text:
Talk:Manhattan/Upper West Side

Extent of Lincoln Center
Lincoln Center does not extend beyond 66th St. and Fordham University is not part of it. I'd be most pleased if someone can do an elegant editing job on that part of the third paragraph, but if not, I'll come back at a later date and try my hand at it.

Michael 07:11, 7 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change, but please feel free to edit it further.

Michael 00:37, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Eat and Drink
Some confusion here. Most of the Eat and Drink options listed are north of 100th street and should perhaps be in the Morningside Heights section. The area between 96th and 110th is divyed up between Manhattan Valley (east of Broadway) and Bloomingdale (west of Broadway), and it makes no sense to have separate articles for those two neighborhoods, but my guess is that more people think of the area as being closer to (or a part of) Morningside Heights than UWS. At least for the area above 100th. If no one objects, I'll move the stuff north of 100th to Morningside Heights.

Guide status
I think this article is complete and good enough for guide status. (WT-en) –sumone10154 20:13, 10 February 2011 (EST)

 * I'm going to have to disagree. While it is very close to being a guide, this is a massive district and the article feels far from complete. The buy and drink sections in particular seem lacking - none of the drink listings (and the majority of the eat listings as well) have any contact info and the buy section is almost entirely bookstores. For now I'm demoting this back to usable. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 06:42, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Invisible map
The map is unreadable, and because of its shape, I don't see how it can be easily enlarged to a sufficient extent. What's the solution? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could replace it with a dynamic map. The shape of the neighborhood really doesn't lend itself to a map you can easily read in-text. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably so. But will the dynamic map print well from the page? The shape may remain a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

See/Institutions of learning
I think all these institutions should probably be mentioned, especially as the conservatories among them hold concerts (most of them free) that visitors might want to attend. However, not all of them are really interesting to see. Columbia, Barnard, and Teacher's College certainly are - to which might be added the Jewish Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary, in the same area. Mannes College is a pretty building, but on a side street and not particularly notable as a place to visit specifically to look at the architecture. I don't find Juilliard all that interesting as architecture, but then I don't love most recent architecture, and anyone who goes to Lincoln Center - which is a sight, but even more so, a series of concert venues that are a destination in themselves - will see Juilliard's buildings. Manhattan School is another building near Columbia, but not all that amazing a building (though it's OK). Fordham is a good school, but the architecture of its Manhattan campus is kind of dull, in my opinion. So what should we do with this list of institutions of learning? Certainly, more should be said about performances, with links to their concert schedules (for Columbia, too, as their Miller Theatre has a somewhat interesting concert series). But should we really park them all in "See," divide them up some way, or list them separately, perhaps in the problematic and contentious optional "Learn" section? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any opinions about this, anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well they definitely don't belong in Learn. Other than that, I don't know enough to say.  Powers (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any further thoughts on what to do with them? It seems odd to divide them up into different sections. Do you think they should be divided up somehow, or if not, which section would they be most appropriate in?

 * Also, I thought of another institution: The Ethical Culture Society also has notable concerts (e.g., the American Composers' Alliance), but the building itself is pretty and apparently architecturally notable (also see the coverage on the New York Ethical Culture Society's own page), so it can easily be listed in "See." Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm still thinking about this in 2019. Does anyone have new thoughts about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could include those institutions that are notable for tourism purposes (Columbia, UTS, TC, The Ethical Culture Society) in the See section. Then, under the Do section include any performance related info (Manhattan School's performance series, Miller Theater, PostCrypt at St. Paul's Chapel, etc.). Would that work? --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to handle it is to have one listing apiece, and in the other section, have a brief summary and link to the other section. I'm guessing Fordham - Lincoln Center will probably get excluded on either count (not so interesting architecture and not much reason for non-students to go there). John Jay has some interesting concerts and may merit a listing on that basis, plus architecture, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I would choose to keep the original as it is more beautiful. The proposed banner is a somewhat bland cityscape. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I do not support a change. The Lincoln Center banner is clean. The new banner is chaotic and has weird curves that don't exist on Upper West Side streets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * For the same reasons I support the existing banner. Danapit (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current Syced (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Western boundary of Harlem
As someone who grew up in the West 90s, I can say that we Upper West Siders always considered Morningside Av. to be straightforwardly part of Harlem, with Morningside Drive the eastern limit of the Upper West Side north of 110th St. Please look at Talk:Manhattan/Harlem and Upper Manhattan for more further remarks and proposals of what actions to take. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article have 2 maps?
Isn't the policy to leave out a dynamic map if the static map is as good or better? Why two maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken the static map out because it contains obsolete listings. If we do prefer the static map, perhaps include only museums, landmarks etc? Eat/drink listings change way too often. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer a non-slanted orientation for the neighborhood, as it's unimportant to precisely represent north and south and anyway, that's what a compass icon is for, but I prefer one map of the neighborhood to two and understand your reasoning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right about the orientation. I'm not technically competent enough to figure this out but I wonder if the orientation of the dynamic map can be changed. Another possibility is that we restrict the listings to include only the do, see, and stay (likely to be less fluid), and then add a few eat/drink of the more permanent sort (established clubs, restaurants). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

