Talk:Bangkok/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Calls to move the capital

The Calls to move the capital subsection 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 section instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Asanee–Wasan song

That the song's lyrics consists of the city's ceremonial name is self-evident. The citation needed tag is more for the statement, "Many Thais who recall the full name do so because of its use in the 1989 song..." I'm restoring the tag. Cc: User:Fiachra10003. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, i see the logic in your thinking. Leaving tags indefinitely is not good practice though. You seem to have some expertise in the Thai press? Can you find sources for the assertion? Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's something of a shared experience / common knowledge that is mentioned in plenty of forum and blog posts, but doesn't seem to be touched upon by reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, spoke too soon. It's mentioned in this DW documentary, which should probably be good enough.[1] --Paul_012 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jakarta Skyline Part 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And Bangkok became the capital of Siam since 1782 until now

Prach Donmin, as I mentioned in my edit summaries, your added sentence is redundant, as the article already says, "In 1782, King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I) succeeded Taksin, moved the capital to the eastern bank's Rattanakosin Island, thus founding the Rattanakosin Kingdom." It is also grammatically incorrect. Please stop repeatedly making the same edit and discuss its merits here first. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

ok, i'm really sorry I will stop editing. Prach Donmin (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Section link

I would prefer if {{Section link}} were removed. Catchpoke (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the entire subsection down to the near the bottom, as mentioned under #Calls to move the capital above. This should address concerns both ways. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Flag

Flag depicts a local deity (possibly the King of Siam) riding an elephant. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Subsidence

Popular coverage about the subsidence issue in Bangkok is really a mess. A lot of it is based on outdated or incorrect perceptions of the issue that remain circulating. As I mentioned in an earlier edit summary, "Despite the misleading headlines, Bangkok is no longer sinking at an alarming rate, but it is the oceans that are rising up to engulf it." If a press article blames heavy buildings for Bangkok's sinking, it's probably safe to assume that it's rubbish, since buildings in Bangkok are built on very deep foundation piles. This article[2] (in Thai) debunks many of the misconceptions, but there's still a lot of conflicting information out there, and a thorough review will be needed to assess reliability of the myriad sources covering the topic.

Regarding the Environment and Urbanization ASIA paper added by Jonathan.Gab., I was unable to verify the statement it was being used to support, that some districts continue to experience subsidence at a rate of 5 to 10 centimetres per year in 2016, and have accordingly tagged it as failing verification. The paper contains the statement: "According to the BMA report (2016), due to an excessive exploitation of groundwater at a much faster rate than the recharging water, the Bangkok ground has subsided 5–10 cm annually, especially in the capital’s eastern districts of Bang Kapi, Huay Khawng and Pra Khanong." But it does not contextualise when this was happening. The numbers seem like they might have been from several decades ago, when this was a well known issue. The paper surprisingly fails to include a bibliography entry for the claimed report, and only describes it as "the 2016 annual report published by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) on the floods, flood prevention measures and its effectiveness." I have not been able to locate it, only annual flood prevention plans published by the BMA's Department of Drainage and Sewerage,[3] which don't contain any such information. Unless someone wants to reach out to the paper authors for clarification, I'd suggest removing the statement and the citation, as well as the mention of it as a major current issue in the lead.

Also, Jonathan.Gab., for articles that are fairly well developed, it's usually considered unnecessary to repeat inline citations in the lead when they are already cited in the article body (unless it's for a direct quote or a controversial statement). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Most populous vs largest city

Why do some say most populous and some say largest on city articles? Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It really means the same thing, as comparisons of city sizes are usually understood to be by population (rather than other meanings e.g. area). It's not obvious, though, so some prefer to just plainly state "most populous". --Paul_012 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Ugh. This "name change" is blatant misinformation parroted as a piece of junk news by lazy journalists who've copied this all over the press without bothering to do any fact-checking. The Royal Society's list of names always listed the city's name primarily as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon and secondarily as Bangkok. There has been no change in the city's official name whatsoever, and officials have been repeatedly denying this today. The only thing that was changed was the addition of a pair of parentheses, which was spun into clickbait that quickly got out of control. This does not warrant mention in the article at all. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

oh, very helpful topic, it's very helpful for foreigner who unfamiliar with primary official name.--2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the previous wording, "The city is now officially known in Thai by a shortened form of the full ceremonial name, Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, which is colloquially further shortened to Krung Thep." is perfectly adequate. Since Thai is the country's official language, there isn't such a thing as an "official English name" anyway. The reports saying so are misinterpretations of the Royal Society's geographical name list's purpose. (The older part about Bangkok being the official English name should also be removed.)

