Talk:Bangkok

Infobox image and map

Phaisit16207, I've partially reverted your edit. I'm not opposed to using {{multiple image}}, but I'd argue against individual image captions, as they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox, which is to present an overview of the city, not highlight individual landmarks. Also, it would be highly preferable to choose images with proportions such that each row is equal in height (I'm not sure if {{multiple image}} works with {{CSS image crop}}), and avoid having any single image being overly large (as with Wat Benchamabophit in the reverted version).

As for the location map, I'm a bit reluctant to support the use of OpenStreetMap maps via Mapframe, as the system has been long plagued by a huge number of bugs, and the default rendering style is very busy and quite a bit distracting (especially for the infobox). The maritime borders being rendered the way they are also makes the map weird to look at. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

For {{multiple image}}, I accepted because I had read many articles about cities, such as New York City and Paris. I'm a native man, and I want to contribute my native city. I'm concerned about this change, but ultimately, I do it. Kept 5 of the 7 original photos, I replaced Chao Phraya skyline and traffic photos with single picture of the city's skyline, and I hope this revision won't create an edit warring. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(December 2023) Chronus, the above is what I meant. The spread of the multiple image template into infoboxes is relatively recent, so I don't really have a grasp on what most people think of it. (Your version has better proportions than the one I reverted in March though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012 Ok, but saying that "they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox" is just your opinion. There is no policy or regulation that does not recommend individual captions or the use of {{multiple images}} in infoboxes. Furthermore, the use of photo montages in articles about cities is nothing new. Chronus (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And there is no policy or regulation that recommends so. It's a matter of opinion either way, and we simply disagree here. Photo montages in city infoboxes are nothing new, but they used to be done as combined images, only converting to templates in the past few years. As for individual captions, in all of the examples you cited, the individual captions were introduced no earlier than 2022 (London, New York City, Paris, Mexico City, Shanghai). While it could be argued that there's presumed local consensus based on silence in those cases, I'm disputing the change here, so explicit consensus is needed. Has there been discussion on this somewhere? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

2025

English is not my first language, so I confused “distracted" with "distant", also, the individual captions are better, because it is pointing which image is, so it’s easier for readers and editors to read and understand; anyways, the caption at the end, was already fattening the infobox, I would prefer to have individual captions, we can discuss about it further. QwertyZ34 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

On my desktop screen, the combined caption takes up four lines of text, while the individual captions take up a total of six, with lots of white space in between, making the images take up an entire screen's height. I'm more concerned about the visual distraction than the screen real estate though. The purpose of infoboxes is to quickly present the main facts and figures about a subject. It is not supposed to be a gallery. Ideally, a single image that represents the subject should be preferred if possible. That's why the template parameter is called "image_skyline"—the original intention was for a single skyline image. But editors found a single image was often inadequate for providing a visual representation of a city, and edited montages (as collages of photos) became commonly used. Then people started to cram more and more photos into the montages. And when it became possible to use the multiple image template in infoboxes, some people began splitting up the captions, which would be appropriate for illustration elsewhere in the article, but for the infobox, it draws the reader's attention to the image captions instead of the overall headings, and becomes an unhelpful distraction, preventing the reader from seeing the actual content the infobox is supposed to be presenting.

As mentioned, part of the issue is due to the number of images crammed into the montage without much regard for how their dimensions fit together. With the montages I made, I tried to keep the width-to-height ratio around at 3:4 or shorter (though up to 2:3 might also be okay). See the edited montages in Commons:Category:Montages of Bangkok for example. These all look better than what's currently in the article, which is excessively tall. I think three rows of images should be enough for a representation of the city. If four rows are to be used, they should be limited to landscape images. Part of the problem with the multiple image template approach, as I mentioned before, is that there doesn't seem to be a way to crop the images to more suitable dimensions. Putting images together into the template without care for their proportions results in an unappealing mess with vastly differing size and rows of unequal height. If this is fixed first, it might free up enough room to re-evaluate the captions issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that individual captions are in most of capitals infoboxes make it also difficult; I'm understanding you, infoboxes aren't galleries: an image switcher or a "show" fonction would be preferred. QwertyZ34 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In this case, I'd prefer to keep it simple. There have been several edits switching the infobox image between a montage and individual photos. In 2023, @Phaisit16207 replaced the montage with individual images, and you reverted the change the following day. On 27 February 2025, @Marmar0222 inserted individual images, and you reverted them a few months later. Shortly after that, the same change happened again with @QwertyZ34.

Altogether, at least four editors (including myself) have expressed a preference for individual images, whereas you seem to be the only editor consistently restoring the montage. Given this, and assuming you will stick with your position, this appears to be the closest we can get to a consensus. The reasons for individual images have already been outlined: it is the standard practice for infoboxes of major cities, and individual images allow readers to enlarge and identify them easily while still linking separately to the subjects shown.

To make multiple image appear smaller, you can simple decrease the width. The idea that individual captions distract readers isn’t supported by common practice; it may apply for some users, but not in a general sense. There was never an issue with uneven image proportions, since the template aligns them automatically. I've never tried this, but could it be possible to combine multiple images with Template:CSS image crop? However, I agree that infoboxes shouldn’t be overloaded with images to the point where there are four or more rows, that's a good point. –Tobias (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, LivinAWestLife, please don't edit war while discussion is ongoing. Feel free to share your thoughts. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as there is still no template that combines the functionality of multiple image and CSS image crop, and that the current collage had much poorer composition than the previous montage File:Bangkok Montage 2024.jpg, I've gone ahead and restored the montage, but replaced the top image with a slightly different one, as File:Bangkok Montage 2024 2.jpg. As mentioned above, I'm not opposed to using collage templates per se, but the constituent images need to be cropped to be proportionally consistent. And the overall collage/montage should fit within a 3:4 aspect ratio, or 2:3 at the tallest. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Deveoogu, please see the above concerns. I strongly think that constituent images should be proportionally consistent and limited in height for the multiple-image template to aesthetically work. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, well that's a blocked sock. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

River photo

Artanisen, while File:Chao Phraya River view from the State Tower, Bangkok 2017.jpg is nice, I think a photo accompanying the "Cityscape" section should probably show more of the actual cityscape. File:Chao Phraya River in Bangkok (3106277148).jpg is a great alternative compositionally, but it's from 2008 so I suspect you might have issue with that. Maybe you could identify some alternatives? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Paul_012, well File:Chao Phraya River view from the State Tower, Bangkok 2017.jpg shows much more of the river shape and the surrounding buildings. I could try to find another image, but this one is good in my opinion. -Artanisen (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)