[undent] About the map again: It's wrong. The Upper West Side starts at 59th St., not at 62nd St., end then there's a section north of 97th St. that is improperly shaded. How do we fix this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manhattan/Upper West Side


text:
Talk:Manila

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? (WT-en) Brendio 16:09, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Where is the section on get around?

Photos required!
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 wikivoyagers! (WT-en) Tsandell 16:50, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

 * See . (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:14, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Really Manila
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? --(WT-en) 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). (WT-en) 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? (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Rationalising the district articles will take a massive effort, so how about we start by renaming Metro Manila to Manila, and (perhaps temporarily) renaming Manila to "City of Manila" (which is actually the official name of the area)? In the future, when we significantly reduce the amount of district articles for both Metro Manila/Manila and Manila/City of Manila, we may consider merging them into a single article. --Krauser levyl (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * No! Look at the dates on the above comments; this question was settled back in 2007 & there is absolutely no reason to re-open discussion now. Lots of parallel cases are handled the same way; an example in the Philippines is Cebu City & Metro Cebu.
 * It would be useful to check "what links here" for Manila; you will likely find many links that should be to either Metro Manila or MNL. I recently did that for Cebu & found many bad links, & in another search I found many links to Clark that should have been to CRK. Pashley (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 * I see, I just don't see the settlement of this question is this discussion page so I assumed it was unresolved. I will take a look at the links. --Krauser levyl (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stay safe-section cleanup!
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. 91.152.205.80 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.

Sleep
I've moved some of the more useful listings to the appropriate districts, and deleted some useless ones. Let's keep it clean in the future. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Learn Section
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.

Style
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. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 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. --(WT-en) 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.) --(WT-en) Sky Harbor 16:59, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Opinion
This article is rife with the author's personal opinions and not the sort of neutral encyclopaedic tone one would expect from a Wikivoyage article. The dining section for Manila is an utter disgrace.

Daily Tiem Saving
Do we include the that Philippines Or Manila do not observe daily time saving?

Bonvallite (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The Philippines does not observe daylight saving time: that though should be put in the main Philippines article. Frankly, this article has a lot of issues brought over from Wikitravel, and it needs a major cleanup. --Sky Harbor  (talk ) 09:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes. I don't like the two cut-off skyscrapers on the right, but this is a much more interesting view than the current banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I've reverted to the old banner. This banner shows Makati, not Manila, and I've moved the banner over there.  Remember that the coverage of this article is about the City of Manila only, and not Metro Manila, which has its own page. --Sky Harbor  (talk ) 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Sky Harbor. This is why familiarity with places is important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I haven't been to Manila, but the current banner actually makes me think I'm looking at a mid-size American city. Is there nothing more distinctive about Manila that can be used? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Agree with Andrewssi2, here is my banner suggestion (the UNESCO World Heritage San Agustin Church in Intramuros). I believe it is important to emphasise the cultural and historical heritage of Manila, rather than presenting it as a poor version of Makati or Taguig --Krauser levyl (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Rationalizing districts again
I'm aware that the last time there was a discussion on rationalizing districts was back in 2006, but I'm inclined to believe that we can try this again.

