Talk:Bangkok/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Subdivisions of Bangkok

I know that "amphoe" is used to describe administrative subdivisions of provinces, but I think "keht" is the more commonly used name for subdivisions of Bangkok. - erzengel - 1423 UTC - 23 Apr 2003

+Bangkok

 -Keht
    -Kwang

+Other provinces

 -Amphoe (Um-per)
    -Tambon
       -Moo Baan (village) 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.126.2 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See: Administrative divisions of Thailand. Also: Amphoe, Tambon, Mubaan, Khet, Khwaeng, ... --hdamm (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Population discrepancy

There are two different numbers as to the number of inhabitants on the site: in the opening sentence, it's 8,538,610 and later on in the statistics table the number changes to 6,355,144. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heiks (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2004 (UTC)

Symbol in Thai version of name

I think that the second Thai version of the name at the top of the article, technically, should also have the symbol ฯ at the end as it is still a shortened form (but often the symbol is missing in both these shortened names). I will check this when possible. I'll also see if I can convince somebody to translate the article into Thai as it seems a shame not to have it in the 'correct' language :-) --KayEss 18:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Officially, the symbol ฯ is to be used only with the first one. Although the second name was a shortenned one, it is considered correct without the symbol. - from a Thai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.147.1.2 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 September 2004 (UTC)

Coastal city?

In what way is this a coastal city? If it's listed as coastal I hope London is too... --KayEss 18:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A part of Bangkok i.e. part of Khet Bangkhuntien is in fact on a coast line -- a fact that many Bangkokians don't know either. The beaches in Bangkok are unfortunately muddy and hence do not make a popular tourist attraction. -- Jakris 12:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question about name

Does Krung mean "city" and Thep "angels", or is it the other way around? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

It is that way round, yes. --KayEss 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, confused by your answer. By "that way round", do you mean the former or the latter? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The former. Mark¹ 06:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BangkokRecorder.com

The link to BangkokRecorder.com is not appropriate for this article. Please stop adding it. If you want to advertise your website there are plenty of other places where you can do so inexpensively. I am the registrant for Bangkok.com yet it would never occur to me to tag an encyclopedia article about the City of Bangkok with a link to Bangkok.com. Take a look at the links that have remained on the article by consensus to get an idea of what sort of link is acceptable. Thanks. --AStanhope 17:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Comment by BangkokRecorder.com: "We have found this wikipedia entry by accident. In no way do we condone spamming or the posting of the link of our site where its not appropriate. We did NOT do so and we are defnitely NOT trying to advertise our site here. We kindly ask the person who was doing so to stop posting our link as it is not appropriate here. Thanks.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.211.93 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual property discussion

I find the somewhat lengthy discussion of copyright issues odd in an article about the city. You don't see such a discussion, for example, in the article about Vancouver, Canada, which also faces this "current issue". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.173.96 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's hardly of major significance to most residents, who are likely more concerned about the homelessness and illegal immigrant worker situation and probably consider it a good thing. Traffic and the stalling over infrastructure, especially mass transit and the airport, are far more important than that, but it gets about three lines. NPOV is also questionable, it reads like something put out by the BSA themselves. Maybe we need to delete it entirely or reduce it to a brief mention, after all this is rife all over Asia and not just Bangkok. --Legalizeit 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Population

I would love it if someone can write some more info on the people of Bangkok, including numbers, but also proportion of nationalities. Etc. And anything else that would be interesting. The article seems incomplete without it. Astrophil —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly how much Bangkok is getting more populous. It all has to do with mobility. Some people are moving out to nearby provinces aided by a boom in car registrations, but generally not too far beyond city limits, as traffic is crushing. (This is not Tokyo with excellent public transport) Then again, tons of multi-story (30 stories is not uncommon!) condos have been under construction and are being built near transportation areas, especially now since urban rail is getting popular. Most likely, the 2000 census was an undercount, as there are countless homes/shacks with little more than concrete paths to them, locals a house away have no idea how to get to the other house, and a census here would be a daunting task indeed, thai people are resourceful though, with the new mega-apartments and condos and megamalls, more shantytowns are being replaced with proper housing, making counts a bit easier. I highly doubt the figures for 2549 (2006) that Bangkok has simply 5.672 million, especially since the 2000 census counted 6.355 million, and Bangkok is getting denser all the time, but let's not get too carried away, maybe 7-7.5 million seems about correct. (not including nearby provinces). Including suburbs, 9-10 million is about right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.72.160 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Population figures for Bangkok are often based on housing registrations (Tabian Baan). However these housing documents are typically help by land owners and most people remain on the document for the house in which they are born. Bangkok has a massive number of trans-migrant workers (in my own experience I rarely meet people who are native to the city) and these people are typically not counted in population figures. I would estimate that there are at least 10M resident at any one time, and probably more. --Chuckygobyebye 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photowars

Might I be so bold as to suggest something with the two new Bangkok photos that are being added and removed at an alarming rate. I think that we can find many more pictures of Bangkok and there is undoubtably reason to have many more pictures of the city available, but there must be a limit to the number within the article. If the new pictures could be uploaded to Wikipedia commons then we should put a Commons link on the article going to all of the pictures that we may want. I do think the two pictures in question are great pictures, but there is no copyright information on either of them. As it stands they are likely to be deleted quite soon. It'd be great if the person who uploaded them could put them on Commons with copyright information and then we'll link to that gallery from this article. I know I have a few pictures I'd like to put up too :-) — KayEss | talk 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to commons is definitely worth adding, as Wikipedia is not a photo album and commons already has many photos of Bangkok, many of them already prepared for articles yet to write. We only need to decide wether we want to link commons:Bangkok or commons:Category:Bangkok. However what is much more disturbing are the comments by the anonymous user, which are a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy, and that about such a minor issue. andy 16:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is sad, and as you say, over something so trivial. — KayEss | talk 06:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that one of the photos (2nd one from the top)is actually overlapping some of the text. I don't know how to fix that so I'll leave that up to the more qualified among you. - T. Desloges (6 January 2006)

Which browser are you using? And what resolution? On my IE6 it looks fine (in any resolution). −Woodstone 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine for me (Firefox, tried various text sizes). The causes of text/picture overlaps are very mysterious though. Mark¹ 18:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bang Makok

"called Bang Makok ("place of olive plums")" - I know this snippet is included in one of the more popular Thailand guide books, but is it actually true, or just one of the many common myths originating in those books?

