Talk:Binondo

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What photo in Binondo?

What photo would best represent Binondo? Plaza Lorenzo Ruiz? --Miguel 08:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays section

The "barangays" section appears to have information that is not related to barangays. Someone the Person (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Needs sources and citing, or the whole article could be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 January 2011

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binondo, Manila → Binondo – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, the "Manila" bit is unnecessary disambiguation. – seav (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. The name Binondo is well known and is recognizable even without the disamb.--RioHondo (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that "Manila" is redundant. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. bd2412 T 21:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have finalized naming conventions, which are currently under discussion at WT:TAMBAY. I would suggest reopening this RM should we get there, since then we will have clear guidelines as to which name should be used, rather than the current disjointed system we're currently using. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. As to waiting for naming conventions to be finalized, that's doing it backwards. See Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time? --B2C 06:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The fact that Filipino editors (at least those who have participated in discussions about the naming convention) are evenly split between the comma convention ("Binondo, Manila") and the no-comma convention ("Binondo") shows that there is currently no consensus for such a change to take place. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There may be no consensus among "Filipino editors", but what matters is the broad consensus of the entire WP community, as reflected in policy and guidelines. --B2C 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM comments

@Sky Harbor:, the reason why I opened this RM is because districts like Binondo are not included in the WP:MOSPHIL naming convention. Thus, the WP:AT policy prevails (specifically WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE). —seav (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise disagree. Districts are implicitly included in the guidelines, as they are smaller geographical entities of a number of cities, the same way barangays are explicitly mentioned in the convention. Just because districts are not explicitly mentioned in the convention does not mean that there is a license to circumvent the existing naming convention in order to support a particular position vis-à-vis naming conventions for Wikipedia articles which are currently being discussed, and upon which discussion is inconclusive.. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this move is inappropriate, then start a Move Review. Because the move has been approved by a disinterested sysop, it means he/she finds the support arguments have more merit than your opposition per the WP:MOSPHIL status quo. Furthermore, there's no circumvention going on: the reasons for the move and implicitly agreed on by the closing sysop is rooted in the WP:AT policy and not just because districts are not explicitly mentioned in WP:MOSPHIL. —seav (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i circumvented the guidelines too with the moves i initiated on Samar and Samar (province), and Leyte and Leyte (province). But that was the necessary thing to do as MOSPHIL is plain wrong on this. "Furthermore, in the case of a province sharing the same name with a municipality or island, then the name of the province takes precedence unless it's a common name. For example, Cebu and Leyte." Samar and Leyte are islands now, not provinces which are just fractions of the primarytopics. :) --RioHondo (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seav, you know what i just realized there isn't actually a MOS for barangays in WP:MOSPHIL, no mention of how barangay names should be titled, not even for districts. And thats why i remember now I wrote this on the mosphil talk page way back middle of 2012 calling for a single format which we havent got until now. A perfectly valid RM then. And you're right on BF Homes. :) --RioHondo (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data corrected: 1521 was Magellan - 1570 is colonization

Hello,

I corrected the date of 1521 which was mentioned for the colonization of Manila, but this is the year of Magellan who was not colonizing. But colonization of Manila Bay (with all "Christian" racism and segregation rules) started in 1570 with the Spanish (terrorist) invasion coming from Cebu which was already colonized (and terrorized). Military leader against the ruling Muslims was Martín de Goiti.

Michael Palomino, July 16, 2014

Logic chronologic historiography since 1992

History: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/index-ENGL.html

--195.14.220.46 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Binondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://radio86.com/travel/destinations/chinatown-manila-oldest-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese transliteration

Any sources that can be provided for the Chinese transliteration of Binondo? 李憲晉 - 리헌진 (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115103152/http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/National%20Capital%20Region.pdf to http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/National%20Capital%20Region.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yutivo bldg pic

There is a nice wartime photo of the Yutivo building, a well-known Binondo landmark, at Page 45 of the book Manila 1945: The Rest of the Story (Guillermo, Lucky and Parsons, Peter C., exec. ed. Manila 1945: The Rest of the Story. N.p.: AV Manila Creative Production Co., 2015.). The armored vehicle in the foreground is an American M7 self-propelled howitzer, which equipped Cannon Companies in the Pacific Theater. The American units known to be operating in this part of Greater Manila on 5 February 1945 were the 145th and 148th Infantry Regiments of the US 37th Infantry Division. Binondo at this time was part of the Greater Manila district called Bagumbuhay, this is according to Teodoro Agoncillo. Alfonso Aluit, however, maintains that Binondo was part of the district called Bagong Diwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.162.13 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Old Binondo Church.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Calle Rosario, Manila, Philippines, 1915.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinatown. Binondo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chinatown. Binondo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Chinatown. Binondo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]