Talk:Grand Palace

Complete rewrite on the 8 December 2011
As of today I did a complete rewrite of this article, I also nominated it for DYK. Comments please! Sodacan (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, though it might still need some minor stylistic and grammar improvements. I've gone through a bit of the article and made a few changes:
 * Removed the infobox, as it's not really applicable and seemed more clunky than useful since the palace complex is not a single historic building. (Buckingham Palace, which is a featured article, does fine without one.)
 * Removed most image size specifications (those that were 220px) so they will follow user preferences.
 * Decapitalised terms (e.g. palace) when not appearing as part of proper nouns.
 * Rearranged some photos and simplified the layout map so that it always shows.
 * There's one thing I'm not sure about: use of the word chapel to refer to Wat Phra Kaew; the term's rather unfamiliar in this setting. I understand that's the term used by the source book? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will answer point by point:
 * Not that much of an issue, since most of the info is in the article anyway. Just to explain, I had the infobox there originally because I based the structure of the article on those of the Topkapi Palace and the Forbidden City (All three of these palaces are laid-out similarly, the Buckingham Palace's missing infobox always felt like an oversight - even the White House has one).
 * No problem here, except for the un-labelled map: it should be bigger than normal for visibility (this is in line with Wiki policy).
 * No problem here
 * No problem here, thanks for this I was having trouble with the code, but didn't know how to get and wrap around border. I had the hidden feature on the map, because originally I was going to put the map in the layout section at the beginning. Although I did like the hidey-thing, it was probably for the better that it went.
 * Some sources use 'chapel', but not all. There is no distinction of wats being: a chapel, monastery or sanctuary. However all wats are temples (wat as a general term), but in this specific case the more accurate and informative descriptive of the wat would be as a chapel. It has always been a fun-fact to point this out to school children and tourists on their visit. One source even uses the term Chapel Royal. Sodacan (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the subheadings confusing due to the exclusive use of Thai names, many of which appear similar, for the many buildings and palace sections. This being the English Wikipedia, I think it would be helpful to identify these with their English names or English translations of the Thai names. I'm not looking for a response. I'm providing my reaction. Underalms (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Even I would find the translation more useful. However there has never been such translations in any source, ever. The repetition of 'Phra Thinang', which translates into English as 'Throne Hall', but in Thai could mean anything from: palace, pavilion or hall (as long as it is a royal place, in Thai it literally translates as 'Royal Seat' or 'Royal Sitting Place') - The usage could be very confusing. I decided to use the Thai name because all the sources differ on which building could be named what in English. Furthermore some of them such as the Phra Thinang Sanam Chan is not a 'Throne Hall' at all, it is literally an open pavilion with a seating platform inside. To call it a pavilion is right, but it would not be real translation or sourced one. So I decided to use 'Phra Thinang' and the original Thai names for all the buildings, since all of them are 'Phra Thinangs' but not all of them are Throne Halls. Sodacan (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Length
This is a great article, a lot of effort went into it but I'm finding it quite tough to read in its entirety. I think to split many of the components into separate articles and condense would be the way to go. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought about this before I redid the article, however I went against it for several reasons. Firstly the article is only 108,122 bytes long, for comparison the Topkapı Palace (112,000 bytes), Palace of Westminster (125,470 bytes) and Windsor Castle (107,574 bytes) (the latter is a Featured article). I actually used the Topkapi Palace article as a template, seeing as they are similar structures; laid out similarly and serve similar purposes in the past, as well as being important national monuments. Secondly the main problem for this article is the sheer amount of Thai names and words, which breaks the flow of writing and makes it tough to read. I am not sure how to solve this. The names of the different buildings are very complicated. Really they should be translated to Throne Hall, Residential Hall or just plain Hall, some are just pavilions/gazebos! However all the English language sources disagree on how they are called so I just decided to keep the Thai name, also there is just one Thai word that is used for all of them (Phra Thinang; meaning literally 'royal seat' closest English translation being 'throne hall'). Finally a large part of the article's contents are descriptions of the buildings (layout, architecture, style, shapes), as oppose to a narrative with history and facts. I tried my best to mix both, and to be as informative as possible. So there are a lot of info here. The Inner Court section is my favourite because I decided not to do a descriptive section on it, instead I went with a narrative of its history intersperse with some stories about its inhabitants. A full descriptive section would mean naming and describing over twenty (or more) different structures belonging to the different queens and wives of King Chulalongkorn. Anyhow this is my opinion, I will await for consensus if the article should be split. However I think it should remain, it is very informative as it is. Several small and inconsequential articles would quickly become orphans and context would be lost upon readers (mostly tourists I would imagine). Plus reorganising the refs will be a nightmare. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Vague: ″Cannon emplacements were replaced with guard houses and were given rhyming names.″
In our article Bob (given name), Rob and Bob are (and as i write, Rick, Hick, and Dick, still are, despite my intent for an article-split to, say, Rhyming name (Middle Ages)) two examples of (groups of) ″rhyming names″. The term, used here (as currently) in the absence of examples, could be suggesting 4 guard houses ″were given rhyming names″ Break, Make, Rake, and Take (good martial rhymes in English). Or instead a group of three neighboring towers named Mobjob, Thickstick and Stakebreak. Hence i tag that usage as vague. --Jerzy•t 06:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Palace. 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/20110831130827/http://emuseum.treasury.go.th/upload/knowledge/emu01082554.pdf to http://emuseum.treasury.go.th/upload/knowledge/emu01082554.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200439/http://www.inded.kmitl.ac.th/journal/images/stories/year5_1/4.pdf to http://www.inded.kmitl.ac.th/journal/images/stories/year5_1/4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Palace. 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/20120425070918/http://www1.mod.go.th/heritage/king/grdpalace/index1.htm to http://www1.mod.go.th/heritage/king/grdpalace/index1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Two types of Date
There are two date mentioned on following; Which one is correct? --Janak Bhatta (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Construction of the palace began on May 6, 1782, at the order of King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I)
 * The construction of the Grand Palace began on 6 April 1782, at the order of King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I)