The Olive plum (Cassine melanocarpa) appears to be native to Australia. The Thai for 'plum' is still 'plum'. And as far as I've been able to ascertain, the original site was, and is, called Bang Kok. TheMadBaron 19:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the original name "Ban Ngok"?--193.27.50.81 12:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The makok is actually Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz, according to the Thai Royal Institute's dictionary. However, there seems to be no real evidence concerning the origin of the name Bangkok. The Phra Racha Wang Derm Restoration Foundation says here that it might have derived from Bang Koh (Koh meaning island, perhaps referring to the geography carved out by the canals). This site offers a more extensive explanation, but unfortunately doesn't give references. Paul C 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bangkok - There is no one certain definition of the name Bangkok, it is either one of two; 'Village of Plums' or 'Village of Olives'. Bangkok is infact a nearby village rather than the city known to foreigners.Ukuser (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about a book

I wonder if anyone more familiar than I with the city has read Bangkok 8, a 2003 mystery novel by John Burdett? If so, could you comment on its authenticity or lack of it? I've only visited there a couple of times, and not for some years, but the flavor of Burdett's version of Bangkok seems very true-to-reality. . . . --Michael K. Smith 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've actually picked up that book and read it, and while not entirely accurate, the book does well in describing the city. I'm not sure if some of the inaccuracies are simply because Bangkok is such a rapidly changing city, the author's mistake, or simply creative license. Hope that helps. Kallimina (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IPA transcription for full name of Bangkok

Can someone provide the IPA transcription for the full name of Bangkok? 128.12.20.195 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Note

I just went through the article and took care most of the grammar problems and such. 134.114.59.41 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

City Photo Guide link

Dear BKK topic editors,

Based on Astanhope's suggestion, I present Bangkok City Photo Guide for your consideration for inclusion in the Bangkok article.

• Bangkok City Photo Guide [1]

Here is a list of reasons why I think a link to this site will add value to the article.

1. It provides unique content about Bangkok organized by area and category to help visitors and locals navigate the city.

2. It empowers local businesses of all sizes with free internet presence.

3. It provides realistic views of Bangkok's tourist destinations.

4. It includes satellite maps (where available) and/or street maps in every listing.

5. It contains minimal and unintrusive advertisements.

6. It is an ongoing project, which will continue to grow and include other areas of city.

I apologize for rushing in with a link directly in the article and await your decision.

--Cityphoto 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mark - I asked Cityphoto to do precisely this on the Talk page and he did so eagerly. The question/conversation revolves around the link. It should be here for the sake of the conversation. I've restored it for now. Perhaps once a consensus about the link in the article proper has been reached we can nix it from the discussion here. Thx, Khon Dii! --AStanhope 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO we don't need any external photo links - there is wikimedia commons with many free photos of Bangkok. Wikipedia is NOT a web directory, and if we include one then why not another? andy 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The main difference is that City Photo Guide is not just another collection of Royal Palace photos. It's more like photo yellow pages with local business listings and maps. --Cityphoto 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The song of Krungthep Mahanakorn

I've found a link of the song Krungthep Mahanakorn in http://www.hawaii.edu/thai/materials/, but I've no idea if this was sung by Asanee-Wasan Chotikul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.50 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. -- Lerdsuwa 06:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Population (again)

I see this has been raised twice before on the talk page, but with no resolution. We currently have three different population figures (in the lead, infobox and Demographics section)- the different numbers seem to be for province v.BMA, and 1990 v. 2000 census. Obviously we should be using the newer figure, but does anyone have a preference for province or BMA? Henry^Flower 10:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've always prefered the metropolitan area as it reflects more accurately the population of the city and its suburbs. A province boundary is often arbitrary not relevent to the natural boundary of a city. For example, my home town of Melbourne has a metro area population of ~3,600,000 but the actual 'City of Melbourne' has a population of around 50,000. Which is the more accurate population of the city? :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Population episode three

I'm living in Bangkok since 2004 and I have this to add about its population:

15,000,000-18,000,000 people live here, but very few are registered as Bangkok citizens (because it's hard to change your home address in Thailand).

During elections and big holidays Bangkok gets more or less empty because everyone goes home to their home towns/villages (you have to vote in the town you're registered).

I suggest the info box should say ~15,000,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.114.202 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've standardised the numbers on the last official figure, from the 2000 census. I've removed the 2005 estimate (from a random, unofficial website) from the infobox. I've no idea what the reference to a 2004 census was meant to mean- the Thai statistical office doesn't mention one in 2004, and I very much doubt they'd have two in four years. If there's a reputable source for a more recent estimated figure, for the whole metropolitan area, or for unregistered residents, then they should be added, but wild guesses should not. Henry^Flower 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Common "mis-spellings"

As a Thai speaker/reader I would like to add the following comments. If people agree with me maybe we should change the main pages too, but I'll start with just these comments.

When transcribing from Thai script to English you lose a load of information - just like when converting a color movie to black and white. This "lost information", along with poor English skills, has led to countless errors in transcribed Thai (the Thais call the transcribed text karaoke).

1) "Krungthep" should be Grungtep - There are no K-sounds or H-sounds in the Thai script

2) "Koh" should be Goh, as in Goh Pa Ngan (the island with the full moon parties), Goh Chaang (the elephant island).

3) Singha beer should be Sing Beer

4) The Prime Minster's name is Taksin Shinawat - not Thaksin ShinawaTRA.

In general the letters K,V,L,R,S are used incorrectly because the corresponding Thai chars have different meanings depending on their context.

/Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.114.202 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You should probably read the RTGS article. All is explained there. Henry^Flower 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If the key to the math task 1+1=? says "3" you might want to question that key. This RTGS system you refer to is messed up, simply because it's written by people who don't speak English. However I'll start posting on the RTGS page instead.

Thanks /Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.143.9 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, RTGS is a bag of shite, I agree. But Wikipedia's not the place to campaign to reform/replace it. Henry^Flower 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Singha Beer certainly should remain the same as that's how it's written on the bottles and cans.

The "k" sounds used when writing English transliterations of Thai words is actually the un-aspirated, "soft" k sound, as found in Koh Pha Ngan, Koh Chang, etc. To write the English-style "k" sound it's usually written "kh", as in "Sukhumvit".

Although the un-aspirated "k" sounds closer to "g" to the untrained ear, it still wouldn't be accurate to write "Goh Pha Ngan" as the starting letter is neither "g" nor the English-style "k", but the un-aspirated "k" for which there is no equivalent letter in the English alphabet. "Koh" is the accepted standard and is how the word for "island" is nearly always written (except for some instances of "Ko"), so it would be best to keep it like that for this and other similar articles.

Similarly for "t" and "th", "p" and "ph", etc.Dantilley 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What Thais always fail to understand is that there are a lot of languages out there using Latin scripts. Letters like K, G, and stuffs are pronounced differently in various languages. Just because the English K is aspirated, therefore unsuitable for the Thai ก which is unaspirated? Anyone who speaks English would know that the English G is not the same as ก either. I do not really like RTGS since it cannot distinguish the very main difference like short and long vowels. (They can use some diacritics to do that job, like in IAST. Pinyin can even tell the tones when written in full script!) Still, I don't see any reason why the letter K cannot represent ก? It's not English, it's just Thai language written in Latin script. Many languages also have unaspirated K, do they change it to G when using in English context? The point of it is that normal people can pronounce it roughly, and ones who study can pronounce it more correctly. kinkku ● ananas 11:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For ph and th, you might be interested to know that IPA use the same, just in superscripts. kinkku ● ananas 11:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

....: I should like to propose the link: http://www.bangkokresidents.com as an external link to a site about Bangkok as it provides photographs, information, listings, important information and is under constant management and change. The site is written by people with years of experience in Bangkok, adding up to over 30 years in total and so what is written is from experience and not just by someone who has been here a year or two.:..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengkysan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

/ On the subject of Thai language I have lived here 14 years and I'll tell you that there is most definately a K sound in the Thai language. Grung Thep is correct and Goh is correct ( Goh as in Got ) but the words Krap and Kha are most definately used with a K sound and not a G sound. I have just clarified this in a room full of Thais ( 30 in all ) and they all say the same. I do agree that the sound is very close to both the G and K sounds for almost all words that we might spell with a K. The province / town of Kanchanaburi is said with a G sound too, but he tone is so slight that is generally comes across as a K sound more than a G sound. / Mengkysan 09:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Meng

Changed "Chinese run pawnshops" to "pawnshops"

To call pawnshops, that fence stolen goods, "Chinese run" is a primitive form of relative Orientalism: it attempts to re-present the homegrown crime as somehow from abroad, from an "orient", here China. The fact is that sinoThai are Thai in the modern sense, not "Chinese" unto the next generation, and no more likely to be crooks than Tai people.Spinoza1111 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review needed

This article has potential to be a featured article omeday but we neeed a peer review to figure what really needs to be improved. I'll try to get one. Felixboy 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also - Bangkok University? Bangkok University FC?

