that Manila was declared an open city on 26 December (without mentioning the timezone used for that). The source I cited, though, is very detailed and says that the declaration was released to the press in manila on 24 December. I've now found another source, "Defenseless Manila Blazes", The Evening Independent, St. Petersburg Florida, December 27, 1941. The lead story continues as "Manila Blazes" on page 2, and a few paragraphs in says, While Tokyo remained silent on the assault, German radio asserted that "the Japamese military does not recognize that Manila is to be treated as an open city."

The broadcast gave the flimsy explanation that "because the decision was taken by General MacArthur without consultation with the civilian population," the Japanese could not agree to an open city designation.

There appeared to be no legitimate excuse. The city had been srtripped of its anti-aircraft defenses. All American troops and marines had long since withdrawn, in accordance with Gen. Douglas MacArthur's designation of the city as "open"to save the populace from further suffering. Unmovable military stores in the city had been destroyed and U.S. Army headquarters had been moved outside the city.

While Tokyo had given no word regarding General MacArthur's proclamation, the Japanese-controlled Saigon radio said yesterday that as from Dec. 25 Japan was considering Manila as an "open" city. (emphasis added). Also see dated Thursday December 25. Page 125 of this book says, "The morning papers of December 26 announced that that General MacArthur had proclaimed Manila an open city in a declaration dated December 24." (timezone not mentioned, but apparently Manila) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(updated) I emailed the Library of Congress about this, asking whether a copy of a primary source (the declaration itself, a dated record of same, a dated press release copy, etc.) might have survived. They responded with suggestions about where to look. As I am not suitably located to look at the suggested sources, I'm mentioning their suggestions here. They said: Such records are more likely to be in the National Archives than in the Library of Congress. Please consult:

http://www.archives.gov/publications/lists.html#special

http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/topics/philippine/glossary.html

http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/topics/philippine/

The Macarthur Library in Norfolk would also be helpful: http://www.macarthurmemorial.org/archives.asp

Also, as a related aside which does not apply to the above, I've seen several instances of edit warring over a one-day separation on dating events which occurred in the Philippines. In most cases, such one-day disparities can be explained by the international date line -- e.g., events taking place in Manila in the afternoon of 1 January, even if reported immediately in New York or London, will probably be dated with the 31 December date in those locations, and vice versa. One example of how confusing this can be concerns this report of the peace protocol between Spain and the U.S. having been signed at 4:23 in the afternoon Washington D.C. time on 12 August, 1898, vs. the timing of the Battle of Manila which began with naval artillery bombardment at 9:30 AM Manila time on 13 August. It is reported in Wikipedia and elsewhere that the Battle of Manila took place after the peace protocol signing due to the communications lag between Washington and Manila (Dewey and Merritt didn't learn of the signing until 16 August Manila time). As I figure it, the battle did take place after the signing, but only by a few hours. The 4:23 PM 12 August signing in Washington would have been at 4:23 AM 13 August Manila time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plans for Splitting Manila into Multiple Articles
I've seen some city articles, like New York City and San Francisco, that clearly splits nearly all of its sections into subsections (thus the note regarding Splitting into Multiple Articles), and I believe that I am up for the challenge to reorganize and expound more on what Manila is all about because it can really be improved and expounded further on what the city is all about. I might also need to provide some connections to Metro Manila as a whole as well because Manila, in essence, is part of a greater metropolis, thus I would like to experiment connecting the two areas and make it into "connecting" articles. -- wishfulanthony (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Permission to semi-protect the page:
An IP user:222.127.119.208 keeps on reverting my edits and made the history section longer when there is a main article for it. He is helping in the sense of still vandalizing the page. We must follow WP:Neutral point of view and Article size and over rules in Wikipedia. --DragosteaDinTei 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the IP persists in unnecessarily bloating the article, it will be semiprotected. In the meantime, please stop changing the lead to "According to Manila,...." which makes no sense. The reversion you made after that restored the excess history the IP had added. Please pay attention to your diffs. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on edits
I notice that in the listing of the various neighboring cities, "City" is being added to the name of each. Aside from Quezon City I think this is unnecessary and adds clutter. My own view is that people don't add "City" in their day-to-day conversations about Navotas, Mandaluyong, Makati, San Juan, etc. I will remove "City" from them if there is no objection. Lambanog (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In rewriting the lead I basically copied the assertion that was there earlier that Manila is the most densely populated city in the world. It is an extraordinary claim, however, and should be backed up by strong reliable sources.  Having looked over some other data regarding other cities, I suspect that there is possible error in the claim.  For example Navotas seems to be even more densely packed with a population density of over 80,000 per square kilometer—and that's just within the Philippines. It may be other cities elsewhere can match that depending on the definition of "city".  More analysis may be required. Lambanog (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Double checked the source I was looking at and I suspect it is wrong. Still the claim should be backed up by good sources. Lambanog (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that Manila is the most densely populated city in the world was previously sourced in an older version with Forbes as the source. The MMDA says: "the City of Manila is the most densely populated LGU in the NCR with 66,429 persons per square kilometer almost four times the NCR density, followed by Mandaluyong City with 32,858 persons per square kilometer" Manila is the densest city then in the Philippines as the NCR is the most densely populated place in the country. Why did we remove the information about the metropolitan area information. It appears in other major city articles?


