Should the listing for the World War II Manila American Cemetery and Memorial be moved to See? As I recall from when I was there, it is not that far from central Manila, so could it be considered part of Manila itself? Brendio 16:09, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think a few good pictures of some of the attractions here would really improve the article... However, I have none and am not planning on going there in the forseeable future! Get to work wikitravellers! Tsandell 16:50, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
Hey, a lot of the articles pertain to Metro Manila and not Manila proper alone.
There is a separate article on Metro Manila. Why don't we transfer most of those which mainly talk about Metro Manila to that article? --Jr traveller 20:59, 25 December 2006 (EST)
Should we add a disambiguity page to differentiate the City of Manila from Metro Manila? Oftentimes, the term Manila refers to Metro Manila, not just Manila City. When traveling in the provinces, for example, when asked, people would often say taga-Maynila ako (I'm from Manila) even if they've never stepped foot on Manila City (an unlikely possibility, though). Rubybox 04:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I have done a lot of reorganization work on the Manila area articles today, and I am now of the opinion that "Manila" should redirect to Metro Manila, and the City of Manila should be renamed Metro Manila/Manila. The reasons include the fact that most of the information for the Get in and Get around sections is common to all because the mass transportation really covers all of Metro Manila. I myself have spent some time in Manila and didn't even realize that Makati is technically a different city. Locals don't really pay heed to the boundaries either, as the article itself states. The boundaries are really non-existent when it comes to the traveller, so I'd rather treat the City of Manila as a district subset of the Metro area. Any thoughts? Texugo 05:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Very strong no. Manila should be called Manila, period, and it should cover all of Metro Manila. If you've spent time in Makati and didn't realize it's technically a different city, then we shouldn't consider it a different city either, and it should be named Manila/Makati. Jpatokal 07:31, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'm not sure how that's a very strong no as it mostly agrees with my point. I'd actually prefer to call everything Manila as you suggest. However, if we put everything under the umbrella of plain Manila we end up with a BUTTLOAD of districts: Actual Manila's own 16 plus Metro Manila's 13 other cities. If everyone agrees, some of the actual Manila districts might be made combined district articles, but still... It's a tough call because actual Manila is divided into 16 district articles while Quezon City, 5 times larger than actual Manila, has only one article. If we put everything under the umbrella of Manila (which is perfectly fine with me), perhaps we still need some kind of Manila/Manila article to hold together the more popular districts of the actual city itself. Certainly places like Malate, Ermita, and Intramuros deserve their own articles even though they are 100th the size of a place like Quezon City. Texugo 19:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
We don't need to follow the official districts! Split up the city in a way that makes sense for the traveller, then redirect the official names if needed. Jpatokal 05:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
this is ridiculous. International organizations now use Manila to refer to MetroManila, only the parochial Filipinos who want to pretend somebody is interested to know Taguig or Tondo would be deluded to use that. Manila only has a 30 sq km area, that's a small portion of the 20 million urban area which is now the 9th largest of the world. Who is interested with Sampaloc or Tondo when all the travel guides are cursing their stay in Manila proper but suddenly calm down when they describe Makati or Fort Bonifacio? This is Wikitravel so highlight the areas one would travel to, not the ones where he would stay away from. Gosh, some idiots!
The "Stay Safe"-section could really be improved. Especially due to the fact that it says Manila is safer than Jakarta, and on the Jakarta-page it says Jakarta is safer than Manila. 126.96.36.199 12:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
This section doesn't even exist anymore. Could someone write something up who has lived there?
Still doesn't seem to be a stay safe section. I think it's rather important given the possibilities of terrorist attacks such as bombings, theft, etc.
I think we should also add a "Learn" section. Some cities like Bangkok has this. They post schools where you could learn, for example, Thai Massage, Muay Thai Boxing, and Buddhist Meditation. So for Manila, maybe we can have Learn Filipino Martial Arts, Filipino Cuisine, etc.
There is a ton of great information here, but organizationally speaking, this guide is one big disaster. Links to non-articles are all over the place, section headers do not conform to our standards, and above all, it looks like there are two competing districts breakdowns?! I have no idea what is going on with the districts breakdown, but I'll work a bit on cleaning up the rest. --PeterTalk 14:15, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
Peter darling, since I've been away for two years... the last time I've seen and touched this article - it lacked information yet it looked OK and formal and tada did I realize it is a disaster. The city is mistaken with the metropolitan area its part of with the same name. I'll do my best to sweep up. --SnappyHip 22:27, 12 April 2012 (PST)
While I commend the work of anonymous editors in expanding any work, the work by the anon in question is a complete disaster: a lot of trivial information is present in the sections. For example: do I really need to know the history of the jeepney just so I know how to go around Manila on a jeepney?
I'll do what I can to help clean up the article, but I have a feeling this will take a while. (And while I'm a supporter of positive promotion for Manila as an underrated tourist destination, too much of it can be sickening as well, and this page reeks of it.) --Sky Harbor 16:59, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
sadly Manila had been really dissapointing for me, the wiki page should atleast provide some information about notorious locations
This article is rife with the author's personal opinions and not the sort of neutral encyclopaedic tone one would expect from a Wikitravel article. The dining section for Manila is an utter disgrace. —The preceding comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) at about 13 June November 2012 (EST)
The text below was removed from the article today by Singapore.Alice but written from IP 184.108.40.206:
[This article seems to have been written by someone deaf to the breadth and depth of Filipino cuisine. Filipinos love to eat and talk about food, and have an eclectic cuisine born of a confluence of Malay, Chinese, and Spanish motifs. Prospective eaters should refer to http://www.marketmanila.com/ or watch Anthony Bourdain's Philippines episode for a more open-minded and appreciative take on Pinoy food.]
I wrote the above text ("This article seems to have been written..."). We all want WikiTravel to be helpful to prospective travelers. And like Wikipedia, it should represent the best knowledge possible. I fail to see how the tirade on the inferiority of Filipino food, and the speculation regarding lack of monarchy, could be helpful to prospective traveler. I think extreme and contrarian opinions like this are valuable, but the author should publish this on his/her personal blog instead of WikiTravel.--Rajiv 21:10, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Cleaning up the Restaurant segment in the Eat section
Is anyone opposed to removing the majority of the "Restaurant" section?
We could keep the last paragraph only ("Most sit-down and casual dining restaurants..."). The preceding paragraphs belong in a personal blog, not WikiTravel. This has been discussed above in the "Opinion" section.--Rajiv 21:34, 4 December 2012 (EST)
I agree that the restaurant section is not appropriate for WT, but the eat part with all the locals foods is valuable in my opinion. Would you be willing to modify the restaurant part to be more beneficial to the community Rajiv? That would be deeply appriciated! --OVK 03:00, 5 December 2012 (EST)