I understand that many of (Metro) Manila's sights are concentrated in the Old City, but the distribution of these sights is done so unevenly. There are, in fact, districts with very few places of interest for tourists, and instead of forcing us to write articles for all 16 of them, I think it would be fair to try and reduce that number to something more manageable. To that end, I recommend halving the number of districts to 8, divided as follows:

 * Intramuros
 * Extramuros (Malate and Ermita)
 * Binondo and San Nicolas
 * Quiapo and Santa Cruz
 * Santa Ana
 * West Manila (Tondo and Port Area)
 * Northeast Manila (San Miguel, Sampaloc and Santa Mesa)
 * Southeast Manila (Paco, Pandacan and San Andres Bukid)

This is all still very rudimentary, and I expect the divisions to change, but let's see how far we get with rationalizing the number of Manila district articles we have to write about. --Sky Harbor (talk ) 08:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Agreed, also see my suggestion of renaming Manila to "City of Manila" in above. --Krauser levyl (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * This is going to be quite late, but I disagree with moving "Metro Manila" to "Manila" and this article to "City of Manila". The current naming convention is unambiguous enough, and in fact I'm more in favor of finding ways to rationalize the current divisions given that Manila's tourist sites are spread out fairly unevenly. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I also disagree with renaming. We have other articles like Metro Cebu & I see no reason not to use that pattern here.
 * As for the rest, I do not know Manila & cannot really tell but it sounds plausible. Pashley (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with renaming Metro Manila into Manila and Manila into City of Manila (or Manila (city)). The current naming is good enough to disambiguate the two, and Metro Manila's "Understand" already implies that the region is called Manila (and very unnecessary to rename it). But I agree with radically changing the distrification, because our current districts have few to no places of tourist interest. A better plan though is:

 * Binondo (or Chinatown)
 * Central Manila (Quiapo, Santa Cruz)
 * Extramuros (Malate, Ermita)
 * Intramuros
 * Paco
 * Southeast Manila (Pandacan, San Andres Bukid, Santa Ana)
 * University Belt (Sampaloc, San Miguel, Santa Mesa) – May be also named Northeast Manila
 * Western Manila (Port Area, San Nicolas, Tondo)--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it is better to keep some well known districts and creating two larger districts (University Belt and Southeast Manila) by merging minor ones. We need to do away with administrative boundaries, if we consider the traveller's interest. Newer maps may be drawn to replace the existing one using legally designated boundaries.
 * Binondo
 * Ermita
 * Intramuros - merging Port Area into this district
 * Malate
 * Quiapo
 * Santa Cruz
 * Tondo-San Nicolas - merger of Tondo and San Nicolas for the convenience of this guide
 * University Belt - merger of Sampaloc, San Miguel, and Santa Mesa
 * Southeast Manila - New travel district, merger of Paco, Pandacan, Santa Ana, and San Andres Bukid

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I decided to plunge forward and made the necessary changes to the existing decade-long hierarchy (merge some small and minor districts, rename some breadcrumbs) based on the last proposal. We may need more improvements to the districts though, and even our present main article needs more, that I'm working around presently.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think Santa Ana should've been its own article. We have a lot of material from the English Wikipedia that would be apt for a travel guide; we did, after all, did a cultural mapping of the area. In addition, what was the rationale with merging San Nicolas with Tondo as opposed to Port Area? --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Santa Ana can have its own article, but to keep things short (to follow the maximum of 9 guideline), it's just fine to group it with Paco, Pandacan and San Andres Bukid. The Port Area is originally part of Intramuros though, and why I merged San Nicolas with Tondo is for one clear reason: Divisoria.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Manila Bay cleanup
Philippine government orders closure of some establishments as part of Manila Bay cleanup. I thought of adding a caution box similar to the one added in Boracay. Pinging User:Pashley--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging Malate and Ermita into a single district
Malate and Ermita might be better merged as Malate and Ermita instead of Extramuros (rather obscure) or Manila Bay area. I support this merge because these two share Manila Bay and the Baywalk waterfront. Any opinions needed.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 00425jfSanta Cruz Escolta Binondo Streets Manila Landmarksfvf 02.JPG

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Robinson3335jf.JPG

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 00425jfSanta Cruz Escolta Binondo Streets Manila Landmarksfvf 02.JPG

