Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation of the Thai monarch


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Coronation of the Thai monarch

 * ... that until the coronation of the Thai monarch is completed, the ruler is considered only as a regent and may not sit under the Royal Nine-Tiered Umbrella? Source: "This custom was the result of the Siamese theory that the heir to the late king rules only as a regent and not as a king, until he is duly anointed and crowned; in other words, until the prescribed rites have been carried out, he is not as yet qualified to perform the divine and priestly functions of a king." (from Siamese State Ceremonies Page 70) And "The White Umbrella of State consists of several tiers five for the Van Na, seven for the King before he is fully crowned, and nine after he has attained full sovereignty." (from Siamese State Ceremonies Page 93)
 * ALT1:... that during the coronation of the Thai monarch, the king is anointed by water collected from the five principal rivers of Thailand? Source: "The water used in this ceremony originated from (a) the five principal rivers of the kingdom, i.e. the Cau Brahya, the Sak, the Rajapuri, the Bejrapuri, and the Panpahkan river," (from Siamese State Ceremonies Page 74)

Created by Sodacan (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC).


 * Review Symbol question.svg New article. New enough.  Long enough (and how).  Hooks are neutral, interesting and supported by in line WP:RS.  Earwig is clear.  No apparent copyright of close paraphrasing problems (I don't read Thai).  No WP:QPQ provided.  I did not have access to off line sources, but WP:AGF.  Cited books, which are on line sources, support the hooks.  All paragraphs have references.  Image is from commons, freely licensed and clear at 100 pix.  Intriguing article.  Thank you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, it appears that User:Sodacan only has three prior DYKs. If that is true, then no QPQ would be required.  Since User:Sodacan has been around since 2008, I assumed to the contrary.  Welcome to DYK.  Please confirm that you have only three priors? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My hand check of User:Sodacan's archives shows five prior DYKs. IMO, the automated tool is wrong as it only showed three.
 * "Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here.
 * "Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.
 * "You can do your QPQ review before or after you make your nomination, but for your nomination to be approved you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review. For help in learning the reviewing process, see the reviewers' guide."


 * So a WP:QPQ is owed by User:Sodacan. Them's the rules.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do this ASAP! Sodacan (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that the DYK for Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49) was nominated by me. The rules appear to state that all credits should be counted, though, so a QPQ review is still needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made a review. Sodacan (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've taken liberty to remove the link to River systems of Thailand, since the article doesn't say which rivers the five principal ones mentioned here are (rightly so, since it only matters within the context of the coronation). We wouldn't want to disappoint readers clicking on the link hoping to find the answer. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Sodacan (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Review Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/List of Pakistan Test cricket records Reviewed.  Not yet promoted (not a requirement).  GTG.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 14:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, made small change from "use" to "sit under", hope that is alright. Sodacan (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Review Symbol confirmed.svg Small amendment of hook changes nothing. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: There was an issue with the chosen thumbnail image, the article was moved to be prepped and the image was changed without discussion. I have reversed this change and put the article back into the nominations until the issue is settled.Sodacan (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg There appears to be a disagreement over the image in this nomination, so this is not ready for promotion. Yoninah was not willing to give the image here the lead slot, which is the promoter's prerogative, and instead chose a different image from the article, but Sodacan switched it back, something that should not be done by a nominator, and when Yoninah then moved the hook to a non-image slot, Sodacan pulled the hook (again, nominators are not supposed to do that, but they can take the issue to WT:DYK). So here we are. For what it's worth, I find the details in the thumbnail here nearly impossible to discern. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew I was not suppose too undo it all, but I would rather wait and get it right. These are my reasons: image of Rama IX is from the most recent coronation (closest to living memory), it is a coloured photograph, it actually showed the king sitting under the nine-tiered umbrella (which is mentioned in the hook), and shows the king granting an audience once his coronation is completed (again mentioned in the hook). And I can see the details fine. Sodacan (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) As I explained to  on his talk page, the selected image shows nothing at thumbnail size. Since there are plenty of sharp images in the article, I chose a different one. I also explained that as a hook moves through the prep sets and queues, the image can be changed at any time by other editors/administrators. This is the nature of DYK. When the nominator responded to me on his talk page, "That is fine, don't nominate it", I thought he meant not to use the image, not that he wanted to withdraw the hook altogether. It's a shame. His article will get thousands of hits in the image slot, and at least a thousand in a regular slot. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the editors/administrators not include me as well? For when I changed the image you moved the hook and wrote; "If this is the image, I'm not promoting it. Moving hook down in prep set.". To be honest that does not instil me with any confidence that a discussion was forthcoming and so I decided to wait for a different promoter. Sodacan (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We are constantly called upon to live with WP:OWN. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and that shows a lot at DYK, where hooks and images are tweaked by others all the way to the main page.
 * If you want a discussion of your image selection, I vote against using it. Most of your readers will not be as attached to, nor knowledgeable of, the kings of Thailand as you are. I kept looking at the thumbnail and seeing only a blur of brown. A sharp, clear image will motivate readers to click on your article rather than give it a pass. Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion and your efforts. All I ask for is consensus for the change that was made, change that was contrary to this nomination page and the consensus that I thought I already received here. Sodacan (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg More opinions welcome on the image use. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I don't think the image works at thumbnail size, and don't believe it should be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. I am however going to bring in two users who might actually have an alternate suggestion rather than just an objection. Users: and . Sodacan (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * <Small>(Fixing ping for User:7&amp;6=thirteen) --Paul_012 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have my own concerns regarding the image, which I've explained privately to Sodacan. As an alternative, since the main hook is already about sitting under the Royal Nine-Tiered Umbrella, what about File:Gran Palacio, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 57 (Cropped).jpg? I think it's colourful and discernible enough. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg User:Paul 012, I wasn't a party to your private discussion with Sodacan I did read what is above.  I am sure we all want a good image, if it is being run with on.   I am good with either image, assumjing it meets with Sodacan's approval.  FWIW, second image is more striking.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with 7&6=thirteen about the second image being preferable. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am in support of this picture as well. It shows the royal umbrella and the throne. Although it's not a historical photograph, it shows the subject clearly. Sodacan (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Off to the main page it goes! Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)