Why does "see also" include Bangkok University but not any other universities in Bangkok? Bangkok university is neither the largest or the oldest. And there are many other universities in Bangkok that argubly have more importance to this article (Chula is much older, Thammasat is historically significant, Ramkhamhaeng probably has the most students, etc.). Even more ridiculous is why their football team, "Bangkok University FC," also included in the list? --Melanochromis 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

just fixed it. Not an issue anymore. --Melanochromis 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

HELLO TO EVERYONE WHO LOVES TO DISCUSS ABOUT BANGKOK, I'm a Bangkokian and a very proud one i must say. I have been do a heck load of editing, a HUGE heckload of editing on the Bangkok website. I need everyones help to give me really accurate information and continue to edit this page until it reaches an equilibrium with the readers and editors. Sometimes I have sketchy info thats in the top of my head and is distorted, please help me correct. Also, for the wikipedia guys, I have no idea how ot upload pics so u better find pics for my grand city. PLease, itd be really nice, pics of the skyline, like a really nice one, i suggest www.skyscrapercity.com and go to the Thai forum and talk to the guys for their copyright. Other pictures can come from say, the clubs of Bangkok, Vertigo, Sirocco, Bed Supperclub. We're the biggest party city behind London and New York so you should get clubs up there. Another thing is the tourism, why is there nothing. We've been on the top 10 tourist cities for like 50 years in a row so more tourist information. I've gotten you guys started. I would also like to thank the wikipedia editors for creating a gorgeous article about current events. GUYS, my fellow Bangkokians, KON KRUNG thung lai (CITY PPL), u need to get cracking n help me edit my city. We're getting hampered by Tokyo and Hong Kong n Singapore. Its a lot of work, i've gotten u guys started. START EDITTING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.35 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Assessment - Article Expansion

An excellent article overall - far more thorough than many other articles I've seen on cities. The history section is quite short, though. I gather, from this short section, that perhaps there isn't much to be said, but at the very least, some years would be good. When did it "begin as a small trading center and port community"? LordAmeth 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourist mecca???

"The city's wealth of cultural sites makes it one of the world's most popular tourist destinations." Is there any evidence for this? Many tourists come to Bangkok, but most don't stay more than a few days: they head to the beaches or the islands. BKK is too hot, too smelly, and the traffic is hideous. Those that stay are more interested in the nightlife and cheap shopping. There are some interesting cultural sites (Grand Palace, Wat Pho, Wat Arun), but you can visit most of them within a couple of days days.Widmerpool 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow in adding this and still unsure of the protocols here (which is why I am not editing yet): Just about everyone who flies into Thailand flies directly into Bangkok, so in essence, it is a "popular tourist destination". From Bangkok, you can reach several historical sites in Thailand easily, so most tours start from here. Bangkok also has ready access to rivers, so many, many boat tours start here as well. Kallimina (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Suvarnabhumi Airport picture

Surely we can get a better (and if possible smaller) picture of the new Suvarnabhumi Airport than the currently used one? Perhaps one taken from the AOT web site Dantilley 05:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A population citation is needed.

There is no citation for the vague statement saying simply "the city's population must be twice what the census says". I'm sorry, but you must cite something like that!

Metro area is not = City area

Commuters not = city population —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McMatterson (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Long lists of institutions

Why are there long lists of hospitals and universities in this article. This is not common for city articles. They do not strike me as of primary interest. If they are useful at all, they should be moved into their own article and referenced. −Woodstone 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

This article looks like nationalistic propaganda. 211.116.87.131 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

This article is currently using the Thai province infobox; shouldn't the city infobox be used as it can accomodate more info? --BrokenSphere 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Bangkok?

The section on parks mentions that Bangkok is known for it's parks. In my opinion this is in error. Central Bangkok has only one large park (Lumpini, which is remakable) but the city is notable for its lack of other green spaces. The other parks mentioned in this section are very far from the city centre. I don't want to be overly critical of Bangkok (I live there) but there's a desperate shortage of parks, and no children's playgrounds whatsoever. --Chuckygobyebye 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

SET location

Unless I am wrong, the Stock Exchange of Thailand, mentioned in the 'Roads' section of the article, is not actually on Wittayu, but on Ratchadapisek, next to the Queen Sirikit Convention center. See the SET link: http://www.set.or.th/en/contact/contact.html. Wittayu doesn't have much except the US Embassy + residence, and the huge and new All Seasons (or is it 4 Seasons?) place where the Conrad is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All Season's Place is where you are referring to. Thanon Wittayu also has the British Embassy, the Swiss Embassy and many other office buildings, e.g. The British Chamber Of Commerce.Dantilley (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bangkok@night.jpg

Image:Bangkok@night.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

English?

"...the eastern side which pertains the majority of Bangkokians is called subjectively as Krung Thep, the name of the city itself (also called 'Pranakhorn' side)."

Wow. Just...wow. That is horrid. Stick to the Thai Wiki, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Krung Thep or an English equivalent surely?

Why is this article called Bangkok? It hasn't been called that for over two hundred years! They're not even the same city. The King founded a new city called Krung Thep so surely this article ahould be renamed that or an English equivalent of it? Note that Bangkok is not the English equivalent of Krung Thep, they're two completely different entitie., Either "Bangkok" should redirect here, or surely a Bangkok article should be about the historical city from over two hundred years ago. Deamon138 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the English name Bangkok, not บางกอก, and correctly refers to Krung Thep Mahanakhorn as it is known internationally. You may want to continue this discussion at Talk:Thailand#Capital City - wrong name? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1688 map

Description of the village of Bangkok (lower left, M), next to a fortress built by the French (A) in 1688.

Siege of the French fortress of Bangkok by the Siamese revolutionary forces of Petracha, and "village of Bangkok" on the other side of the river in 1688.