 * Used in the article, but I think commons:File:Binondojf0070 25.JPG is better, and it's the lead photo in the Manila/Binondo article, so if we upload one of these photos locally, I think it should be that one. We should decide soon, though: the photo nominated on April 13 is already gone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Manila


text:
Talk:Manila/Intramuros

Transportation
I've been to Intramuros several times - the only problem is that I've only ever used private means of transportation (i.e., by car/taxi/tour bus). If anyone out there can give detailed instructions on how to reach Intramuros' main attractions by public transportation (bus or jeepney), kindly edit that information in. For the benefit of tourists and anyone who may be unfamiliar with the area, please include specific details such as what to look out for on the route signs (e.g., whether the buses should have the word "Intramuros" on them), where the stops are (or where they can ask the drivers to pull over if there are no fixed stops), etc. Keep in mind that Manila's public transportation system can seem extremely chaotic to foreign visitors - it certainly seems that way to me, and I've lived here all my life - so please make sure that your information is accurate, detailed, and easily understandable. --(WT-en) Diego de Manila 01:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Map
Many thanks to Sertmann for the great new map! Any contributors with experience in adding map data are invited to start making the usual edits, such as adding points of interest. (I have a good working knowledge of the area so I'll try to do this myself - but first I'll need to learn how, and I can't guarantee I'll have enough free time to figure everything out soon.) In any case, for now, even the unedited Wikivoyage-style map will be a great help to first-time visitors. --(WT-en) Diego de Manila 07:47, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BahayTsinoyjf1491 01.JPG

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interior de la Catedral de Manila, Filipinas.jpg

 * Is this an important enough file to upload locally? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Palacio Del Gobernador.JPG
 * No FoP in the Philippines. Not worth it considering that they'll be undeleting them soon. ( may know when) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Uploaded it locally. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So are we going to have to delete these files this spring? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked on Commons at some point when the Filippino FoP law is likely to go into effect, and the reply I got was some time between the fall and end of the year. And then, yeah, we'll probably have to delete some of these files after they're undeleted on Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently JWiltz12345 said that it might take longer since this is a non priority. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. However, I still think it would be logical for Commons users to deprioritize nominating photos of the Philippines for deletion merely on FoP concerns. But no point in arguing with them about this, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manila/Intramuros


text:
Talk:Manipal

Propasal to remove redirect and creating new article for Manipal
w:Manipal is a huge sub-urban within w:Udupi and deserves to have a separate article. - Csyogi (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I trust your judgment. Go ahead and turn this redirect into an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manipal


text:
Talk:Maniwaki

The original article appears to have been copied from http://ville.maniwaki.qc.ca/francais/smenu_propos/profil.html

title: Talk:Maniwaki


text:
Talk:Manta

Will be working on this page to fix the English spelling and grammar errors, clean it up making it more organized and reader friendly. Will attempt to edit in order to get rid of the CV tag on the article.(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 12:36, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Beaches
In the beaches section, removed descriptions of beaches that were copyrighted information on this website. http://iguide.travel/Manta

Made sub-category of the regional beaches outside the city of Manta. (WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Whoa, wait! That site took the information from Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:21, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Trying to clean up the article and get the CV tag removed. The copyright tag doesnt specify what information is CV. The entire article appears very disorganized and poorly written. Suggest to me how to fix it all.(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 19:40, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

 * The CV tag was added Feb 2007. If you can tell me exactly which portion of the article was deemed copyright violation I will attempt to correct with a rewrite. In the meantime I will have a subpage of my user page with a draft of this article where I can work on it without interrupting the article itself.(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 19:53, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

 * It would seem that the entirety of the copyvio was added in these two edits, added from this site . By all means rewrite, but feel free to keep whatever good info there was in the removals you did earlier. (I wish people would just remove copyvios as they see them, rather than add the tag, so that we could avoid these confusions...). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Rewrite
I removed and rewritten what was suspected to be copyrighted information that got a 'copyright violation tag'. I also organized it to better fit with site article guidelines. It appears that much information was written by ESL persons and cleaned it up as much as possible. A lot of google searches show that other newly added information may have been copied as well. It was really hard in many cases to tell which direction information was duplicated. I believe that the edits I made will resolve any CV issues. Some of the beaches listed, I could not find reference to via google or on google maps search. I left the references in place and if anyone finds fault with them, I figure that can be dealt with at a later date. I think you will find the rewrite to be a much better version than before. Let me know if you have and recommendations for any additions or format changes. (WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 13:12, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Passport suggestion
I have not been to Manta for an extended amount of time but I don't see the point about the passport suggestion there: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Manta&oldid=prev&diff=3145256. Yes, you are required to carry a passport but that's true for all of Ecuador. And sure, some people would not carry the passport all the time and rather carry a copy. (In fact I do disagree with this suggestion. I find a safe spot on my body to be a much safer place than a hotel room.) Anyway, why is this part of the Manta article? Should we add this to every Ecuador article consequently? Or is there something special about this city? Then this should be made clear in the advise. Saraedum (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manta