 * With more regards to population density, the MMDA gives two figures, 66000 and 43000. The 43000 density seems to include water area as well (like the Pasig River). So a density of 43000 people/sq km living in a total "land" area seems to be wrong. There is no reason why the MMDA would give a higher estimate if the 43000 figure is just for land area as there areas in Manila that are water.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That Forbes link would help. Figuring out on this talk page what other cities may qualify as the densest and then after verification removing them from consideration would strengthen the claim too.  I guess I'll take a look at that list article but if it is only about metro areas then a comparison with Manila proper may be one between apples and oranges.  I removed some information describing the metropolitan area because there is a separate Metro Manila article for that and putting too much metro related info into this article may give the impression this article is about the metropolitan area as well rather than an article focusing on the City of Manila proper. Lambanog (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looked at the list of densest cities and saw it was one for cities proper. Should have looked at it sooner.  Seems pretty thorough.  I think my concerns about the claim have been addressed. Lambanog (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the Forbes link that was used in the article. Forbes did come out with a 2007 list though. But that's just a copy of City Mayors which are for urban/metropolitan areas and not actually city propers themselves. Manila city proper does not have over 14 million people nor does Buenos Aires have over 11 million. Just for some thought. The cities that most people come to mind and generally thought to be the densest cities are South Asian cities specifically Indian cities. But none that I know of even pass 40,000 people/sq km. Hong Kong is another one that's usually brought up but factoring in that HK's city limits includes large areas of undeveloped land, the population density isn't actually that high.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 16:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and cited the claim using the Forbes article in case anyone asks for another source.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections reorganization
I really think the article needs some reorganization. The History section must come first, as it is much shorter than the section on Subdivions/Districts, and per WikiProject_Cities. Gabbyshoe (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ As per WikiProject Cities/Guideline. Harel (Not what you think?) 09:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History
The article needs to be splitted into multiple articles to reduce its size and I did it but why do it had to be reverted back to the longer version? I have organized that section and that is what is needed in the History section. I've reverted it back to my last edit. There's already a main article for it. Harel (Not what you think?) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for reorganization
The "Places of Interest" section needs to be modified. Specifically the list of landmarks needs to be removed or pruned heavily. Places and landmarks in the list should be moved to relevant sections and then talked about in the text. The universities listed should go under education. The cemeteries moved under religion. Government buildings should be placed in the "Government" section. Museums probably belong in a "Culture" section. If the the locales are not notable enough to be included in text then they should be cut from the article. There seems to be too much focus on churches and landmarks.

I notice there isn't much discussion on the various districts. More detail could go into describing Malate for example and how it differs from Tondo. I don't see Plaza Lawton mentioned by that name; a notable omission since it is a bus terminal destination. I don't see Manila Central Post Office mentioned either. Tutuban and Divisoria are quickly passed over. Is NAIA in Manila? Asian Hospital and St. Luke's aren't in Manila proper. The main Iglesia ni Cristo church in Quezon City likewise doesn't seem to belong. Mentioning the PICC, CCP, and Coconut Palace are right on the border with Pasay might make more sense. Addresses shouldn't be included in the description of places. Too specific for this article and reads too much like a travel brochure.