Here is a 1690 French map of the village of Bangkok (shown in an enclosure by the letters M), next to the fortress built by the French at that time (A) on the left bank of the Chao Praya in 1688. Feel free to introduce the map in the article, for example in the history section. For more details see France-Thailand relations. PHG (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the image is turned 90°, so that the upper edge points to the east. Actually "the enclosure by the letters M" is today's Thonburi. What we call the Bangkok of today is where the big fortress is (in the middle of the picture). --hdamm (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another view of Bangkok in 1688. The caption describes the "Fortress of Bangkok" held by the French and being besieged by the troops of Petracha in the upper part (left bank of the Chao Praya river). It also mentions "the village of Bangkok on the other side of the river" ("De l'autre coté de la rivière est la ville de Bancoq", beginning of line 4). Apparently, at least for French people of the period, all the area was designated as "Bangkok" already... Anyway, one of these maps would be a nice addition to the article, as they document the small scale of Bangkok in the 17th century, especially compared to Ayutthaya or even Lopburi. PHG (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note, that in both French maps the river Chao Phraya flows from left to right, so that the fort in the upper part of the map is actually on the eastern bank (compare these two French maps with a map by La Loubère from 1687, where the flow of the Chao Phraya is indicated by an arrow). It seems, that another river flows from the Chao Phraya down to the lower edge of the map. This is Khlong Bangkok Yai, formerly the original flow of the Chao Phraya before the king of the Ayutthaya kingdom dug a shortcut (probably around 1521), to drastically reduce the travelling time from the Gulf of Siam to the capital. Today the shortcut - roughly from the former Thonburi Railway Station to Wat Arun - is called "Chao Phraya", while the original flow is called "Khlong Bangkok Yai". It might be, that also the western part (today's Thonburi) was originally called Bangkok, as the newly dug shortcut would also cut the original settlement of Bangkok into two halves. --hdamm (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate word

The city's mix of Thai, Chinese, Indian, Buddhist, Muslim and Western cultures combined with the driving force of the Thai economy makes it increasingly attractive to foreigners both for business and pleasure and has made the city one of the world's top tourist destinations.

I think "leisure" would be far more appropriate than "pleasure"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgienr (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to the word "pleasure". "Business or pleasure" is a commonly-used phrase for characterizing travel. For example, when I landed at an airport in Canada, the customs agent asked if my visit was for business or pleasure. Since I was on vacation, the correct answer was "pleasure". 72.208.56.42 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

entire article needs a re-write

Why does this entire article read like a massive joygasm? It's almost like it was written by a travel agency. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate info.

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a misleading statement about pawn shops in the crime section of Bangkok.

"abetted by ubiquitous pawn shops where thieves can anonymously sell stolen goods."

The statement above is untrue. It's a lie written out of utter ignorance. Pawnshops in Thailand are heavily regulated. Thieves can NOT sell stolen goods anoymously.

Someone please remove that statement. I tried to edit it out, but unable to. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.193.118 (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I've added a {{fact}} tag to the statement. Should it not be supported by a source in time, then please feel free to remove it yourself, or, if the article is still semi-protected, remove the information yourself. You can also sign up for your own username, which will allow you to edit semi-protected articles after four days.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the Sister cities section, it should read "Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan" instead of "Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan". They are sister cities with Fukuoka Prefecture, not Fukuoka City. Thank you to whoever can make the change.

 Done, appears to be correct and consistent with the other article. Thanks for the correction. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...

This article needs some serious cleanup, as already mentioned above. It really does read like a travel broshure — and a very long one, at that. But what I'd like to point out in particular would be the section with all the culture goodies. It does seem to make sense, but there are absolutely no references here for them. Sadly, I would like it to be kept, but if no references are added, someone will probably drop by and decide to remove all the information.

Also, is it just me, or is the article too long? Lady Galaxy 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Crime

There are no basis to support that a higher crime rate is related to illegal immigration. In the section Crime the following statement "A dramatic increase in the number of illegal immigrant workers in Thailand has resulted in many of the crimes being committed by these illegal immigrants." is supported by the reference [2]; however, in this reference there is no clear mention to this fact. On page 4, it only says "These illegal immigrant workers also committed crimes and spread some new diseases to the Thai people.", but it doesn't mention the proportion of the crime rate between illegal immigrants is higher that the rest of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.137.56 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bangkok is no more

Way is this article still called Bangkok, it isn't called Bangkok and hasn't been known as Bangkok in Thailand for 200 years when that king dude, King Rama the first, built his capital on the fishing port Bangkok and renamed it, Bang in Thai means village and makok (where the kok comes from means Olives or plums or even a mixture of both, so Bangkok means 'Village of Olives' or 'Village of Plums' or even 'Village of a Small Fruit Salad'. It is now Krung Thep meaning 'city of angels', but that is the short version the whole name is KrungThep Mahankhon Amorn Rattanakosin Mahintara Yudthaya Mahadilok Pohp Noparat Rajathanee Bureerom Udomrajniwes Mahasatarn Amorn Pimarn Avaltarnsatit Sakatattiya Visanukram Prasit; which in Thai iswrittn as one word of 152 letters or 64 syllables. If you want the full translation I have it, but please reply directly to me on my talk page. Cheers! 'The Ninjalemming' 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated above in #Krung Thep or an English equivalent surely?, this article is about the English name Bangkok, not บางกอก, and correctly refers to Krung Thep Mahanakhorn as it is known internationally. We are concerned with the name's meaning in English, not in Thai. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sister Cities

How are we determining the list of "Sister Cities"?

The wikipedia Town twinning article doesn't identify the 'authoritative' source. Sister Cities International web site doesn't show these same "sister cities". Likewise, List of twin towns and sister cities doesn't include anything between Turkey and Thailand (which, of course, may be an oversight).

• Was the "sister cities" section meant to be a casual association list (which, to me, would be content of questionable value), or
• Do "sister cities" come from a formal source/list of 'twins' (and if so, what is that authority/reference)? - Thaimoss 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

TAT

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Borndistinction (talk • contribs) 09:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Airports - All Thai Air Domestic Flights as of March 29, 2009 fly out of Suvarnabhumi

"Thai Airways...now use the airport for domestic flights..." All Thai Air domestic flights now fly out of Suvarnabhumi (ref Thai Airways website 4-12-09). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.143.181 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So who kept reverting the collage graphics back to the map image

There's an asshole who kept reverting the main Bangkok picture on the top right back to the map image. I'm sure it'd have been better with the collage...please do not be a NUISANCE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avcomth (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP ADDING ENORMOUS PICTURES

I'm a Bangkokian and I love my city skyline but I think the constant addition of another picture with our skyline in it is just too much. There are nearly 10 skyline pictures, and over 10 pictures about the transport system. Is that all that Bangkok has? Please look at articles for London,New York, and Paris and see how clean and organized and do not only refer to the major selling points of their city.

You do not see pictures of the Manhattan skyline in the entire New York City article, and you do not see pictures of London's architecture as well. It is very well balanced.

Could someone please delete these blatant pictures, it is not only an eyesore but misrepresents the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.236.183 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Any songs about Bangkok?