text:
Talk:Mantralayam

I have visited mantralayam from Chennai by train mumbai mail(starts at 22:50) reached mantralayam road at 10:45 AM.we catched Bus fare is Rs 8 or we can choose share auto cost is Rs 10.half an hour drive reached mantralayam. For accomodation we booked room at 12:00 belongs to mutt which is cheap Rs 100.People can prefer mutt guest hous than private guest house interms of money.

We took bath and had darshan of swami Raghavendra at 1:30 PM .pilgrims are requested to wear dhoties to see swamiji very near & to remove the shirts.There is a special queue for those who wearing pants but they has to remove the shirts & banniyans.At 2 darshan is closed.Had meal and took rest in room upto 4:00 PM.

Then we visited panchamugi anchineya temple through share auto Rs 30 & came to mantralayam at 6:30 PM. Had mangala aarthi approx at 9:00 PM.

We have seen swamiji used paathapadigai which was kept in a house(it was kept & workshipped by familly).This is rare to see since we got all the info through a guide name Mr.Murali.He is very genuine guided & helped us to see in and around mantralayam.

People who wish to see mantralayam can contact him for any help..

We had thulasi archana on next day.Performed annadhanam with the help of murali (guide).Very happilly we returned back.

title: Talk:Mantralayam


text:
Talk:Manuel Antonio National Park

Copyvio
An anonymous contributor marked this article as a Lonely Planet copyvio, but the content in question isn't on the web, and based on the article history I can't tell what is supposed to have been copied. Does anyone have a copy of the Lonely Planet Costa Rica guidebook who could elaborate? There is enough good information in this article, contributed by multiple contributors, that I don't think we want to start over from scratch without confirming that the article is in fact taken from LP. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * I have exactly the same problem, its nearly impossible to find out which information is a copyright violation. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 05:11, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Manuel Antonio National Park


text:
Talk:Manu National Park

Should Manu National Park be merged with Manu Biosphere Reserve?

title: Talk:Manu National Park


text:
Talk:Manzanar

Is this an article
So this article doesn't pass the "Can I Sleep There" rule of thumb for gauging Project:What is an article?. I could point to Muir Woods as another example of this, but that would only prove that I'm not the only one to slip down this particular slope. I'm inclined to think most National Parks, National Monuments, and National Historic Sites are significant enough to deserve articles on their own, but... So the real question is, does anyone think I've exceeded the bounds of Project:What is an article?, and should therefore bring up this issue as a request for change in Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 15:55, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * Muir Woods sounds like you would need a map, so it should stay. If there is a restaurant in Manzanar, or you need a map to get around, then keep it; otherwise put it in Independence, with a link from Lone Pine. -(WT-en) phma 19:36, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * I don't think Muir Woods has any special need for a map. It's slightly harder to get to than Manzanar, but it's still pretty easy take US 101 across the Golden Gate, head north on SR 1, at the top of the hill a Muir Woods sign will point you to a road leading right.  At the stop sign turn left.  When the agonizing part of the descent down the mountain ends, good luck finding parking.  Also, needing a map isn't one of listed reasons in Project:What is an article?.  But like I said, just because Muir Woods did the same thing I'm doing here, doesn't make me right :-). -- (WT-en) Colin 18:40, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * Colin: I disagree. I think this would make a good attraction for either Lone Pine or Independence or possibly for the Owens Valley region page. I just don't think there's enough here to make a full article out of. And, yes, I'd say the same about Muir Woods (which could be in Mill Valley or maybe Marin County). --(WT-en) Evan 18:41, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * Thanks for responding! I guess it always feels weird to me to add an attraction listing to a city entry when the attraction isn't in the city.  Maybe I'll just try to get over that :-). -- (WT-en) Colin 18:49, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * Oh, and more seriously... although this is a small article at the moment, it's going to put one heck of a dent into Independence when I merge it in.  While Manzanar is no Louve in terms of complexity, it is going to end up being most of the content in Independence.  Does Manzanar and Manzanar really have a place to go in an Attraction Listing?  Should I delete them?  Just kinda looking for guidance here.-- (WT-en) Colin 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * I think in a lot of cases it makes sense to add an attraction to a city if the attraction isn't in the city but very close by. I think nearby parks and beaches are a good example -- especially if they're not in another city. If you just wouldn't call Independence the "gateway to Manzanar", it might make sense to put the attraction listing in a larger region article -- either Owens Valley or Eastern Sierra. And, yes, I think that if you use the longer attraction listing format, the respect and understand stuff can fit in there quite well. --(WT-en) Evan 19:24, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * Thanks. Today I learned there is such a thing as a long-form attraction listing.  Heh. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:53, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Manzanar