The article is light on facts and figures and references. What is its income? Average age of population? Literacy? Educational attainment? Percentage breakdown of population by ethnicity? Health statistics? Crime rate? Public services? Susceptibility to typhoons? Flooding? Fault lines? Lambanog (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The places of interests and the list of universities looks to be more of directory or rather tourist guide. Per What Wikipedia is not these kinds of lists should not be included in the article. Is it really necessary to list every university or landmark of the city?  E lockid  ( Talk ) 03:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Harel (Not what you think?) 09:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pollution in Manila?
The is no subsection about this topic. I guess noboby cares about Manila's environmental problems (littering, smoke belching jeepneys, etc.)120.28.126.204 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like this should be covered. There is no shortage of prominent supporting sources (e.g.,, , [, , , , , a book, another book, etc.) [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a Garbage subsection in the Metro Manila article that can be expanded. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and created a section for it because the garbage subsection in Metro Manila seems to focus on "Garbage" (yeah that is why its garbage) and not the pollution. Harel (Not what you think?) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Public transport in Manila
Gunkarta seems intent on adding the following line: "Among the large cities in Southeast Asia, Jakarta and Manila are still lack of urban public transport services due to the long development of road networks that accommodate mostly the private vehicles."

Problem with it is that to anyone familiar with Manila traffic it looks patently false. It is hard to claim there is lack of urban public transport service. If anything there is too much and traffic comes to a crawl because of it. Because of Manila's unique public transport organization, it actually has the one of if not the highest concentrations of public transport vehicles in the world. The line as phrased is therefore wrong and misleading. Lambanog (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Public transportation that privately (individually) owned such as jeepneys in Manila and mikrolets/angkot/bajaj in Jakarta, and other types of shared taxis, is the main reason of traffic congestions in urban streets. The city need comprehensive and professionally managed modern mode of public transportations. This is a referenced citations from valid report that studied about traffics in Tokyo, Jakarta, Manila, and Hiroshima. Jakarta and Manila favor road transportation that cater for private vehicles, while Tokyo and Hiroshima favor rail transportation network. I suspect the denial of Lambanong is based of his national pride or whatsoever. Just admit that Manila has its share of problems. I have no problem admitting that Jakarta has traffic problems. The article should be neutral and fair, cover good or bad aspect of the city. Not wholly painted in happy shiny writings such as tourism promotion. Be neutral and fair is all I asked. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * I put the referenced citations here in case the reverting battles commenced. (Hey..., don't look at me, I'm not starting it)

Among the large cities in Southeast Asia, Jakarta and Manila are still lack of urban public transport services due to the long development of road networks that accommodate mostly the private vehicles. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).


 * The sentence is grammatically incorrect and as I have stated, as it is currently phrased, is unclear, misleading, and inaccurate. Please restore the previous version or edit the line so that it is acceptable and matches the description in the source.  Otherwise you are in violation of WP:3RR and I may report you for edit warring.  Lambanog (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.., I've reverted my own edit, I will try to correct the grammar. Until then, I might considered to file for neutrality dispute since it seems the Manila problems, such as traffics, is not allowed to be written in the article. What is this? tourism article? (Gunkarta (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).


 * I've reprashed the citations: (from conclusions of reference, paragraph 3)
 * "Jakarta and Manila are still lack of (modern) urban public transport services due to the long development of road networks that accommodate mostly the private vehicles. The situation must somehow be bound by the past policies of urban development that may involve other sectors that contribute transport demand in the urban areas. Starving from such discrepancies of development that result in urban transport problems such as congestion, the two cities denote the future approach of urban transport development towards the demand management measures."
 * I think it's too long. Let's just dive to the problem:
 * "Manila is still lack of (modern) urban public transport services (such as MRTs, Monorails, or Subways) due to the long development of road networks that (favour to) accommodate mostly the private road vehicles (and privately owned transportation services such as Jeepneys)". (Gunkarta (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Bad ungrammatical English and simply wrong. The Manila Light Rail Transit System opened in 1984 is the first light rail rapid transit system in Southeast Asia. Lambanog (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So please try to edit it (if you are the master of english) instead of denying the traffic problems of Manila. Manila may have Light Rail Transit System since long ago, Jakarta also have our own KRL Jakarta train since long ago and TransJakarta bus rapid transit system since 2004, but proven that it is not enough to tackle with growing traffic problems and transportation policy that long favour road transportation. The question is not about what the city have or not, the question is "does the existing mode of transportation is enough to tackle the traffic and transportation problems". Or let me get it straight: "Do Manila have transportation and traffic problems?" (I think Manila do). As a Jakartan, I do not have any problem to admit that my city have traffic and transportation problems. Come on, before I filed for neutrality disputes. (Gunkarta (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)).