 * Thanks for spotting that. The error was introduced in this edit. Reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Grand Hall of the Chakri Maha Prasat.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Phra Thinang Borom Ratchasathit Mahoran.jpg

Can someone at least fix the structure and style?
There is a lack of logic in the structure and the content of this text. It is quite obvious. For instance some information is repeated in the nearest paragraphs: "... but the Grand Palace is still used for official events..." and "...but it remains a working palace..." three paragraphs later. There is absence of logic in simple enumerations: "... is made up of numerous buildings, halls, pavilions set around open lawns, gardens and courtyards." A hall is a part of building, it is one level down in the hierarchy, so this enumeration just jumps out. The preamble itself looks like a set of sentences randomly selected from the "History" part. Some of them are too detailed for preamble, some of them are repeated several paragraphs later. All sentences contain plain facts but one sentence "Its asymmetry and eclectic styles are due to its organic development..." looks stolen from some diffuse writing. And so on and so on. Sorry, but it looks like a written-off essay from secondary school, not a serious article. I would rewrite it myself but English is not my mother-tongue language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.238.114 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Chao Choms of the Inner Court.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * King Ananda Mahidol portrait.jpg

Copyright violation
It looks like the content of this article is just copied without proper attribution here. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The majority of this article was written in 2011-2012. If anything it is this book plagiarises it. Sodacan (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This Heinz Duthel is a shitbag who's long made a business of plagiarizing and making copyright violations of Wikipedia content for fake personal promotion. The way things are, though, it's hardly worth the effort for editors to attempt taking legal action against such bad-faith actors. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have left the appropriate comment at the publisher's site, but I am not eligible to leave comments at the Amazon's page. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)