From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
September 27, 2012 Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 21, 2015.

Section split

The cities that were moved into the new section does not lies Bangkok as their sister cities, so they cannot be listed there – that's fundamental. There are also references by every individual partnership, referring to speficic documents that also tell which type of partnership it is. FromCzech ( talk) 05:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I admit that the second part is not very valid, a lot is lost in translation. Bangkok has only one section on its website, which is called Sister cities, but the contracts usually only talk about friendly relations and not about twinning. But cities whose sites are a more credible source and do not mention partnerships with Bangkok cannot be included in the Sister cities section. I also have the impression that some of the partnerships that Bangkok continues to list on its website are long over. FromCzech ( talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see how such a distinction can be made without straying into WP:original research territory. The previous wording, "Bangkok has made sister city and/or friendship agreements..." should be broad enough. Maybe it's just the section title that needs to be adjusted. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Adjust the section title and add an explanation of the situation, or remove the Bangkok website as an unreliable source and replace them with reliable references from other cities. The current division corresponds to reality much more accurately than the previous one. FromCzech ( talk) 21:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
It's still unclear to me what exactly the division you instated is based on. The source documents for Shanghai and Shangdong, for example, use "friendly cooperation and exchange" and "friendly cooperative relationship", not sister cities. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I just wanted to split the cities that according to their lists of twin towns are not twinned with Bangkok from the sister cities section, as is usual on pages of other cities. There were obvious mistakes and cities that are certainly not sister cities of Bangkok were included. But for example Shanghai lists Bangkok as its twin town and Shanghai's website is quite precise (definitely better source than Bangkok) so I left it there. If you don't like it methodically, redo the section your own. FromCzech ( talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
See also Busan#International relations, Daegu#Sister cities, Lisbon#International relations or City of Brisbane#Sister cities for a comparison. Bangkok should be consistent with this lists. FromCzech ( talk) 12:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I've undone the separation and changed the section header to "City partnerships". Seeing as the BMA doesn't clarify the distinction on its website, and per the above inconsistency and sourcing issues, I think it's better not to try to separate them here. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Wrong translation of Krungthep

Krung thep literally city of gods and not city of angels, unlike abrahamic religions Buddhism doesn't have concept of angels, moreover thai word thep came from word devā which is mean literally gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.56.17 ( talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The long translation is a quote from the source, so it must be presented verbatim. There's already further explanation of the meanings of krung and thep in the following paragraphs. If it's inadequate, maybe a footnote could also be inserted into the blockquote. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Question regarding Primate City