List of songs about Bangkok
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

official name

The official name is Krungthepmahanakornamornratanakosinmahintarayutthayamahadilokphopnopparatrajathaniburiromudomrajaniwesmahasatharnamornphimarnavatarnsathitsakkattiyavisanukamprasit, so why isn't that stated to be the official name?--CafeDelKevin (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is the full ceremonial name, not the official name. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 03:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't even mentioned here.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, under the section #Full name. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

English: The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Indra and built by Vishnukarma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.157.235 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

University edit war

There has been a slow, low-level, edit-war going on for several months over the order in which Bangkok's universities are listed. I've warned the most recent IP editor involved, at User talk:124.120.77.199, and asked them to come here to discuss it. If anyone thinks the order should be changed, please explain your reasoning here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, User talk:124.120.132.57 this time - same IP range, so probably the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This page should be called "Krung Thep"

Quoting the QI Book of General Ignorance: "Bangkok was the name of a small fishing port that used to exist before King Rama I moved his capital there in 1782, built a city on the site and renamed it. ... For Europeans (and every single one of their encyclopaedias) to go on calling the capital of Thailand Bangkok is a bit like Thais insisting that the capital of Britain is called Billingsgate or Winchester." N4m3 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The common English name is "Bangkok": every map, every guide, every place you e.g. by tickets to travel there, every news report uses "Bangkok". A good example is London - I don't know what it is in Thai but in e.g. French or Spanish it is "Londres", a related but quite different name. Even though the French language would have no difficulties with "London" no-one expects the article here to change its title to match the English spelling and pronunciation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this is the English language Wikipedia, and the English language name for the Thai capital is "Bangkok". In fact, even Thailand uses "Bangkok" as the English language name of its capital - it's what all the road signs say. (And we should most definitely not believe everything we hear on QI - the program is designed to make Alan Davies look stupid, not to further human knowledge) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle taxi / tuk-tuk fares

I changed the section on motorcycle taxis and tuk-tuks slightly to include a mention of the sign boards which are commonly in place quoting prices to nearby destinations, thus meaning that the fares are fixed and not negotiable. Dantilley (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

i delete http: // on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bangkok/185022688185306#!/pages/Bangkok/185022688185306 because it can not open

sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.90.75 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Education

The Education section mentions a small number of Bangkok's best-known universities. In the past few days, User:Palmykrongkan has been adding King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok and King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. While I don't doubt the quality of those institutions, I don't really think they count amongst Bangkok's top internationally acclaimed universities - but Palmykrongkan is being persistent in re-adding them after I've reverted the additions. Also, there has been an on-and-off slow edit war about the order of the others, with presumably students changing them round. So, can I ask for thoughts on which institutions should be mentioned in this section? Is there an objective measure anywhere so we could move from what looks purely subjective to, say, something like "The XXXX list of the world's top universities includes A, B and C"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 58.9.57.35 just added King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi - reverted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Topography/Climate

It is more than a slight exaggeration to say

"Often after a downpour, water in canals and the river overflows the banks, resulting in massive floods."

I sugegst changing this to something like

Occasionally after a downpour, water in canals and the river overflows the banks, resulting in floods in some areas.

Markjholloway (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

External Links \ Tourism \ Hotels in Bangkok

In which form will it be appropriate to add external link to Hotels in Bangkok Search Engine?

Here's the link: Hotels in Bangkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBloggerhost (talk • contribs) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Thai stock exchange.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Thai stock exchange.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 8 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:SIAM SQUARE 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:SIAM SQUARE 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bhumibol Bridge At Night .jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bhumibol Bridge At Night .jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Skyline at night panorama picture

If you look at the high rise in the bottom left corner, second row in , 7th apartment up......

There is a NAKED LADY!!!! very nice indeed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.191.13 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has been vandalised

Someone's vandalised the article with something rude and taken away the infobox. Someone needs to fix this. Eternities (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed already. andy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Ratchaprasong and Sukhumvit skylines of Bangkok, the capital of and largest city in Thailand, with Lumphini Park in the center, as viewed from the Sathon District. Known in Thai as Krung Thep ("city of angels"), it became the capital in 1768 after the destruction of Ayutthaya by Burmese invaders.Photo: Benh Lieu Song

Merge flood-related stuff

Currently there are three unconnected bits:

• the second paragraph of Bangkok#Topography and Climate
• the section Bangkok#2011 floods under Current Issues
• a wikilink to the 2010 floods (not mentioned in the text), in Bangkok#See also

I think all these should go under Topography and Climate. Having a Current Issues section at all looks a bit recentist to me. It would have to be moved out of there anyway once the floods are over, and back in for next year's rainy season. Sections shouldn't come and go like the tide.--88.73.158.36 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear 88.73.158.36, I heartily agree. See To-do list for Bangkok up top, which is a good idea, but seems to be escaping notice. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed from article

It doesn't fit in with the current narrative (too detailed), but the ref could be useful elsewhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The industry took off in the 1960s to serve some 700,000 American soldiers who took leave in the city during the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="Altman2002">{{cite book|last=Altman|first=Dennis|title=Global Sex|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jrMB8V2DWjsC&pg=PA11|accessdate=8 April 2012|date=1 September 2002|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-01605-4|page=11}}</ref>

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bangkok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

Article is not particularly well written. A lot of scruffy paragraphs which are not concise. History is not adequate.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Considering it is a capital city sourcing in parts is poor. Its uses many poor quality sources and entire paragraph unreferenced.

1. C. No original research:

There are entire paragraphs which are unsourced and look as if somebody living in the city wrote them.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

The article is very long as expected but it needs a major injection of quality and to be better written more/concise in parts.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

No problems I can see with neutrality

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm failing this as I feel the problems with it are too numerous to make it worth putting it on hold. The prose is not the quality of a GA. Many paragraphs are unsourced and contain badly written text. Better quality sources could be used to write this article. At present I feel it has quite a long way to go before reaching GA. Start focusing on comprehension/concision. History section is not adequate for such a major city. Look in google books and try to replace a lot of the sources and source/improve the quality of text for the unsourced parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GA follow-up

Thanks for the prompt review. I guess the CE Guild would be able to help with the prose, once other issues have been dealt with. I'm interested in the current references—which are the ones that aren't up to par? As for the lack of citations, I guess you're referring primarily to the Cityscape section. The only sources I've found that provide an overview of the city's neighbourhoods are travel guides, and by their nature I don't think they'd be considered very reliable nor comprehensive for such information. It could be trimmed down to mention only directly citable facts, but I didn't think such information would be considered contentious. Also, how would you suggest condensing and focusing the article? Which specific sections should be summarised, and which (apart from History) expanded? There are a few Bangkok history books and a few urban studies books that have a chapter dedicated to the city, though with Google Books previews being limited several library trips maybe required. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

When I have a moment I'll edit it, it would be difficult to route out exactly until I look into the research myself. The bulk of material is there in terms of topics, you've done a good job on that but its need major copyediting and wider research really to be an effective good article on the topic. I'll probably begin going through condensing and adding citation tags where needed. Hope this is OK. I'd say first of all if you could begin improving the history section, the key is for it to be both comprehensive and concise. Look in google books, you'd be amazed what you can pick up in decent books even if just snippets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bangkok City Scape

(Originally posted at User talk:Paul_012)

I am wondering why you removed the photo of the Silom area. The photo that it replaced is sub standard, low res and is for the most part the sky?