 * Rephrase: "Manila, in favor of the development of road networks, lacks adequate infrastructure for public transport services." I'm not sure although (correct my grammar) if this debate halts to end, these rephrase should be added in the article with (a) reliable source(s). Harel (Not what you think?) 12:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If a source can be found supporting the above, I'll present a source that contradicts it. From the transportation sources I've seen, the assertions made in that statement are false.  Even the source provided above is being misinterpreted.  In any case, whatever information is included should be verified to pertain to Manila proper and not Metro Manila. What is true for one is not necessarily true for the other. Lambanog (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please give me your source. Thanks. Harel (Not what you think?) 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the Metro Manila article and Manila LRT article. If you have access to it, you might also want to look up the entry for Manila in the UITP Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport. Also read the source Gunkarta gave; it contradicts what he says.  The reality is that being already a developed city center no new roads have been added to Manila proper in the last decade. Remember Manila proper is different from Metro Manila.   Links to some sources taking a conventional view:  .  Here's another that recommends that the city of Bangalore in India adopt the Manila model which points out its advantages.

Let me chime in since I am the one who originally removed the sentence. I removed it for one simple reason: It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Of course Manila has traffic problems. It is a major city. Every city of a similar size has traffic problems. Saying so doesn't tell you anything about Manila qua Manila. What is important for the transportation system is what exists now and what is unique, in particular jeepneys, FXes, sikads, tricycles, and the LRT and MRT. Whether Manila's traffic is worse than Quezon City, Jakarta, or Los Angeles and what could be some of the causes and solutions is relevant to a public policy debate, not an encyclopedia article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it you might be right, that an overwhelming debate on traffic problems of the city does not belongs in encyclopedia article about the city, maybe should be on separate article. However I do believe in neutrality and complete coverage of a subject. The good article should covering both good or bad aspects of the city, in this case, I expect the article should address the city problems properly, including mentioning a little bit about traffic maybe. Just to state that this city is real and not a problem-free one. Then again, I have slightly lost my appetite on this Manila article, you all can make this Manila article as rosy and pretty writing as a tourism promotion could be (pardon my sarcasm). Meanwhile I'll concentrate my efforts on Indonesia-related articles. Salamat po. (Gunkarta (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)).


 * The debate is now over, Gunkarta only presents one source while Lambanog presents five sources. Harel (Not what you think?) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of private cars
I've deleted the sentence "Private automobiles are common within the city with almost all of its households having automobiles." because it is not true. I've been to the dumpsites in Tondo and none of the thousandss of families in and around there own private cars. Further, according to the LTO there are only about 2m registered cars, UVs, and SUVs in all of the Philippines which is less then the total number of households in Metro Manila, which was 2.1m ten years ago. There was another 3.2m registered "MC/TC". Considering that many households have more than one car and that Manila is poorer and less car-friendly then other less dense, more suburban Metro Manila communities, I would guess that the number of Manila households with cars is significantly under 50%, hardly "almost all", and probably close to a small minority. Here's the LTO's stats - http://www.lto.gov.ph/Stats2009/no_of_MV_TypeMode_LTO2009.html and http://www.lto.gov.ph/Stats2009/no_of_MV_Registered_LTO2009.html --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics Section
Here, it lists that the demographics are various religions. Following the citation link leads me to a random suspect travel site that lists the various distribution to being various religious orientation but showing Malay heritage instead of just religion. For this reason, I'm removing both the citation and that statement in the article until a more credible source can be found. Nexxie (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Montage Image
Apparently, the image in the infobox frequently changes. There are two images, which one should we pose as the infobox pic.?

The left image or the right one?

