| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | 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. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | | Manila has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class. |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. | [edit] 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. [1][2]
--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)
[edit] Map used in Wikipedia suggesting Laloma is in Manila - 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) [edit] 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) [edit] 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: --119.92.161.175 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) (BTW, see my tagalog Wikipedia Userpage: DragosteaDinTei) [edit] 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) [edit] 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities#Article-structure_guidelines. Gabbyshoe (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] 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—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 [3] (I'll cite that in the article), [4], [5] (actually, look at the top of page 27), [6], [7], [8]. 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 [9] 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) |
