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.
The article was previously renamed by User:RJFF from Si Suriyawongse to Chaophraya Si Suriyawong. His most recent title, however, is actually Somdet Chaophraya Borom Maha Si Suriyawong (which is rather cumbersome for an article title). Even if we decide to omit the borom maha, as some sources do, the article title should still be Somdet Chaophraya Si Suriyawong. Alternatively, we could omit the rank altogether and have Si Suriyawong, a short form which is also often used among English-language sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The name "สุริยวงศ์" should be pronounced "Suriwong" rather than "Suriyawong", in the same manner as the road สุริยวงศ์ in Chiang Mai. This can be seen from his personal seal on which his title is written "Chow Phya Sri Sury Wongse, Regent of Siam" (เจ้าพญาศรีสุริยวงษ์ผู้สำเร็จราชการสยาม) and from this page of the Bowring Treaty on which his title is written "His Excellency Chau Phaya Sri Suriwongse Samuha Phra Kralahome" (เจ้าพญาศรีสุริยวงษ์สมุหพระกระลาโหม). So, if Wikipedia prefers the RTGS rules of romanization over the mentioned inconsistent spellings in historical documents, the name should be written "Suriwong" (or "Suri Wong"), not "Suriyawong". --YURi (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Notes: "เจ้าพญา" (Chaophaya, above written as Chow Phya and Chau Phaya) is an archaic form of "เจ้าพระยา" (Chaophraya). --YURi (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Good finds. I don't think the RTGS matters much, as this is a specific proper name. Both Sri Suriwongse and Sri Sury Wongse do appear used in several book sources, but I'm not sure whether we should give more weight to contemporary usage (which could be considered archaic) or current scholarship (which might technically be incorrect). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)