Harel (Not what you think?) 03:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer the one on the left; since it has more pics. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the one of the left has at least one (Malacanang Palace) photo on the "sights" north of the Pasig River, the one of the right doesn't have one. If we can have a photo of the University Belt, the cemeteries, Quiapo Church (replacing the Manila Cathedral) and something from Tondo we can balance the southern Manila bias. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 09:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points, I also prefer the left one aesthetically. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use better quality photos then. The one on the right is not about the subject as much as the quality of the photos. Also, THAT many pictures makes the left look chaotic. Please use example of other decent montages such as the one for Washington D.C. --Truflip99 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Maynila
--Can you please backup your sources that say Maynila was ruled by Emperors and not "mere chieftains"? This claim is unfounded unless you can backup a source so we can check if its credible or not. I dont think you're doing a favor to Philippine History by injecting Nationalism. That's being intellectually dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.202.104 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * References 8 and 9 are helpful -- interestingly, those are non-Philippine sources. In addition, the article mentions "kings" not "emperors." – H T  D  14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Too long
Article is too long. These are some of the longer sections that need to be trimmed: – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 08:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * History: Has to be shortened as per WP:SUMMARY since History of Manila already exists.
 * Religion: Dunno if this can be spun off to a new article.
 * Tourism: The blue links are an eyesore.
 * Legislative districts: Most of the text should be at the Legislative districts of Manila.
 * Government: This can be spun off at Government of Manila and Politics of Manila.
 * History doesn't need to be cut down that much, just a paragraph or so. I think the paragraph on the Galleon trade should be removed (unsourced and rather tangential), and the bulk of the paragraph after that (seems to detailed for a summary, unsourced). Remove the last paragraph (unsourced recentism) and it should be better.
 * Religion probably needs to go to its own article, or placed in something like Religion in the Philippines with a see also here.
 * Tourism is just unsourced listcruft, I'd recommend deleting it.
 * Disagree with legislative districts, not too long.
 * Disagree also with government, not even one screen long on my browser. Definitely not long enough for its own article.
 * Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one that has to be cut is Burnham's plans for Manila. The last sentences of the introduction in the "Geography" section refers to political subdivisions which should be under the "Districts" section. Religion section is not actually about religion -- it's about the religious buildings in the city. The actual info about "religion" is sparse.
 * As for legislative districts and the government, this is standard fare for large city articles to have daughter articles. See Government of New York City and Politics of London, for examples. The info at the "Legislative districts" section is not even about the districts per se, but the sights (again same with the "Religion" section above) on those districts -- they should really be who are, and were, the congressmen in those districts and what role they played, if any, at Congress.
 * I'd say the entire "Districts" section must be refactored in. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 12:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, so those sections of history can be cut/moved to History of Manila.
 * So what to do with Religion? Put in new section of important buildings of manila, include the ones in religion and a couple from the legislative section?
 * I understand that there are politics articles for other cities, but as the information here is not long enough for its own article, and in my opinion not long enough to need cutting.
 * What could be done for the legislative and geographical districts is to move the current table in geographical and list in legislative to Legislative districts of Manila, which could then be moved to Districts of Manila. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For religion and other buildings, we can rename "Cityscape" section to "Contemporary city" so we can dump all of the sights there.
 * There can be lengthy article about the politics in Manila, and most of it not even in here. For example, in national politics, the city has consistently voted for the "opposition" candidate (doesn't matter who/what party it is); for local politics, lately is the rivalry between Lim and Atienza, historically the hegemony of Arsenio Lacson, etc.
 * As for districts, it really is a misnomer. The 16(?) "geographical" districts are currently nothing more as names for certain areas in the city -- comparable as DUMBO, Brooklyn. Same as DUMBO, these districts don't have local government. The next level of government are the almost 900 barangays. These were formerly towns that were annexed to Manila during the American colonial period. These are different from the legislative districts, which serve nothing more than to elect representatives to the House of Representatives and the City Council, each district is comparable to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency), so moving the Legislative districts article to "Districts of Manila" is a bad idea. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The contemporary city solution sounds feasible. Could probably almost delete the religion section then, spread its information elsewhere.
 * There can be, but there isn't, and I don't think the current section needs to be cut. If expanded, definitely it could be in its own article.