The photo that I used is High res, is representative of the "city scape" and far more reasonable of a photo then the one you restored. I see in your history that you do a lot of edits of Thailand and am wondering if you feel that night photo of the Silom area (Financial district) is NOT representative of the true cityscape of Bangkok, and readers would be better served looking at the clouds in the sky over Bangkok?? talk--WPPilot 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Plaza is historically and politically important, and I believe having a photo of it in the article is appropriate. The photo isn't supposed to represent the cityscape; it's used to illustrate the paragraph beginning with "Bangkok's historic centre is the Rattanakosin Island in Phra Nakhon District." In editing the article, I tried to use images covering the various different aspects of the city, and showing different neighbourhoods. Silom already appears in the infobox, and in the photo File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg, which is prominently featured a little lower down the Cityscape section. I think having three photos of the same city block would be a bit of overkill.

The problem with Bangkok is that it's so spread out that there isn't a distinct CBD with a familiar skyline that can be claimed to represent the city. File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg is currently the best thing we have, but since it's a wide image, it doesn't really lend itself to be placed at the top of the section. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

PS The image I originally used was actually File:Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall P1120862.JPG. It was changed somewhere along the way. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why then would you not replace the photo with the photo that you mention and rather just use a low res photo of the sky, with The Royal Plaza just a small portion of the picture? That photo is for the most part, of the sky and really has no practical use as it is SO LOW RES. The page HARDLY has 3 photos of the same area, the State building is miles away from Silom, Silom is considered the Financial district and the photo that I placed upon the page is true High Res, and would provide users with far more options for reuse by the public. Regarding the cropped Wide image, it is a cropped wide image, it is not a whole image as no camera shoots in that perspective and while it is a nice image, the crop lends itself use outside of Wikipedia. Silom is not as you put it "same city block" as the other photos, it is the financial district of Bangkok, hardly the same area in any way as the State building.. Perhaps if you were to crop the 90% of blue sky out of the low res photo it might carry some more value but frankly speaking as a professional photographer that has been published all over the world it has NO real value to the story unless it was to be reshot, in proper format and scale using a real camera, rather then someone's phone shot done without consideration for perspective, resolution or composition. talk--WPPilot 11:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced both the photos, and cropped another one in the section. I don't think the State Tower is visible in any of the images, but I was referring to the Dusit Thani Hotel appearing three times. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you plan to obtain the rights from the people who are in the photo that you have used now? I see at least 2 faces in the cropped photo in violation of global copyright laws? It looks to me like you are determined to do whatever you want with this page you have done so much editing upon, please correct me if I am off track here but you seem to be taking this personally. Also how on EARTH does that photo represent the cityscape of Bangkok??? talk--WPPilot 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think that's wholly relevant. I don't think any of the faces in that image (apart from King Chulalongkorn's) is identifiable. Also, personality rights are distinct from copyright, and Wikipedia policy allows the use of personally identifiable images anyway. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Personality rights. Yes, I have contributed to the majority of the article, but I am well aware that no one WP:OWNs it. I'm just trying to suggest edits that are the most constructive toward Wikipedia's goals. Sorry if I came across otherwise.

I'd like to point out that I do appreciate your contributions. It's just that the last three Bangkok images you uploaded aren't that great, compared to, say, your FP of the Wat Arun guardians. Keep in mind that apart from aesthetic considerations, images used in Wikipedia must have the proper encyclopaedic value to help the reader better understand the article. I've removed your images from the Si Lom article because the portion of the road north of Sala Daeng Intersection is Ratchadamri Road, not Si Lom. Please don't take it personally either.

Regarding your last comment, allow me to quote my above reply: "The photo isn't supposed to represent the cityscape; it's used to illustrate the paragraph beginning with 'Bangkok's historic centre is the Rattanakosin Island in Phra Nakhon District.' "--Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You CLEARLY are on a quest to remove my photos and I do take it personally, as I have yet to find a single photo that you have taken on WP. You OWN Thailand, while I came here, to Thailand to do photos for Wikipedia, of Thailand, I can see that your quest to keep me from doing so is PERSONAL, and your attack is unjust and unfounded.

Go get a camera and have a nice time. You are out of line and I will bring this to the attention of admins. Cheers and good luck with your Wikipedia pages as these are YOUR pages, not the publics. I don't have time for this and I should not have tried to add my images to YOUR pages, forgive me. Have fun with your new camera & good luck with your pages! talk

Good luck to you too. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bangkok/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B Reduce usage of subsections in favor of complete paragraphs under main heading. Cite sources for facts. WP:CITE, WP:FOOT Implement properly formatted references. WP:CITET Place a skyline image in the infobox. Consider using {{Infobox City}} Place coat of arms, city seal and/or city flag in infobox. Alan.ca 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

Please rephrase the following language, located in the summary at the top of the page, by removing 'exotic appeal': "The city's vibrant street life and cultural landmarks, as well as its notorious red-light districts, have given it an exotic appeal."

Reason for change: The word exotic implies a foreign perspective externally viewing Thai culture/phenomena. Given that Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, this language should be replaced with a more neutral phrasing.

Suggested rephrase: "The city is known for its vibrant street life and cultural landmarks, as well as its notorious red-light districts."

Thank you.

70.61.84.234 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Good point. Cannolis (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation of BKK

Hi there, The pronunciation of BKK should be: ˈbæŋkɒk and not ko:k

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bangkok?s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.114.224 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Although as local pronunciation, it should /bɑːŋkɒk/ not /bæŋkɒk/ 171.97.1.125 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Both the English and Thai pronunciations are presented in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Eight million cars vehicles

The often reported figure refers to the cumulative total of registered cars vehicles since 1979, and doesn't take into account that many of them no longer exist. Also, such detailed figures and citations should go into the article body; the lead section should only summmarise the main facts. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/cg/cityhall.php?pidx=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 09:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The ref was originally introduced as an archive link to the Wayback Machine, but that link actually returns a robots.txt error. I've removed it, since the statement's quite adequately supported by the other existing ref. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to Krung Thep

Wouldn't it be better, to move the article to "Krung Thep"? You know, in English language, Bangkok sounds awkward and increasingly more people notice that. 112.198.79.149 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not according to WP:COMMONNAME. - Takeaway (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to rename the article to Krung Thep because there really isn't a city in Thailand called Bangkok - the natives don't use this name for more than 2 centuries lolz. It will be like calling London Winchester... My info is from The Book of General Ignorance--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? The Thai government uses "Bangkok" ( see at www.thaigov.go.th ) Seligne (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. If they call it Krung Thep nobody would know what it is. The whole world except the Thailand population call it Bangkok. We need people from Thailand to share some info on this. --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci, you might actually want to read WP:COMMONNAME first. - Takeaway (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bangkok. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/22/thailand.water.rising.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305120205/http://www.tri.chula.ac.th:80/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html to http://www.tri.chula.ac.th/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120152600/http://www.port.co.th/pat/topic7/stat_012.pdf to http://www.port.co.th/pat/topic7/stat_012.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eng.gov.spb.ru/figures/ities
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806191943/http://www.manila.gov.ph:80/localgovt.htm to http://www.manila.gov.ph/localgovt.htm#sistercities

