Talk:Binondo

message: What photo would best represent Binondo? Plaza Lorenzo Ruiz? --Miguel 08:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What photo in Binondo?

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

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

text: 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===
, 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RM comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Data corrected: 1521 was Magellan - 1570 is colonization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Binondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Yutivo bldg pic

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinatown. Binondo" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]