This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 36 days, no new discussion in a week. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There was absolutely no discussion or consensus reached for this seemingly random changes to the article names. I disagree with both these changes I have addressed my concerns with Jessadabodindra > Nangklao at the article's talkpage. Please wait for some comments before making any more of these changes. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright I have some solutions. I understand apart from Nangklao the issue is spelling. On Nangklao I will concede, because it is true that the name is more commonly used by historians and sources. I have actually not been able to find Jessadabodindra anywhere. However I found William Warren and Handley using Chetsadabodin & Chetsadabodin. Whoever named the article in the first place probably wanted consistency in using the first name, furthermore many of the article on Wikipedia now uses Jessadabodindra, habits will need to change. But as for the other two kings whose issue is with spellings I will accept Phuttha Yodfa Chulalok and Phuttha Loetla Naphalai. 'Phra' is unnecessary otherwise it would then have to be Phrachao Uthong, Phra Naresuan and Phra Narai or even Phra Nangklao also. The spacing is just a compromise between the two, some of the sources such as Chakrabongse and William A.R. Wood uses it. Again I would like to register my personal protest against this change (although it really means nothing), to change a consensus of several years, which has both consistency and a uniformity about it to this new way :) Regards, Sodacan (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Accept both new names (the name above and Phuttha Yotfa Chulalok), and no this does not mean in any way acceptance or recognition that these spellings are correct. But I also recognize that there is unlikely to be a definitive source on these translations and that the RTGS is probably the closest. My consternation and absolute disdain still remains over the use of 'Googlebooks' as the determining factor of usage on the non-latinized names of historical figures. Sodacan (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak support for Phutthaloetla Naphalai - it's at least a bit more common in literature than "Buddha Loetla Nabhalai". Oppose "Phuttha Loetla Naphalai", as it is even less common. But why don't we use the common name: Rama II? --RJFF (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Question Is there something wrong with "Rama II"? It appears to be quite common on Google Books, more so than the alternatives.--Cúchullaint/c 15:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There are old discussions from here and here. The main reason is that Rama # is neither any of the kings' names, nor is it the proper style. In the case of the early reigns (Rama I–III), though, I think a WP:COMMONNAME argument may be justifiable, as it does seem to be more commonly used. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Giving my support to Rama II, since it does seem to be most in-line with Wikipedia guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I almost closed this as "moved to Rama II", but Rama II is a dab page and the other article listed there, Rama II (novel), actually has more page views than this article, so I don't think we can say this article is the primary topic. I would support renaming to Rama II of Siam, which is relatively common in google books. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose (Comment moved from the Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke Talkpage) to Rama I and Rama II, even though they meet the criteria of the common name policy, they are not names of the kings. They appear no where on their long form or ceremonial names, and they are never used in the Thai language. These short form names were created by King Vajiravudh to help foreigners, who are unable or unwilling to pronounce the actual Thai names. Even if the change does occur then the title of the article should go to King Rama I and King Rama II, in line with the compromised reached for Japanese Emperor's Temple names (Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taishō).
Comment: This substitute name is used for all the Chakri kings from I to IX, so why shouldn't it also be the title of the articles for all the other kings? Also, If there is a Rama I or Rama II, then there must also be Rama III, which is infinitely more common than Nangklao. Sodacan (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
......The Siamese, when they possess titles, cease to be designated by any personal names; hence the king is never spoken of except by the abovementioned or other similar titles....
*** Second: Chao-phaya-bodin-deeha or khroma-ha-thai, formerly called Chao-phaya-chakri....
^Roberts, Edmund (Digitized October 12, 2007) [First published in 1837]. "Chapter XIX―titles of the king". Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock ... during the years 1832-3-4. Harper & brothers. pp. 301–303. Retrieved April 25, 2012.Check date values in: |date= (help)
Bold text added for emphasis. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Condensed quote, changed ref link to go to page 301, and with that as ref, added to Thai_royal_and_noble_titles#Feudal_lifetime_titles: "Those who possessed titles ceased to be designated by any personal names, and were never spoken of except by the awarded or other similar titles." --Pawyilee (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus. Unfortunately, we still seem to be stuck with an undesirable name in the absence of agreement on a new one. A multi-move for the various Ramas may be fruitful. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This hasn't seemed to attract much discussion. However, I would like to again ask the closing admin to note that in the previous discussion, consensus was clearly against retaining the current title. Since no opposition has yet been raised in this RM, I'd say it should be okay to move the page to Phutthaloetla Naphalai, at least for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment. In situations like these where it's not clear at all, we should really just use what the reliable sources in the article use. What does "The Emergence Of Modern Southeast Asia" (which seems like the most reliable of the sources) say? (Alas, seems the Google Books preview is dead due to courts/publishers...) I see above you reference "A History of Thailand" in the previous RM but it isn't used as a reference in this article, so its relevance is currently unclear to me. (If he's only mentioned in passing in that book, it isn't a great reference. If he's mentioned in detail, well, add it to the article!) SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Support moving to Rama II of Siam or King Rama II: per WP:COMMONNAME. In the last move discussion, it was criticized that "Rama II" was not his real name, that it was given to him only posthumously. The same is true with "Phra Buddha Loetla Nabhalai"/"Phra Phutthaloetla Naphalai" (the "Phra" btw is an indispensable part of the name/title), which was given to him posthumously by his son, and which is not a real personal name, either, being actually the name of a certain Buddha statue ("the Buddha, the best on earth and appearing in the heavens"). Why should we prefer a posthumous name that is less common in English-language literature over the one that is much more common (as shown in previous discussions)? Unfortunately, we cannot just move to Rama II, as Rama II (novel) is accessed more often than this page, so this is not the primary topic under this title. Rama II of Siam and King Rama II would both be acceptable to me with a slight preference for the former, being in line with Philip II of Spain, Elizabeth I of England, etc. (I would also support moving Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke and Nangklao to Rama I and Rama III, respectively, for the same reasons) --RJFF (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.