Talk:Nonthaburi province

Geography
The statement "Most of the area is as urbanised as Bangkok" I find highly questionable. Parts of Nonthaburi are very rural, or feature new building projects juxtaposed alongside farms, etc. The statement feels like it has been written by someone with little experience or knowledge of the area. I will await further opinion before changing the article but I have flagged it already. Greg hill (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A large part of Bangkok's area itself is relatively rural; the cityscape indeed does not follow administration boundaries. Feel free to change "most of the area" to something more suitable. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But most Thais I have spoken to strongly disagree with the idea that "most" of the area is urbanised and comparisons with Bangkok are very POV biased. We need some more official information, which I will pursue. In the meantime please do not remove the flag. Greg hill (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The outskirts of Bangkok, i.e. the areas to the far west and far east of the city area are relatively rural, the same applies to the west and north of Nonthaburi Province. Yet at the boundary between the two there is absolutely no change in urbanization, and if you compare the population density of the two - 4000/km² for Bangkok and 1000 for Nonthaburi it's not that big difference. If you go through the districts of Nonthaburi, you'd see that especially Mueang and Pak Kret have absolutely similar population densities as Bangkok, and only Sai Noi in the northwest has a much lower value, about half the value of Nong Chok which is the Bangkok district with the lowest density. So how about change "most of the area" to "except the northwest of the province"? andy (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)