text:
Talk:Maoming

This is looking more like a Wikipedia article than a Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Woodstock 12:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Maoming


text:
Talk:Māori phrasebook

I'd love to see this integrated somewhat into the Phrasebook Expedition. -- (WT-en) Evan 17:58, 4 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Also, I moved this article to correct the spelling and so that the capitalization conforms to the article naming conventions. -- (WT-en) Evan 18:01, 4 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Wikipedia link
I took out the external link to Wikipedia; there's already a twin-page link. See Project:links to Wikipedia for details. --(WT-en) Evan 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (EST)

The Maori Wikipedia is a stub. Should it be linked to? -(WT-en) phma 14:09, 29 Feb 2004 (EST)

Pronunciation Guide
While I've not spent an awful lot of time with the Maori or in New Zealand, I was under the impression that:

Whangarei is said "Fain ga ray"

Whereas:

"wh" as wh in "whale"

should be:

"wh" as f in "fang"

But maybe I'm wrong...

It can make "Whakatane" (Fha ka taa nee) childishly amusing in English... I've even heard NZ college kids making light of it on the radio last week.

(WT-en) Ilkirk 09:28, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * Maori is certainly tricky for English speakers to pronounce. As a general rule the words break up into syllables of consonant-vowel pairs. So Whangarei becomes Wh-a ng-a r-e i, though it does tend to sound like Fong AH ray when spoken in English speakers. To make matters worse there is also a variation in dialects between regions. The really tricky sounds are:

 * wh - Which sounds like f or even like ph as in photograph.
 * ng - sounds like the ng in ping or sing, but with the g part of the sound swallowed or almost unsounded. It is not a natural sound for English speaker as it also gets used at the start and middle of word, not just the end. Some dialect speakers even pronounce the ng almost like k as in kick.

 * As for Whakatane, it can sound like focker tar knee.... -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:02, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

Whangarei
I have lived in NZ for six months. Short time, but long enough to learn that the WHA in Whangarei is truly pronounced more like "Faa" than "Wha" as for example in Whale. Also the example with Whakatane is correct. it is also a clear F sound.

Further to this, please review the following... I've lived in NZ my entire life & have found the previous annotations to be somewhat incorrect. Please accept the following as being accurate:

 * Whangarei sounds more like Fong ar ray.

 * Whakatane sounds more like Fock ar tar neigh.

 * Haere mai (Welcome) sounds like High reh My. The 'r' in Haere is rolled.

We notice that people with Scottish accents pick up Maori with ease as many of the sounds (such as Wh) have that harser note to them & they also roll their R's.

Unfortunately I cannot accurately explain in written english how to pronounce the ng as in nga.

Another thing to note is that Maori is spoken relatively quickly as is English in New Zealand.

Hope this helps, Jeremy.

Stress?
Where does the stress lie in words? Is there a rule? Yes, there is a rule. But I dont remember the website that tells you. Just go look up in... GOOOOGGGGLLLLEEEE!

I read somewhere that NGA in Maori words is said as the NGER in words like singer and banger - where you dont pronounce the ng harshly. So its NOT like finGer... anyway I ended up sitting there saying singer over and over again until I could pronounce nga properly!! When you pick that up, its way easier to say things like Whangarei and Tauranga (although Ngunguru still gets me all tongue twisted!!)

