Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand/Archives/2017

Category:Order of the Royal House of Chakri has been nominated for discussion
Category:Order of the Royal House of Chakri, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Project page reorganised
I've reorganised the project page a bit. Hope it's fine by everyone. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zero Tolerance
Zero Tolerance (2015 film) has yet to be rated on the importance and quality scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5FB:3990:814B:82AB:ABA1:EECF (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass importance assessment
Hi. I've gone through the bulk of Thailand-tagged articles and listed importance assessments for most of them here. It's admittedly a quick (and rather rough) job, looking only at the titles, but any mistakes should be easy to correct. (I've left the Low-importance biographical articles off the list for now, since those probably warrant a closer look.) These assessments are of course subjective, but I hope it's a start. If no one objects, I'm planning to submit a bot request for tagging (plus auto-stub assessing) in a few days. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone has the time to take a look at the list, please do so and leave a comment here whether or not you agree with the proposal. Seeing as it's a mass operation, a bot operator has advised that a clearer consensus (at least one or two more supports) be attained before continuing. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support overall with some suggested assessment changes for parks. I think any UNESCO World Heritage Site should be High importance, e.g. Si Satchanalai Historical Park. Also potentially High for other Historical Parks e.g. Phu Phra Bat Historical Park and Mueang Sing Historical Park. I think nearly all National Parks should be Mid importance, which some are in the attached list, but most are currently Low and there's Phu Kradueng National Park in High. Exceptions might be the constituent parks of Dong Phayayen–Khao Yai Forest Complex, itself a UNESCO site, which could be rated High. And finally I think that city parks in the list should be Low, e.g. Chatuchak Park. Aside from parks like Sanam Luang and Lumphini Park (rightly Mid), these other parks are not typically of significant national importance. Thanks for all your efforts in compiling and assessing this list. Declangi (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I've adjusted the most of the parks in the list accordingly, but I'm not sure about Phu Phra Bat and Mueang Sing Historical Parks. I don't think they're as crucial to the reader's understanding of Thailand as a whole as, say, Ayutthaya and Sukhothai (which incidentally also are World Heritage Sites). Apart from Khao Yai, the individual parks under the Dong Phayayen–Khao Yai complex mostly seem to grouped together in discussions about biodiversity and conservation, so I think the complex itself (already tagged high) should suffice. I gave Phu Kradueng high largely for its cultural significance, as it's a rite of passage of sorts. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your updates. That's fine about those two Historical Parks. As they're not UNESCO, Mid importance works. I understand about Phu Kradueng, it was also the 2nd park to be designated in the National Parks. The list now looks fine from my stanpdpoint. Declangi (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all! Just a quick note to say that this task has now been completed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting asessment
Please help reassess the quality of the following articles, which have been greatly expanded on since the last assessment they had:
 * 1) Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen
 * 2) Dhammakaya Movement
 * 3) Wat Phra Dhammakaya
 * 4) Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro

Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have upgraded them to C. B should be done by someone more familiar with the subject. Agathoclea (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have now also nominated them for good articles.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Children of Mongkut
All, I have over time in new page patrol come across articles about minor members of the royal household, often with not more information than "was son/daughter of and and brother/sister of ". Often unreferenced and without indication of individual notability of that person. Especially with children of Mongkut (82 I believe) that would run up quite a large number of stub-type articles. I was wondering what the thoughts of this group are with regards to merging them into a tabular format, such as "Children of Mongkut" and only create individual articles for major member of the household that have become notable as part of social life or government by direct exposure with Mongkut and Chulalongkorn. Obviously similarly applies to other families, not just Rama IV and V. I have sometimes tried to improve articles, sometimes suggested deletion. I have seen other patrollers inconsistent with the interpretation of notability as well, so I think some consensus would be good. Jake Brockman (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As royalty, the subjects would most likely have had enough in-depth coverage to satisfy the GNG, even if mostly in Thai and offline. However, there's really nothing much to say about many of them, so I agree that merging to a list article would be appropriate. This can be considered an editorial decision based on content and not notability. However, the editor(s) involved in these articles appears to be non-talking, so I'm not sure how they'll respond to such a proposal. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx, I realised as much, having tried to reach out to some editors before. I see th wiki has a list (which I think is good) and then some articles for individuals, but I don't see a pattern, why there may be some and not in other cases. Possibly just WIP... Jake Brockman (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Phra Bisal Sukhumvit
I got curious as to why Sukhumvit Road was so-named, after some research have started an article about Phra Bisal Sukhumvit. It's a stub so far, so help is welcome! Matthewmayer (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice article. That is a very interesting period of Thailand. Please expand the article. If you can read Thai, you might also want to try the Matichon free online newspaper archive, at.
 * I have been so bold as to make some minor edits. Good luck with it! --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I noticed you used an online newspaper clipping service. Can you tell me a bit more about that? I would be interested.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rat-on-a-stick
Please, if someone reading this lives where this is sold, please take a photo for the article Rat-on-a-stick. Thanks, and bon appétit! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I live right here and will take a photo in our local market in the next few days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wat Hong


The article Wat Hong has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned and completely unverifiable with no sources, 'Wat Hong' is a common place name according to a google maps search so this could refer to a number of different places. So there is no proof that this specific place which is described exists"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting assessment Global Buddhist Network
This article has just been peer reviewed, and has been improved upon significantly. I was hoping someone could reassess its quality. The article is quite short, so it shouldn't take much of your time. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assessment, .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recognized content section is no longer updated
The recognized content section is no longer updated by the bot. Please fix this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot appears to have been running normally; the Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro article wasn't added under the GA heading because the ArticleHistory template on its talk page didn't include the currentstatus parameter. I've added it. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, my fault. Thanks, !--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying project scope
Hi. I'd like to modify the project scope so that it clarifies that most articles under the Category:Films shot in Thailand are not automatically covered by WikiProject Thailand by default, unless there is significant coverage of the filming that is relevant to Thailand itself (such as with The Deer Hunter). This is so that articles like American Assassin are excluded, since they're barely of any interest to the project. If no one opposes, I'll remove the project tags from such articles sometime later.

Similarly, I think articles under Category:Thailand in fiction (including Category:Films set in Thailand) where the Thai location bears little real-world significance should also be excluded. This is a bit trickier, but it should be safe to say that neither The Bourne Legacy (film) nor Battlefield 4 are of interest to project. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And glad you are still taking care of this WikiProject, .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

help with LGBT history in Thailand article
hello so I found 'LGBT history in Thailand' awhile ago and been doing research to edit and add to the article but I found out that the article is not there anymore, when I clicked on the link it just redirect to the 'LGBT right in Thailand' article instead. I think the information I've gather is quiet interesting and worth to have its own article. I don't know much about how wikipedia works but I would appreciate if anyone can tell me/help getting 'LGBT history in Thailand' article back.Punpunns (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Punpunns, the article was changed into a redirect pointing to LGBT rights in Thailand because it didn't contain any content. If you're using a desktop browser to edit Wikipedia, you can get to the redirected page by clicking the (Redirected from LGBT history in Thailand) link at the top of the page. (Or just follow this link.) You'll find more information at Redirect. If you want to develop it into a stand-alone article, feel free to click edit and replace the redirect code with your article content. Since you'll practically be creating the article from scratch, you might want to take a look at Your first article for some advice on doing so. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS page about articles Buddhism
Dear fellow Wikipedians, In response to repeated discussions about policies and whether they hold for articles on Buddhism, I have drafted a policy proposal to include into the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles about Buddhism. The proposal does not actually include much new policy, but rather attempts to apply policy to articles on Buddhism in an understandable way, similar to MOS:ISLAM. Content is based on discussions held on Buddhist articles, as listed on the talk page. Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Thailand

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 19:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)