Talk:Manila

GAR

Manila

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist; fails good article criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A GA from 2010. There are some uncited paragraphs and sentences here and there that need to be addressed. Some areas might need updates though I'm not sure. Also, populations for manila's districts are cited to a permanent dead link. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Populations for Manila's districts have been updated. Will try searching for sources for uncited paragraphs, or deleting the info if no reliable source could be found. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sanglahi86, do you intend to continue working upon the article?

Oops, messed up ping Sanglahi86 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I had thought other editors would also assist in finding/citing sources, which is why I discontinued editing the article for the moment. I tried in the past looking for sources to remove some cn tags, but I had a hard time finding reliable ones; I could boldly remove some unreferenced content in my free time. Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, I have exhausted all efforts in trying to find reliable sources for the remaining cn tags, but I could not find any. I would want to remove those unreferenced claims, but doing so might be contested by other editors and I do not have time to defend the content removal. Please feel free to do what must be done with the article. Thanks. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sanglahi86, thank you for your efforts. The article will be delisted shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox photos

Ideally, we should have at least one from each of the legislative districts of Manila, but I know that there's nothing noteworthy about the second district (LOL), so we can skip that. I'd also suggest having an equal number of photos from the north and south banks of the Pasig, just one each of a place of worship, government building, bridge and skyline. Two church photos are excessive, and I'd suggest to keep Quiapo Church as the quintessential Manila church. This is not a tourist guide, so we should not really aim for aesthetic, but as something someone would see in the city easily. I'd also discourage night shots unless it is suitably illuminated. I love the post office, but since a fire gutted it down, we should probably remove that until it is repaired. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misinformation

I will make a brief explanation as to why this info about 'Tong-to' and 'Tondo Empire' was removed. The Wakan Sansai Zue was used as a reference despite making zero mentions of the term 'Tong-to'. The paragraph proceeds to call Tondo as a capital of an "empire". We can therefore conclude that this is deliberate misinformation, please state your nonsense elsewhere. This will be removed. Delirium333 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Establishment of Maynila and Relationship with Brunei

My change I made was just now reverted despite me citing sources from this article and its companion “Maynila (historical polity)” in the change log. Laura Lee Junker's article "Integrating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms" (article cited in the “historical polity” Maynila article) directly states Maynila was around by the 14th century (ie. 1300s). Her book Raiding, Trading, and Feasting also says this. It is absurd that a book cited multiple times in this very page was seemingly not actually read by the person who reverted my changes.

This same article directly states that there is little evidence that Maynila was a part of the Sultanate of Brunei. Why is Maynila listed as a part of Brunei in the info box when the main article for Maynila says it was not a part of Brunei. There should be consistency across articles and info boxes.

I also would like to just point out that I again have cited sources already accepted by Wikipedia in my changw notes and not only that I have a literal graduate degree in Philippine Studies and am a published scholar in the field, academically. Maynila’s age is pretty well known in the field. SVHS2710 (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Seal of Manila

The seal doesn't match the seal of Manila in its own website. The ultramar in the website seal is less complex. The Wikipedia Manila seal claims to be government created but it's not from any government website but was made by an artist who just released it to the public domain. It was apparently based on the version of the seal in a previous version of manila.gov.ph back in 2017 but we have no proof of that. Are any better sources available? @Exec8 can you clarify? Thank you. Tagaaplaya (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)