Correct Pronunciation
PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to the way that LOCAL ENGLISH SPEAKERS pronounce Māori because more often than not, they MURDER the sounds. I have heard many Māori themselves pronouncing placenames as Pākehā do (non-Māori NZers) because if we pronounce the "names" correctly, then Pākehā have no idea what place we are talking about, therefore we are reduced to mispronouncing our placenames for the majority Pākehā population in our country!

 * Māori language IS DIALECTAL, as there are different tribes - with each is a different dialect
 * Māori words ALWAYS END WITH A VOWEL e.g. kiA, maorI, haerE, torU
 * Vowels are sounded individually NOT run together e.g. koe = ko + e (koh + eh / kweh)
 * Macrons above a vowel mean that you stress the vowel - this is important because, depending on the word, a stressed vowel can give the word a different meaning: wahine (wa-hee-neh) = woman, wĀhine (wah-hee-neh) = womEn

"ng" is soft - sound it out quickly but don't stress the "g": sings / singer NOT sin-Gs or sin-Ger (South Island Māori usually pronounce "ng" as "k" - remember, dialectal) "r" is rolled - sounds like "dd" in teDDybear or daDDy

Whangārei: fah-ngah-reh-ee  CLOSE TO:  fah-ngah-ray  DEFINITELY NOT:  FONG-ah-ray

Whanganui: fah-ngah-noo-ee  OR hwa-ngah-noo-ee (dialectal difference from Wanganui tribes) NOT: FONG-ah-noo-ee

Haere mai: ha-e-re-ma-ee  CLOSE TO:  "high-re-my"  IF you say it quickly enough

Kia ora:   kee-ah-o-rah  OR  kya-o-rah (the "o" is pronounced as in oar, bore, tore) AGAIN only if you say it quickly enough

Cook Islands Māori
Should that get its own phrasebook, or should the differences just be mentioned here? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 * How different are they from each other? Are they easily mutually intelligible? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The differences are too great to just mention them here, AFAIK. Nurg (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Māori phrasebook


text:
Talk:Maple Canyon

I have removed 2 of the images, as I think that there are too many for an article of this size! Quality is far more important than quantity! (WT-en) Tsandell 11:50, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Maple Canyon


text:
Talk:Maps

Where is this going?
Hmm, I'm not sure where this is going to go as a travel topic. Right now it's sort of a dictionary definition. I dont think I want to start seeing Books, Socks, or the like... Anyone have a plan for this? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:17, 21 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Yep. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 03:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Making maps for Wikivoyage
See the Project:Mapmaking_Expedition about making maps for Wikivoyage.

Outdated
The article is weak overall, but also its age shows: it is written as though physical maps were the primary ones. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I concede it doesn't cover online maps particularly well, but this is nothing to do with age, rather the decisions of its authors (mainly user:SelfieCity and I), and the lack of editors willing to contribute content about online maps. Plunge forward :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maps


text:
Talk:Maputo

I removed "Pestana Inhaca Lodge" and "Pestana Bazaruto Lodge" from the "Mid-Range" section of the "Sleep" category.

Two reasons: 1) At about $300 per night ("Pestana Inhaca Lodge") or about $550 per night ("Pestana Bazaruto Lodge") I would hardly consider them "mid-range". 2) "Pestana Inhaca Lodge" is not in Maputo, but on an island about 40km away, so it's hardly a convenient hotel recommendation for travelers to Maputo itself. "Pestana Bazaruto Lodge" is even more extreme, being located on the island of Bazaruto, which is about 700 km away from Maputo, so it does not belong into the Maputo travel guide by any stretch of the imagination.

 * It's correct to take them out for the Maputo region but instead of deletion it should be better transferred to the correct articles. This is why i revert and then will move the both postings. (WT-en) jan 11:27, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

On "The Base Backpackers": I don't think comments like "the staff is xxyy" based on one single experience are truth- and or useful. I spent a year in mozambique and used the base backpackers a couple of times. The staff has always been helpful (doing the usual: calling cabs, recommending markets, eating stands etc.) and friendly. The one thing I don't like (same with Fatimas) is the rule not to let Mozambicans as visitors enter the hostel, it is open to Mozambicans as guests.

