Talk:Ta Prohm

Any knowledge on how they built these large figures? It looks like it was done in smaller bricks, but how did they conceive such a thing with bricks laid out on the ground? How do you visualise a carving, when the block is part of a bigger thing?

Picture inaccuracy?
The first picture, the face tower, is surely from the Bayon, not from Ta Prohm! Pretty sure there are no "faces" at Ta Prohm. I was just there today. I will double-check tomorrow.

I disagree. There are face towers at Ta Prohm. You can see them at the entrances. DoktorMax (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The face towers at the gates are part of Bayon not Ta Prohm. you exit through the gates toward Ta Prohm. Ta Prohm's distinctive features are the trees. The main picture is misleading. If Ta Prohm did not have the trees, the temple would not be as much of a tourist attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiepie411 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the photo (which apparently had been moved further down the article) - I've visited both Ta Prohm and the Bayon several times and have many hundreds of photos (I was last there just a few weeks ago), and that photo was of the Bayon (despite its file name) 124.121.249.70 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Please check species: photo author on main page describes tree as Tetrameles nudiflora Roy Bateman (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy about how many pictures an article should have?

I just uploaded 2 more pictures of tree roots at this temple. I've also noticed that the original photo for this article is no longer linked.

I'd like to add them to this page, but the article doesn't seem longs enough to support any more pictures.



"The pictures say everything" seems to apply to this topic, so I think a few more pictures would be good. Should we make a new article for "Images of Cambodian Temples"?


 * Yes, there's a principle, if not a formal policy, that pictures are used to illustrate the article, not for their own sake; and in particular, Wikipedia isn't a picture gallery.  There's really no shortage of pictures of tree roots at TP - I've got hundreds - but they're not what the article needs (ie more text, and pictures to illustrate that text). You could add images to the commons though (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Angkor#Ta_Prohm). HenryFlower 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also another temple called Ta Prohm
There is also another temple called Ta Prohm, Located in Takéo Province near Tonle Bati. --kiensvay (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur
Is this the temple with the *ahem* 'dinosaur' picture? If so, I think a small mention of that, especially an explanation, might be handy. It pops up quite a bit in Creationist literature. Masternachos (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration/Preservation/Sanitisation
The article contains some new information about attempts to bring the temple into line with the others - platforms, ropes, removal of the trademark trees (including, to my travelmate's dispair, the famous "Tomb Raider" tree) and assorted construction work. It is gone so far as to be a quick walkaround - as I tried to get my desired shot of a particularly stunning scene I was berated by an angry German woman for not just walking by pointing and clicking on the designated path as she thought must be the deal.

It is unsourced so far but I can lend some credence to the 'claim', with photographs from last weekend if needed! But first I will try to find a source.GavinZac (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tree ID: Ceiba vs. Tetrameles
Re the "Trees" section, Commons has converged on Tetrameles. Is this article behind the times, or has Commons jumped the gun? G41rn8 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Y3s y3e
Ekejjejejejejejejejvhda sefvvdsguvfwry7wevf7ydfuyw 49.181.220.53 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)