Talk:Khun Chang Khun Phaen

Suggested restructuring article
Currently, the 1st section of the article contains an introduction to the Sepha form titled "Origins and sepha". I believe the structure is a bit disjointed. I believe the "Origins and sepha" is needed only if Khun Chang Khun Phaen is a significant work of the Sepha genre or played an important role in the development of the Sepha form. Otherwise, it isn't very neccesary.

I'd also suggest that the two sections titled "Realism" and "Super-realism" be relocated as sub-sections in a section titled "Criticism". Patiwat 07:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

response
Thanks for this. I've recast the "Origins" section to make it clear that KCKP creates sepha as a genre.

I've converted those two sections into sub-sections, but called them "Charactersitics" rather than "Criticism", which seems more accurate.

Too many references - were all of them used? Also, referencing style
There are too many references listed the article and it isn't clear whether all of them are actually used as references. Those that were actually used as references should be located in the references section. Those that are not actually used as references should be located in a section titled "Further reading." In addition, the referencing system should be standardized. Currently, some are casually listed in footnotes, some in the article text with full reference information (e.g., Journal of the Siam Society), and some are in the article text using the Author, Year style (e.g., Sibunruang), and some are left completely for the reader to decode (e.g., Kukrit Pramoj). Patiwat 08:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Response
Thanks. All the works in the References section are mentioned in the text or footnotes. All the citations in the References section are in a standard and academically recognized style. I've cleaned up the mentions in the text.

"Sepha Khun Chang Khun Phaen" or "Khun Chang Khun Phaen?"
Is there any particular reason why this is article is titled "Sepha Khun Chang Khun Phaen" and not "Khun Chang Khun Phaen?" Sepha is just a poetic form - the title of the work itself is "Khun Chang Khun Phaen." It seems a bit awkward, like an article on "The Poem Iliad." Besides, to be grammatically correct in Thai, the title should be "Sepha Ruang Khun Chang Khun Phaen." (I'm not suggesting the article should be retitled thus)

Granted, if there were non-Sepha versions of Khun Chang Khun Phaen (in movie, animation, prose, etc.), and this article were only about the Sepha version, then OK, it would be appropriate to call this article "Sepha Khun Chang Khun Phaen," (or maybe Khun Chang Khun Phaen (Sepha))and cover the movie in "Khun Chang Khun Phaen (movie)." But that's not the case - this article already covers non-Sepha versions of Khun Chang Khun Phaen.

If you think this article should remain "Sepha Khun Chang Khun Phaen," then do you think we should call articles on "Sepha Nai Chuen," "Sepha Nai Chot," "Sepha Phrayakong Phrayaphan," "Sepha Phraratchaphongsawadan," etc.? It starts getting quite awkward to put "Sepha" in front of all of these works. Patiwat 12:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Response
Totally agree. I put it up under this title because the (blank) page was there with an invitation to fill it. I'd much prefer it to be simply KCKP, for just the reasons you cite. If you can move it, I'll adjust the opening sections accordingly. Thanks again. Chrispasuk

Khun Wichitmatra
In the Thai royal and noble titles article, there are listed both Khun (คุณ - courtesy title) and Khun (ขุน - feudal title). The "Khun" in Khun Wichitmatra was linked to the later, not the former.

Besides, his name is not Khun Wichitmatra - his name is Wichitmatra. Prince Damrong's name is not Prince Damrong - his name is Damrong. The King's name is not King Bhumibol - it is Bhumibol. Article names should not have contain titles. Patiwat 10:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stand corrected Chrispasuk

Sunthorn Phu
There is only one mention of Sunthorn Phu in this article, surely there should be more mention of his contribution to this tale.

Secondly, there seems to be 2 sections dedicated to "origins." This organizational structure should be fixed, in my opinion.