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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
Expand history section, breaking down by period into subsections. More regarding the 15th–18th centuries could be copied from the topic article, but more content regarding 20th century developments needs to be developed.
Rework most of the Cityscape section. Details should probably be limited to a few key neighbourhoods, presented chronologically along with the city's expansion. Reduce coverage of the road network (not of much interest to most readers; including a street map of the inner city would be better). Might be a good idea to reference more scholarly urban design analysis in discussion of the city's character. A separate Architecture subsection would be worth having if the content is developed.
The paragraph discussing ethnic neighbourhoods in the Demography section could be reduced.
The Culture section could use some work. Bangkok's mall culture could be discussed in further detail, while the Media and Art subsections could be more concise. The government's attempts at developing the fashion industry should also be mentioned.
Split the Transport section off into a subarticle, and shorten the presentation here. Don't include too much detail regarding each transport system.
The Education section also needs some work.
The Crime and Safety section could do with less statistics and more readable content.
Another section could be written about the city's infrastructure systems, including electricity, water supply, waste management and water drainage systems.
Thanks for the prompt review. I guess the CE Guild would be able to help with the prose, once other issues have been dealt with. I'm interested in the current references—which are the ones that aren't up to par? As for the lack of citations, I guess you're referring primarily to the Cityscape section. The only sources I've found that provide an overview of the city's neighbourhoods are travel guides, and by their nature I don't think they'd be considered very reliable nor comprehensive for such information. It could be trimmed down to mention only directly citable facts, but I didn't think such information would be considered contentious. Also, how would you suggest condensing and focusing the article? Which specific sections should be summarised, and which (apart from History) expanded? There are a few Bangkok history books and a few urban studies books that have a chapter dedicated to the city, though with Google Books previews being limited several library trips maybe required. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
When I have a moment I'll edit it, it would be difficult to route out exactly until I look into the research myself. The bulk of material is there in terms of topics, you've done a good job on that but its need major copyediting and wider research really to be an effective good article on the topic. I'll probably begin going through condensing and adding citation tags where needed. Hope this is OK. I'd say first of all if you could begin improving the history section, the key is for it to be both comprehensive and concise. Look in google books, you'd be amazed what you can pick up in decent books even if just snippets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering why you removed the photo of the Silom area. The photo that it replaced is sub standard, low res and is for the most part the sky?
The photo that I used is High res, is representative of the "city scape" and far more reasonable of a photo then the one you restored. I see in your history that you do a lot of edits of Thailand and am wondering if you feel that night photo of the Silom area (Financial district) is NOT representative of the true cityscape of Bangkok, and readers would be better served looking at the clouds in the sky over Bangkok?? talk--WPPilot 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Plaza is historically and politically important, and I believe having a photo of it in the article is appropriate. The photo isn't supposed to represent the cityscape; it's used to illustrate the paragraph beginning with "Bangkok's historic centre is the Rattanakosin Island in Phra Nakhon District." In editing the article, I tried to use images covering the various different aspects of the city, and showing different neighbourhoods. Silom already appears in the infobox, and in the photo File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg, which is prominently featured a little lower down the Cityscape section. I think having three photos of the same city block would be a bit of overkill.