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current one. It's original and beautiful, and gives a more original feel to the locale than just another skyline shot. Texugo (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the current photo is not specific to this city. It could be of a garden anywhere. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's prettier. If you can find a more beautiful view of Maputo, we can have a different conversation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I kind of prefer the top image out of these two. I would definitely be open to different images though. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Igreja da Polana 2013.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Igreja da Polana 2013.jpg

Promotion to Guide level?
What does this article need to be promoted to Guide level? /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Some listings need geo, but this article feels very informative and solid to me. Some additional and nicer pictures would be good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s definitely close to guide, if not already guide, but I would like to see more informative listings in the “nightlife” section, if possible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maputo


text:
Talk:Maracaibo

Felicito atodos por su iniciativa de crear esta pagina. Saludos Alvaro.

PD: pondre un enlace a mi site, donde estoy creando una guia de sitios donde comer en maracaibo. En caso de que no lofreo hacerlo correcatmente espero alguien me ayude la direccion es: http://guiaga.blogspot.com/

Stay safe section
This page needs a "stay safe" section something fierce for European and North American visitors (this 'Voyager is married to a Zuliana, so I'm happy to Plunge Forward) -- MisterCustomer (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maracaibo


text:
Talk:Maradi

This article could really use some fixing by someone that has been to Maradi. I believe the author of this may have been expecting an American/Western experience, and had few good things to say about the city. (WT-en) Fastestdogever 15:53, 11 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Maradi


text:
Talk:Maradona

Um, so if we're going to have a Common scams page, could this just be part of it? I don't think we need an article for each scam. Also, I'm pretty sure we dont do attributions or references like the stuff in italics. (WT-en) Majnoona 17:23, 7 Jun 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Maradona


text:
Talk:Maras

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
I am unsure if the Salineras and Moray (Peru) pages should be assimilated into this one or if they should be left as they are. There is a lot of information that might be difficult to consolidate, but those destinations aren't parks in their own right and are very close to Maras.
 * I agree. Salineras is a place where the salt is produced: not a city & not an archeological site. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maras


text:
Talk:Marathi phrasebook

I like this page, but I have an issue with one thing. In the first paragraph it's written that determining the gender of a noun is easy in Marathi and can be determined from the last letter. I feel that this is very inaccurate. Take some examples:

Masculine

Goda (Horse) palang (Bed) Agnee (Fire)

Feminine

Asha (Hope) Mungee (Ant) Bhint (Wall)

Neuter

Gadav (Donkey) dahi (Yogurt) swapna (Dream)

The point I am trying to make is that Marathi is highly variable when it comes to gender, and there is no real rule that can be followed except to memorize the gender for each word. In fact, I would say that Hindi is much easier in this respect because there are only two genders as opposed to three.

 * Please, by all means, plunge forward and improve the existing text! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:13, 19 January 2010 (EST)

how to say name in marathi?
name (Naa-va)

title: Talk:Marathi phrasebook


text:
Talk:Marbella

Removed Helle Hollis commercial link and others.

Removed DBmarbella commercial advertising.

Removed fuenplaza (a real estate) commercial advertising.

title: Talk:Marbella


text:
Talk:Marble Arch Caves

Marble Arch Caves
An attraction.
 * Redirect to County Fermanagh - (WT-en) Texugo 10:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete/Redirect - No strong feelings either way --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Marble Arch Caves


text:
Talk:Marburg

Eventhough this part of Wikivoyage is english, I would argue that we need an disamb page for Marburg, since its also the german translation of Maribor,Slovenias 2nd largest city and it is very common to call it that way in Austria and probably Germany too. I don't know about the policy for such a problem if it ever occured before. -- (WT-en) Fido 18:00, 16 Sep 2004 (GMT+6)

I have lived half my life near to Marburg (in Hessen, Germany) and haven't before heared of a Marburg in Slovenia. I doubt that is an issue.

I think the Slovenian Marburg is by most germans called Maribor, I dont think there is need for a disamb page.

I don't know about Austrai, but in Germany (and in Marburg) almost everybody calls the Slovenian Marburg Maribor. Maybe we can mention that they are Twin cities (since 1969). -(WT-en) Friedjoff 04:27, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Marburg


text:
Talk:Marfa

The Chinati Foundation visiting page has lots of good info on Marfa and Alpine, ripe for data-mining. --(WT-en) Evan 12:03, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Marfa