Saying that "the Office of the Royal Society announced that Krung Thep Maha Nakhon will be the sole official name of the city" is blatantly false. The ORST made no such announcement. What happened was that the Cabinet approved a long-standing draft to update the official spellings of global country and capital names, which got misinterpreted and spread by false clickbait headlines claiming that they were changing the city's official name. Officials attempted to clarify the issue, but the damage was done. I still insist that this piece of misinformation does not need belong in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So what do you think? I think we should wait for the effect to be apply before modifying it, okay, i agree.--2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should wait and see. If it dies down without any changes actually happening, then no need to mention it. If it turns out I was wrong and say the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration actually changes its name, then of course it should be mentioned then. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

what do you think about this picture? https://www.orst.go.th/FILEROOM/CABROYINWEB/DRAWER002/GENERAL/DATA0002/00002499.PNG , should we upload on wikipedia? --2403:6200:88A0:37B0:6C0A:DAAA:73F1:28B4 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Images found on the Web are not suitable for upload to Wikimedia Commons, unless they are released under a free licence or known to be out of copyright. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Sandstein who made another edit (citing the NYT) in April, since my manual partial reversion wouldn't have generated a notification. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't particulary care, but per WP:NOR we follow what reliable sources write (such as the NYT), not what our own understanding of an issue may be. Sandstein 11:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Section split

The cities that were moved into the new section does not lies Bangkok as their sister cities, so they cannot be listed there – that's fundamental. There are also references by every individual partnership, referring to speficic documents that also tell which type of partnership it is. FromCzech (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I admit that the second part is not very valid, a lot is lost in translation. Bangkok has only one section on its website, which is called Sister cities, but the contracts usually only talk about friendly relations and not about twinning. But cities whose sites are a more credible source and do not mention partnerships with Bangkok cannot be included in the Sister cities section. I also have the impression that some of the partnerships that Bangkok continues to list on its website are long over. FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how such a distinction can be made without straying into WP:original research territory. The previous wording, "Bangkok has made sister city and/or friendship agreements..." should be broad enough. Maybe it's just the section title that needs to be adjusted. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Adjust the section title and add an explanation of the situation, or remove the Bangkok website as an unreliable source and replace them with reliable references from other cities. The current division corresponds to reality much more accurately than the previous one. FromCzech (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's still unclear to me what exactly the division you instated is based on. The source documents for Shanghai and Shangdong, for example, use "friendly cooperation and exchange" and "friendly cooperative relationship", not sister cities. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to split the cities that according to their lists of twin towns are not twinned with Bangkok from the sister cities section, as is usual on pages of other cities. There were obvious mistakes and cities that are certainly not sister cities of Bangkok were included. But for example Shanghai lists Bangkok as its twin town and Shanghai's website is quite precise (definitely better source than Bangkok) so I left it there. If you don't like it methodically, redo the section your own. FromCzech (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Busan#International relations, Daegu#Sister cities, Lisbon#International relations or City of Brisbane#Sister cities for a comparison. Bangkok should be consistent with this lists. FromCzech (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've undone the separation and changed the section header to "City partnerships". Seeing as the BMA doesn't clarify the distinction on its website, and per the above inconsistency and sourcing issues, I think it's better not to try to separate them here. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong translation of Krungthep

Krung thep literally city of gods and not city of angels, unlike abrahamic religions Buddhism doesn't have concept of angels, moreover thai word thep came from word devā which is mean literally gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.56.17 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The long translation is a quote from the source, so it must be presented verbatim. There's already further explanation of the meanings of krung and thep in the following paragraphs. If it's inadequate, maybe a footnote could also be inserted into the blockquote. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding Primate City

I have a question regarding this sentence in the Demography section: "In 1980, Bangkok's population was fifty-one times that of Hat Yai and Songkhla, the second-largest urban centre, making it the world's most prominent primate city." I understand that the source from 1980 is in of itself correct, but the way it is phrased, it seems as if Hat Yai and Songkhla still form the second largest urban centre and as if Bangkok is still the most prominent primate city. Please correct me if I am wrong. If not, then I feel that the sentence should be at least changed to be in the past form or current information should be added to reflect the state as of 2022, because Hat Yai-Songkhla no longer form, as conurbation, the second largest metropolitan area in Thailand, but the third largest after Bangkok and Chiang Mai, and Bangkok isn't the most prominent primate city anymore, as its relative primacy has decreased from fifty one times (or 40 compared to Korat in 2000) to 8.8 compared to Chiang Mai as of 2022. Clarification is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jonathan.Gab. (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be basing your understanding on data from macrotrends.net, which you added to the Primate city article a few months ago. The page you cited[4] is listed as "Chiang Mai, Thailand Metro Area Population 1950-2022". Looking at the numbers, they are clearly for the population within all municipal areas of Chiang Mai Province as a whole (which has 121 municipalities), not just Chiang Mai city. Compare the website's 2010 figure (953,000) with the 2010 census data[5] for Chiang Mai Province, which lists 967,020 in municipal areas and 770,021 outside.