 * Don't know much about Brooklyn, but I realise the districts are just administrative niceties. Perhaps the two districts sections should be moved under the current government section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is Manila is governed at a local government and is also represented at the national level. The government section does not even include the judicial branch. Just explaining the manner of election for all elective officials can be lengthy. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Government of Manila should be created and expanded first then, before deciding what is relevant for this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Did some fixing on the article. Reduced some sentences. Harel (Not what you think?) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the changes you made to the dates, some were wrong and it's best to keep consistent. Besides that, good reduction of listcruft. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation
The Cultural Center of the Philippines and Coconut Palace, is not part of Manila, these structures are already part of Pasay City, if you want to include these structures as a point of interest, you can improve or develop the article Metro Manila, that serves as the seat of government of the Philippines. As a Filipino, i want the World to recognized that Metro Manila is the Capital city and Manila is only a distict, If any of you disagree with me, i have reasons to give, to prove my statements. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that it is not the best source, and I wouldn't try to cite it in an article, but I note that Wikimapia, here clearly shows the Coconut Palace as being in Pasay City. The Coconut Palace article says that it is located in Pasay City (not in Manila). Note 1 of this article contradicts that. The contradiction should be corrected or, if there is uncertainty, contradict-other tags should be placed until the contradiction is resolved.
 * Re Manila being "only a district" of Metro Manila -- the word "only" there seems to be a rather large stretch. The PSGC entry for Municipality/City: CITY OF MANILA does link to the PSGC entry for Province: NCR, CITY OF MANILA, FIRST DISTRICT (Not a Province), but I doubt that one classification supersedes the other. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
I've increased the min thread age from 90days to 120 days. The talk page is becoming too short. Moray An Par (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction re Capital of the Philippines
The info re in the Capital of the Philippines in the Succession box templates in the External links section of this article appears to contradict info in that other article. I've placed Contradict-other templates in both articles pending resolution of this apparent contradiction.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh... can you concretely say what's wrong? I can smell what's wrong but it'll help if you said it. – H T  D  16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Reality?
This article bares almost no resemblance to the city of Manila, at least not the city I have visited. No smog, no poverty, no traffic congestion. This is propaganda. FixMacs (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixMacs (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any specific suggestions? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We should probably mention the poverty, traffic, pollution and crime. :P – H T  D  15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After all the trouble the government goes to to hide them?!? But yes, while there is something on pollution, everything else is rather absent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some verifiable sources: Poverty, , , ; crime , , , ; lots more out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be hard to add, although I'm afraid to tackle some of this page (which is an unusually promotional GA). No objections I take it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I dunno but shouldn't these be at the Metro Manila article? I haven't checked out the links but what affects Manila affects the other cities in the Metro. I'm wondering though if there are Manila-specific problems. It'll be nice too if there are studies or city-wide stats on these as those would be better sources than plucking out a random crime then making it representative of the situation. An example would be how many crimes were committed in the city for a year, comparison with other cities and time periods (ex: How many homicides happen in Manila in 2010? Did it go down from 2003? Did Quezon City and Bangkok had a higher rate per 1,000 inhabitants? How dirty was Manila's air last year? Did it get worse from 2005? What were the reason why it got worse? What district in the city has the highest incidence of poverty? Did conditions improve there from xx years ago? Et cetera.) – H T  D  13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be information in the Metro article, but that doesn't preclude having information here. We could actually probably use sources that talk about endemic problems across the metro in this article, although specifics obviously could be used. Information about areas around the port could be used for example. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only worried that what applies to the Metro article would get into here. Mostly, most of the stats since on the media are metro-wide, hence I was looking for city-wide stats, and city-specific instances. For example on the port, North Harbor is separated from Tondo by Road 10. On the north bound side are slums and kids who throw poop at cars. That's a "unique Manila experience" you won't get anywhere else. Another way to look at it is where are majority of the petty crimes done in the city? We'd say "Crime is predominant in Manila" it would've been boring. Now if we say "Quiapo is the district where most petty crimes are committed" then that's something. If we're into generalities it should probably go to the Metro article. – H T  D  14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reindent: As further example to this, the "Environmental issues" section mentions of a catastrophe during Typhoon Ketsana aka Ondoy. The cited article shows us a picture of Marikina, so that has to be changed. While the city suffered just as any other place battered by a storm, it's only major problem was the flooded Quezon Blvd. underpass and some badly-flooded streets in Santa Mesa, and probably the usual floods at Espana Boulevard. This was in stark contrast to the floods that reached roofs that engulfed Marikina and western Rizal. – H T  D  17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)