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Bangkok's oldest name

What is Bangkok's oldest name? 119.46.190.52 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

this article needs more references

There are a number of paragraphs without citations, as well as long stretches of text with just one or two citations. —howcheng {chat} 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Bangkok. 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/20131112051933/http://rirs3.royin.go.th/word24/word-24-a3.asp to http://rirs3.royin.go.th/word24/word-24-a3.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302033915/http://www.wangdermpalace.org/thonburi/index_thai.html to http://www.wangdermpalace.org/thonburi/index_thai.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219220002/http://203.155.220.230/info/passbkk/frame.asp to http://203.155.220.230/info/passbkk/frame.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016093625/http://iad.bangkok.go.th/sites/default/files/internew/623-55%20new.pdf to http://iad.bangkok.go.th/sites/default/files/internew/623-55%20new.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207064853/http://www.tourism.go.th/2010/upload/filecenter/file/stat_2554/Sep/Update53%20on%206sep/bangkok.pdf to http://www.tourism.go.th/2010/upload/filecenter/file/stat_2554/Sep/Update53%20on%206sep/bangkok.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911034352/http://www.thairath.co.th/corp/index?subMenu=info to http://www.thairath.co.th/corp/index?subMenu=info
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923083010/http://www.exat.co.th/statistics/10/12/ to http://www.exat.co.th/statistics/10/12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603110642/http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/articles-72628_Ch3.pdf to http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/articles-72628_Ch3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527060147/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMfzhH0cMlYhkVxkytUzlBScCrDQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMfzhH0cMlYhkVxkytUzlBScCrDQ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tri.chula.ac.th/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303175713/http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2004_35_3/42-3238.pdf to http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2004_35_3/42-3238.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501194858/http://203.157.6.204/Admin/filestat/57.xls to http://203.157.6.204/Admin/filestat/57.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827062830/http://statistic.police.go.th/stat/40_50/MONTH53.xls to http://statistic.police.go.th/stat/40_50/MONTH53.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904061248/http://www.thaicvs.org/images/51/13Bkk.pdf to http://www.thaicvs.org/images/51/13Bkk.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416000813/http://www.un.or.th/unagencies/index.html to http://www.un.or.th/unagencies/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manila.gov.ph/localgovt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501041551/http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=38 to http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705201641/http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/page/index.php?&153-Geography_of_Bangkok&l=en to http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/page/index.php?&153-Geography_of_Bangkok&l=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523102723/http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2917&alt=1 to http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2917&alt=1

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) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangkok. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://cdsd-rta.net/images/stories/valasan/valsan%20y54%20b3%20year2548/155403.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130101120642/http://www.bangkokplan.org/website/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=54&lang=en to http://www.bangkokplan.org/website/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=54&lang=en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.polsci.chula.ac.th/pitch/urbanmaids2010/sp.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) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bangkok. 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/20130731203525/http://www.cps.chula.ac.th/pop_info_2551/Image+Data/Publications/Cps_res/Data/RR-No07_Full.pdf to http://www.cps.chula.ac.th/pop_info_2551/Image+Data/Publications/Cps_res/Data/RR-No07_Full.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122000518/http://english.wh.gov.cn/publish/english/2013-11/21/1201311211840450118.html to http://english.wh.gov.cn/publish/english/2013-11/21/1201311211840450118.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119175347/http://www.unescap.org/esd/apuf-5/documents/SACR.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/esd/apuf-5/documents/sacr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204201228/http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/eco_datas/account/gpp/2010/All%20GPP%20Book%202010p.zip to http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/eco_datas/account/gpp/2010/All%20GPP%20Book%202010p.zip
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002125223/http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=17 to http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=17

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) 09:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Human Achievement Index 2014 (HAI)

Wiki article Bangkok contains several sections such as: Economy, Tourism, Culture, Transport, Health and Education. But all of these sections lack a weighted value. That's why "Human Achievement Index" of United Nations Development Program in Thailand gives weighted value to the eight most important key areas of human performance in Bangkok.
The reverted section "Human achievement index 2014" immediately displays the eight key areas. As expected Bangkok takes 1st rank for "education". But for "Housing and living environment" it ranked 69th, which is "low".
Moreover, Wikipedia Netherlands (who is stricter in the encyclopedia vision) welcomed these HAI 2014 sections in their "Provinces of Thailand" articles.
Finally, there is a possibility of a "See also: HAI 2014" or not even that. SietsL (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The UNDP's HAI is barely recognised outside of Thailand. It could have its own article, and could probably be mentioned in the infobox for each province, but its existence doesn't warrant extended discussion in the article body of every province and Bangkok. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Krung-devamahanagara amararatanakosindra mahindrayudhya mahatilakabhava navaratanarajadhani puriramasya utamarajanivesana mahasthana amaravimana avatarasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Krung-devamahanagara amararatanakosindra mahindrayudhya mahatilakabhava navaratanarajadhani puriramasya utamarajanivesana mahasthana amaravimana avatarasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Samut Prakan link

Wikipedia usually tries to make a distinction between a city and the administrative district that bears its name. Samut Prakan is one of the rarer cases (for provincial centres) where the city doesn't have its own article, probably partly due to the haphazard way its municipalities are split. Ideally we'd have a base article at Samut Prakan describing the city, and Samut Prakan (city) would redirect there. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A red link is never useful to the reader. A link to an article that comes close to the intended target certainly is. Links are not intended as signals to other editors. −Woodstone (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

