Jump to content

Talk:Bangkok: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 75: Line 75:
::I think the previous wording, "The city is now officially known in Thai by a shortened form of the full ceremonial name, Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, which is colloquially further shortened to Krung Thep." is perfectly adequate. Since Thai is the country's official language, there isn't such a thing as an "official English name" anyway. The reports saying so are misinterpretations of the Royal Society's geographical name list's purpose. (The older part about Bangkok being the official English name should also be removed.)
::I think the previous wording, "The city is now officially known in Thai by a shortened form of the full ceremonial name, Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, which is colloquially further shortened to Krung Thep." is perfectly adequate. Since Thai is the country's official language, there isn't such a thing as an "official English name" anyway. The reports saying so are misinterpretations of the Royal Society's geographical name list's purpose. (The older part about Bangkok being the official English name should also be removed.)
::Saying that "the Office of the Royal Society announced that Krung Thep Maha Nakhon will be the sole official name of the city" is blatantly false. The ORST made no such announcement. What happened was that the Cabinet approved a long-standing draft to update the official spellings of global country and capital names, which got misinterpreted and spread by false clickbait headlines claiming that they were changing the city's official name. Officials attempted to clarify the issue, but the damage was done. I still insist that this piece of misinformation does not need belong in the article. --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 17:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
::Saying that "the Office of the Royal Society announced that Krung Thep Maha Nakhon will be the sole official name of the city" is blatantly false. The ORST made no such announcement. What happened was that the Cabinet approved a long-standing draft to update the official spellings of global country and capital names, which got misinterpreted and spread by false clickbait headlines claiming that they were changing the city's official name. Officials attempted to clarify the issue, but the damage was done. I still insist that this piece of misinformation does not need belong in the article. --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 17:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

::: So what do you think? I think we should wait for the effect to be apply before modifying it, okay, i agree.--[[Special:Contributions/2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56|2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56]] ([[User talk:2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56|talk]]) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:10, 16 February 2022

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Asanee–Wasan song

That the song's lyrics consists of the city's ceremonial name is self-evident. The citation needed tag is more for the statement, "Many Thais who recall the full name do so because of its use in the 1989 song..." I'm restoring the tag. Cc: User:Fiachra10003. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see the logic in your thinking. Leaving [citation needed] tags indefinitely is not good practice though. You seem to have some expertise in the Thai press? Can you find sources for the assertion? Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's something of a shared experience / common knowledge that is mentioned in plenty of forum and blog posts, but doesn't seem to be touched upon by reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, spoke too soon. It's mentioned in this DW documentary, which should probably be good enough.[1] --Paul_012 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Bangkok became the capital of Siam since 1782 until now

Prach Donmin, as I mentioned in my edit summaries, your added sentence is redundant, as the article already says, "In 1782, King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I) succeeded Taksin, moved the capital to the eastern bank's Rattanakosin Island, thus founding the Rattanakosin Kingdom." It is also grammatically incorrect. Please stop repeatedly making the same edit and discuss its merits here first. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i'm really sorry I will stop editing. Prach Donmin (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if {{Section link}} were removed. Catchpoke (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the entire subsection down to the near the bottom, as mentioned under #Calls to move the capital above. This should address concerns both ways. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Flag depicts a local deity (possibly the King of Siam) riding an elephant. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Ugh. This "name change" is blatant misinformation parroted as a piece of junk news by lazy journalists who've copied this all over the press without bothering to do any fact-checking. The Royal Society's list of names always listed the city's name primarily as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon and secondarily as Bangkok. There has been no change in the city's official name whatsoever, and officials have been repeatedly denying this today. The only thing that was changed was the addition of a pair of parentheses, which was spun into clickbait that quickly got out of control. This does not warrant mention in the article at all. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh, very helpful topic, it's very helpful for foreigner who unfamiliar with primary official name.--2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the previous wording, "The city is now officially known in Thai by a shortened form of the full ceremonial name, Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, which is colloquially further shortened to Krung Thep." is perfectly adequate. Since Thai is the country's official language, there isn't such a thing as an "official English name" anyway. The reports saying so are misinterpretations of the Royal Society's geographical name list's purpose. (The older part about Bangkok being the official English name should also be removed.)
Saying that "the Office of the Royal Society announced that Krung Thep Maha Nakhon will be the sole official name of the city" is blatantly false. The ORST made no such announcement. What happened was that the Cabinet approved a long-standing draft to update the official spellings of global country and capital names, which got misinterpreted and spread by false clickbait headlines claiming that they were changing the city's official name. Officials attempted to clarify the issue, but the damage was done. I still insist that this piece of misinformation does not need belong in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think? I think we should wait for the effect to be apply before modifying it, okay, i agree.--2403:6200:88A0:58C4:CC69:8674:E116:7D56 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]