|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I have always heard the Reclining Buddha at Wat Pho referred to as the largest Recling Buddha in Thailand - not necessarily the largest Buddha. I can think of at least one grotesque outdoor concrete upright Buddha in Lopburi that may in fact be "larger."
Wat Pho may indeed have more than 1000 Buddha images. Whether or not this is more than in any other temple in Thailand is certainly questionable. Wat Mahathat in Nakhon Si Tammarat which has been accumulating gifts from pilgrims for decades may add 1000 amulet-sized Buddha images to its vaults on a busy Saturday. --AStanhope 04:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is also not the largest reclining Buddha in Thailand, in Ang Thong's Wat Khun Inthra Pramun is one which is 4 meters longer, but the longest is in Wat Bang Phli Yai Klang in Samut Prakan with a length of 53 meters, compared with the 46 of the one in Wat Pho. See Richard Barrow's Blog for more. andy 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I must confess that I have serious doubts that it is the "oldest" wat in Thailand, too. --AStanhope 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers , both 21 Februari 2008 and Februari 21, 2008 are correct. Still the first form was corrected into the second form on 12:25, 12 November 2011. How to react, should such a change be made undone, or what? Notice that the dates in the Revision history of the Wikipedia articles are in the first format!
- There's only one date in the article so it's not a big deal. The editor who changed it may not have been aware of the MOS. WP:STRONGNAT is rather specific to English-speaking countries, but it should be okay to change it back in this case. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the Buddha made of?
What is the reclining Buddha made of? Please include this in the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the RTGS version of the name transcription is not correct. The part เช ตุ is che tu, not chet tu. I'm not shure about the pronunciation, but the IPA version could be wrong as well. --FredTC (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- /พระ-เชด-ตุ-พน/ is actually the correct pronunciation, according to the Royal Society. Such apparent discrepancies are common in proper names deriving from Pali/Sanskrit. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to the page at the Royal Institute. I knew there are situations where a consonant is written once but pronounced twice, but a rule was not given where this was mentioned. So the IPA version is correct.
- The RTGS version however should not have the double t, or is there something in RTGS that I have overseen? --FredTC (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)