In contrast, the population registry figure[6] for Chiang Mai City Municipality is 119,771 for 2021 (compared to 5,527,994 for Bangkok). The population registry heavily underestimates the urban population as it doesn't account for people from rural households migrating for work in the cities who don't change their home registration, so it's a poorer indicator of actual population patterns than the decennial census. (The 2020 census was postponed due to the pandemic, so the latest available data is from 2010). Unfortunately, the census doesn't list individual cities apart from Bangkok, so there's no directly comparable data that's easily available. Also, Chiang Mai's actual urban agglomeration spreads beyond Chiang Mai City Municipality, which complicates things.

In any case, any complicated analysis of these figures likely falls into the realm of WP:original research, and should be avoided for Wikipedia content. In the case of primate city status, we should stick to reporting the ratios given in reliable sources, and properly contextualise them. Bangkok has been recognised as the world's most prominent primate city, this is a fact. The degree of its population dominance has lessened since then, but not as much as you probably think. We don't know for sure whether the world title continues to hold, but unless there are sources that refute this, there's no reason to assume otherwise. Stating the time from which it became known as such should be adequate.

As for whether Hat Yai–Songkhla is still the second-largest urban centre, adding "at the time" should solve that. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. Regarding whether I base my understanding on data from macrotrends, that is not the case. For Chiang Mai specifically (as a Thai I luckily have the possibility to go after this deeper) my data is based on sources by the Chiang Mai Provincial Administrative Organisation and Chiang Mai Municipality in the Royal Thai Government Gazette, with help from data by the DLA and the NSO. For over ten years, Chiang Mais urban city area has been defined in several documents published in the Gazette and has not changed/is not an evolving map. It is far bigger than the municipality, with even the municipality not covering the city centre anymore. From that data it is possible to add the district population figures from the defined urban area, which equates to over a million registered residents. I am in contact with officials from both the Provincial administration and municipality, and have confirmation that the size and numbers are correct. For the next decennial census it is hoped that there will be a release of one figure for the urban area and include expatriates, non-permanent residents and Thais from other provinces (similar to Bangkok in 2010). I am currently also trying to contact the Governors office about this issue. Obviously this matter doesn't only concern Chiang Mai, but all big cities throughout Thailand, for which the municipality system is greatly outdated (for example: Municipal officials (Chiang Mai) even tend to official problems which are outside in municipality areas) as the last time their areas were enlarged is oftentimes decades ago, making for a lot of cities the figure for Mueang District the better and truer population number as of 2010(2022).

Your proposed idea to add "at the time" is greatly appreciated, and I do not have any other suggestions nor will I change anything on this page, as Bangkok is not my main field of knowledge. Thank you. Jonathan.Gab. (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The situation with cities outgrowing their municipal areas is a sticky issue indeed. Hopefully sources will address this in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hat hatnote

SahdOnWikitionary, this seems very much like a WP:partial title match to me. Are there any examples of the Bangkok hat being referred to as bangkoks, apart from the the single 1918 one cited in Wiktionary, where the context was specifically about hat styles named after various places? It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would type in "bangkok" in the search bar expecting to find information about the hat. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Weatherbox record highs/lows

Given that multiple accounts and IPs have repeatedly tried to change the record highs/lows in the weather box from the 1981–2010 range supported by the main TMD document to include records from outside that range, I've let it stand and added proper citations to the TMD documents for the record summer highs/winter lows since 1951. The problem is that these records only include February to May for the highs and November to February for the lows, so presenting them in the table with the other months filled by data from 1981–2010 is misleading. User:Ileagae, please try to find a complete document with highs/lows for all months since 1951, if you can. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please also explain why you think there's a need to change the rain parameters to precipitation. Rain is what the source reports, and that should be reflected here. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

July 2024

Ileagae, the weather box is still missing citations for record lows/highs outside of the coldest/hottest months. Where did you get the 13.7°C figure for March? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(Ileagae posted the following on my talk page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Temperature 13.7°C on March 3, 1986 at Bangkok Metropolis station. Source taken from data on ogimet.com . Ileagae (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you must make a citation to Ogimet in the weather box. Which report on the Ogimet site did you query for the info? Is it possible to make a direct link to the page? If not, please describe the process you used to gather the information. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)