Talk:Bangkok/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. --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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jakarta Skyline Part 2.jpg

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 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 (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, 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)