Mistaken AGF over POV-pushing sockpuppet edits

IWeeBoo, here are detailed explanations of my edits. Please consider them and discuss each point before further reverting. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC) @Paul_012, wow, thanks for laying those out, I see reasonable exchanges. I will reply below some of the points that I still feel perplexed with.IWeeBoo (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC) The city "... has a population of over 8 million, per the 2010 census" - Grammar: a preposition and a definite article are needed here. --Paul_012 (talk) Really? I saw some similar wording does not need the preposition "of" rather "over" is enough. And per is a special case that does not really require article for the subject. IWeeBoo (talk) "Has a population over" reads a bit differently, but isn't incorrect, so fine. I'm not convinced about "per 2010 census". "Per 2010 figures" would be fine, but the census is a specific thing, so it's "the 2010 census", not any census. However, we could just remove mention of the census altogether. It's needed to differentiate from household registry figures in the body, but probably not necessary in the lead. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "Over 14 million—22.2 percent of the national population—live within the surrounding Bangkok Metropolitan Region, making Bangkok an extreme primate city" - Without the percentage, the reader won't know how large the population is relative to the entire country. They need to know this to understand the primate city status. Bangkok is the most prominent primate city in the world–describing it as extreme should be appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) About the percentage thing, not really in need, I think people can figure/calculate it out or make relative estimation from the number given if they want to compare to the national population. I think "Bangkok most prominent..." and "extreme" are clear personal evaluation/description; not to mention it is un-sourced. We should not put up these personal descriptions but let individual readers evaluate stuff themselves, from the numbers given. IWeeBoo (talk) For that, the reader will first have to look up the country's population. It's a simple figure that helps illustrate things a lot—why make it an exercise? I understand wanting to keep the lead concise, but it certainly belongs in the body. The most prominent primate city thing is cited in the article to the Sternstein source, and documented in plenty others. I'll return to this later and remember to add more concrete sourcing. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "The city vastly grew during the 1960s to 1980s as US aid resulted in rapid urbanization" - Growth and urbanization has been occurring for hundreds of years. It's the speed at which this happened during the period that makes it significant. A definite article is needed with decades. --Paul_012 (talk) "Vastly" and "rapid" is personal evaluation. I know that growth happen all time but in the lead particularly, only one period of growth is mentioned so as to emphasize that period alone and people sort of understand that it is a special period of high growth without seeing descriptive adjectives. The main point is to avoid using adjectives like "vast" and "rapid". IWeeBoo (talk) None of them fall under WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch. There's nothing wrong with using descriptive adjectives, as long as the message is verifiable. I'm concerned that by removing them, readers are left with the incorrect implication that urbanisation only began in the 1960s. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "Bangkok is major tourist destination, and has been named the world's most visited city in several rankings. Known for its street life, cultural landmarks and red-light districts, attractions such as the Grand Palace and numerous Buddhist temples stand in contrast with the nightlife scenes of Khaosan and Patpong." - The sentences describing the city's tourist attractions and its most-visited ranking should be in the same paragraph, as they are about the same topic. "Buddhist" must be capitalised. --Paul_012 (talk) Again, the word "major" is a personal evaluation. "Visit"...you can visit the city to do things other than just tourism, so it's not at all related. Also, i want to enlarge middle paragraph in the lead compared to other two, look neat and easy to grasp. IWeeBoo (talk) With the length of the article, it should probably have a four-paragraph lead. I'll leave this for a later time (after sorting out more major article body issues). --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "... 5five rapid transit lines ..." - Whole numbers from zero to nine should almost always be spelled out, per MOS:NUMERAL. The sentence reads awkwardly, but the whole half-paragraph needs reworking, so I'm leaving it for now. --Paul_012 (talk) "Bangkok's historic centre remains the Rattanakosin Island in Phra Nakhon District." - This section describes each of the district's significance; the point of this sentence is to describe Phra Nakhon District. --Paul_012 (talk) You know, this article is about the city, not the districts, right? The point is to summarize important stuff/symbols characterizing the city overall, not individual districts if can be read in seperate articles. IWeeBoo (talk) The original concept was that readers reading the article from top to bottom would first encounter the map of the fifty districts, then the Cityscape subsection. The thought was that mentioning the districts would help readers with orientation. It's with its problems, though, and the entire section is long overdue for a rewrite anyway, so I'll leave this here. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "Phra Nakhon, along with neighbouring Pom Prap Sattru Phai and Samphanthawong districts, formed what was the city proper in late-19th century." - These three districts formed the city proper. Your change resulted in incorrect meaning. --Paul_012 (talk) "The Victory Monument in Ratchathewi District is among its most important road junctions" - Likewise for mentioning the district. Most important requires a definite article or possessive. --Paul_012 (talk) Articles not always needed, people knows that it is about the city anyway. IWeeBoo (talk) It's a superlative. We could leave the its, but then the sentence would have to be "... is among the most important road junctions". --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) "The city of Bangkok has a population of 8,305,218 according to the 2010 census, or 12.6 percent of the national population." - It doesn't hurt to repeat the name here and there. It's needed here to emphasize the difference between the "city of Bangkok" and the "Bangkok Metropolitan Region" in the following sentences. See above for why the percentage is needed. --Paul_012 (talk) People know obviously everything read here is about Bangkok. For this, I think I can cut out the name "Bangkok" and just write "the city" and the "Metropolitan Region" that is fine enough. IWeeBoo (talk) "the Bangkok Metropolitan Region, the total population of which is 14,626,225 (making up 22.2 percent of the national population)" - Same here. --Paul_012 (talk) The sports section - You're concerned with overemphasis on football, the most popular sport, but your edits instead overemphasize sepak takraw, which is nowhere near as popular. You also removed other corrections. I've removed the football club names, as well as mention of takraw and golf altogether. --Paul_012 (talk) Popularity, without accurate number, is all but an evaluation. The original content is not mine and I just cut out stuff from that is about association football and mention it after traditional sports. As you know, traditional sport might be put foremost. I want to remove the evaluation regarding popularity of certain sports, because it is vague and subjective. Also why remove large content of the old version? It seems to provide wide coverage in details of many sports and more comprehensive. Overall we should keep the old version of this section, with some modifications from me. IWeeBoo (talk) I was the one who added the mention of takraw and golf, which is why I think it should be removed. It was written off the top of my head, and looking back now I don't think it's an accurate description (nor is it supported by sources). "Bangkok has long been the centre of modern education in Thailand. The first schools in the country were established here in the later 19th century" - This is not opinion; it's a fact, and the main idea of the entire paragraph. A definite article is needed with "first schools". --Paul_012 (talk) Again, "long" is personal evaluation. And "centre" or not is also an evaluation. Even as if it is, Bangkok is the capital so obviously people know that it is Thailand's centre of anything not just education. We can just cut off this redundant evaluation and focus on describing internal details only. IWeeBoo (talk) It's redundant, but I don't think it's wise to just delete the main idea of a paragraph. We could make it present tense to avoid long, if that's a concern. Further reading - This is a common section listing resources that are not part of the references used in the article. See WP:MOSLAYOUT. --Paul_012 (talk) You may adjust back the parts I have complained.IWeeBoo (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I'll think some of these over. I'd appreciate the thoughts of other watchers of the article, if you're reading this. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC) You know, these are rather simple, minor cuts and curtails to make the stuff look neat. Don't take this kind of edits too serious.IWeeBoo (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Addressed above. Yes, there are more major things in this article that need overhauling. But in the meantime, I'd still like to make sure the article makes sense to the reader. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The merging of International relations section to the Government section has resulted in the sister cities list appearing awkwardly early in the article. It's usually presented as the last section in city articles. I'd recommend moving it back there. Also, the Calls to move the capital subsection (section header since removed) seems a out of place as it is, as it mentions issues which aren't discussed till further down. It should probably come much later. Maybe it could be combined with the Crime and safety (now titled Safety) section instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Yeah, these parts needs rework and to be placed in the most plausible technical arrangement. There is a huge bulk of other content in the whole article that contains similar or other issues anyway. No worries, I will refine and overhaul everything gradually. Also, by the way, about the sport sub-section, I just think that we should just remove the whole section anyway. Not of good quality, it's too short, and only citing stuff about Muay and soccer. Nonetheless, for a capital city where sport is not that special as part of culture to make the city distinctly compared to other cities or the whole country, to mention sport is pretty redundant. With stuff about venues and sporting events is the same, not notable enough to be put in. What do you think?IWeeBoo (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) I've been looking at other well-developed city articles, and it appears their sports sections are mostly focused on the city's representative teams in professional sports leagues, e.g. the Red Sox for Boston, etc. There's not much to say for Bangkok, but the major venues and its Asian Games hosting history should still be mentioned. Sports is pretty much a standard section in city articles; leaving it out altogether would make it seem incomplete (though it'd probably be fine as a subsection under culture). --Paul_012 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC) The info about venues and sporting events might well be put under "Festivals and events" sub-section, pretty much the same category. For the rest mentioning the sports including the ones cited, they are pretty generic to be mentioned. I might delete these along the "sport" topic title.IWeeBoo (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)