The problem with Bangkok is that it's so spread out that there isn't a distinct CBD with a familiar skyline that can be claimed to represent the city. File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg is currently the best thing we have, but since it's a wide image, it doesn't really lend itself to be placed at the top of the section. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Why then would you not replace the photo with the photo that you mention and rather just use a low res photo of the sky, with The Royal Plaza just a small portion of the picture? That photo is for the most part, of the sky and really has no practical use as it is SO LOW RES. The page HARDLY has 3 photos of the same area, the State building is miles away from Silom, Silom is considered the Financial district and the photo that I placed upon the page is true High Res, and would provide users with far more options for reuse by the public. Regarding the cropped Wide image, it is a cropped wide image, it is not a whole image as no camera shoots in that perspective and while it is a nice image, the crop lends itself use outside of Wikipedia. Silom is not as you put it "same city block" as the other photos, it is the financial district of Bangkok, hardly the same area in any way as the State building.. Perhaps if you were to crop the 90% of blue sky out of the low res photo it might carry some more value but frankly speaking as a professional photographer that has been published all over the world it has NO real value to the story unless it was to be reshot, in proper format and scale using a real camera, rather then someone's phone shot done without consideration for perspective, resolution or composition. talk--WPPilot 11:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced both the photos, and cropped another one in the section. I don't think the State Tower is visible in any of the images, but I was referring to the Dusit Thani Hotel appearing three times. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you plan to obtain the rights from the people who are in the photo that you have used now? I see at least 2 faces in the cropped photo in violation of global copyright laws? It looks to me like you are determined to do whatever you want with this page you have done so much editing upon, please correct me if I am off track here but you seem to be taking this personally. Also how on EARTH does that photo represent the cityscape of Bangkok??? talk--WPPilot 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I don't think that's wholly relevant. I don't think any of the faces in that image (apart from King Chulalongkorn's) is identifiable. Also, personality rights are distinct from copyright, and Wikipedia policy allows the use of personally identifiable images anyway. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Personality rights. Yes, I have contributed to the majority of the article, but I am well aware that no one WP:OWNs it. I'm just trying to suggest edits that are the most constructive toward Wikipedia's goals. Sorry if I came across otherwise.
I'd like to point out that I do appreciate your contributions. It's just that the last three Bangkok images you uploaded aren't that great, compared to, say, your FP of the Wat Arun guardians. Keep in mind that apart from aesthetic considerations, images used in Wikipedia must have the proper encyclopaedic value to help the reader better understand the article. I've removed your images from the Si Lom article because the portion of the road north of Sala Daeng Intersection is Ratchadamri Road, not Si Lom. Please don't take it personally either.
Regarding your last comment, allow me to quote my above reply: "The photo isn't supposed to represent the cityscape; it's used to illustrate the paragraph beginning with 'Bangkok's historic centre is the Rattanakosin Island in Phra Nakhon District.' "--Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You CLEARLY are on a quest to remove my photos and I do take it personally, as I have yet to find a single photo that you have taken on WP. You OWN Thailand, while I came here, to Thailand to do photos for Wikipedia, of Thailand, I can see that your quest to keep me from doing so is PERSONAL, and your attack is unjust and unfounded.
Go get a camera and have a nice time. You are out of line and I will bring this to the attention of admins. Cheers and good luck with your Wikipedia pages as these are YOUR pages, not the publics. I don't have time for this and I should not have tried to add my images to YOUR pages, forgive me. Have fun with your new camera & good luck with your pages! talk
Good luck to you too. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better, to move the article to "Krung Thep"? You know, in English language, Bangkok sounds awkward and increasingly more people notice that. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be best to rename the article to Krung Thep because there really isn't a city in Thailand called Bangkok - the natives don't use this name for more than 2 centuries lolz. It will be like calling London Winchester... My info is from The Book of General Ignorance--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Thai government uses "Bangkok" ( see at www.thaigov.go.th ) Seligne (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please rephrase the following language, located in the summary at the top of the page, by removing 'exotic appeal': "The city's vibrant street life and cultural landmarks, as well as its notorious red-light districts, have given it an exotic appeal."
Reason for change: The word exotic implies a foreign perspective externally viewing Thai culture/phenomena. Given that Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, this language should be replaced with a more neutral phrasing.
Suggested rephrase: "The city is known for its vibrant street life and cultural landmarks, as well as its notorious red-light districts."
The often reported figure refers to the cumulative total of registered cars vehicles since 1979, and doesn't take into account that many of them no longer exist. Also, such detailed figures and citations should go into the article body; the lead section should only summmarise the main facts. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)