I have a question regarding this sentence in the Demography section: "In 1980, Bangkok's population was fifty-one times that of Hat Yai and Songkhla, the second-largest urban centre, making it the world's most prominent primate city." I understand that the source from 1980 is in of itself correct, but the way it is phrased, it seems as if Hat Yai and Songkhla still form the second largest urban centre and as if Bangkok is still the most prominent primate city. Please correct me if I am wrong. If not, then I feel that the sentence should be at least changed to be in the past form or current information should be added to reflect the state as of 2022, because Hat Yai-Songkhla no longer form, as conurbation, the second largest metropolitan area in Thailand, but the third largest after Bangkok and Chiang Mai, and Bangkok isn't the most prominent primate city anymore, as its relative primacy has decreased from fifty one times (or 40 compared to Korat in 2000) to 8.8 compared to Chiang Mai as of 2022. Clarification is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jonathan.Gab. ( talk) 16:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You seem to be basing your understanding on data from macrotrends.net, which you added to the Primate city article a few months ago. The page you cited [1] is listed as "Chiang Mai, Thailand Metro Area Population 1950-2022". Looking at the numbers, they are clearly for the population within all municipal areas of Chiang Mai Province as a whole (which has 121 municipalities), not just Chiang Mai city. Compare the website's 2010 figure (953,000) with the 2010 census data [2] for Chiang Mai Province, which lists 967,020 in municipal areas and 770,021 outside.
In contrast, the population registry figure [3] for Chiang Mai City Municipality is 119,771 for 2021 (compared to 5,527,994 for Bangkok). The population registry heavily underestimates the urban population as it doesn't account for people from rural households migrating for work in the cities who don't change their home registration, so it's a poorer indicator of actual population patterns than the decennial census. (The 2020 census was postponed due to the pandemic, so the latest available data is from 2010). Unfortunately, the census doesn't list individual cities apart from Bangkok, so there's no directly comparable data that's easily available. Also, Chiang Mai's actual urban agglomeration spreads beyond Chiang Mai City Municipality, which complicates things.
In any case, any complicated analysis of these figures likely falls into the realm of WP:original research, and should be avoided for Wikipedia content. In the case of primate city status, we should stick to reporting the ratios given in reliable sources, and properly contextualise them. Bangkok has been recognised as the world's most prominent primate city, this is a fact. The degree of its population dominance has lessened since then, but not as much as you probably think. We don't know for sure whether the world title continues to hold, but unless there are sources that refute this, there's no reason to assume otherwise. Stating the time from which it became known as such should be adequate.
As for whether Hat Yai–Songkhla is still the second-largest urban centre, adding "at the time" should solve that. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you very much for your reply. Regarding whether I base my understanding on data from macrotrends, that is not the case. For Chiang Mai specifically (as a Thai I luckily have the possibility to go after this deeper) my data is based on sources by the Chiang Mai Provincial Administrative Organisation and Chiang Mai Municipality in the Royal Thai Government Gazette, with help from data by the DLA and the NSO. For over ten years, Chiang Mais urban city area has been defined in several documents published in the Gazette and has not changed/is not an evolving map. It is far bigger than the municipality, with even the municipality not covering the city centre anymore. From that data it is possible to add the district population figures from the defined urban area, which equates to over a million registered residents. I am in contact with officials from both the Provincial administration and municipality, and have confirmation that the size and numbers are correct. For the next decennial census it is hoped that there will be a release of one figure for the urban area and include expatriates, non-permanent residents and Thais from other provinces (similar to Bangkok in 2010). I am currently also trying to contact the Governors office about this issue. Obviously this matter doesn't only concern Chiang Mai, but all big cities throughout Thailand, for which the municipality system is greatly outdated (for example: Municipal officials (Chiang Mai) even tend to official problems which are outside in municipality areas) as the last time their areas were enlarged is oftentimes decades ago, making for a lot of cities the figure for Mueang District the better and truer population number as of 2010(2022).
Your proposed idea to add "at the time" is greatly appreciated, and I do not have any other suggestions nor will I change anything on this page, as Bangkok is not my main field of knowledge. Thank you. Jonathan.Gab. ( talk) 11:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation. The situation with cities outgrowing their municipal areas is a sticky issue indeed. Hopefully sources will address this in the future. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Infobox image and map

Phaisit16207, I've partially reverted your edit. I'm not opposed to using {{ multiple image}}, but I'd argue against individual image captions, as they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox, which is to present an overview of the city, not highlight individual landmarks. Also, it would be highly preferable to choose images with proportions such that each row is equal in height (I'm not sure if {{multiple image}} works with {{ CSS image crop}}), and avoid having any single image being overly large (as with Wat Benchamabophit in the reverted version).

As for the location map, I'm a bit reluctant to support the use of OpenStreetMap maps via Mapframe, as the system has been long plagued by a huge number of bugs, and the default rendering style is very busy and quite a bit distracting (especially for the infobox). The maritime borders being rendered the way they are also makes the map weird to look at. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

For {{ multiple image}}, I accepted because I had read many articles about cities, such as New York City and Paris. I'm a native man, and I want to contribute my native city. I'm concerned about this change, but ultimately, I do it. Kept 5 of the 7 original photos, I replaced Chao Phraya skyline and traffic photos with single picture of the city's skyline, and I hope this revision won't create an edit warring. -- Phaisit16207 ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

(December 2023) Chronus, the above is what I meant. The spread of the multiple image template into infoboxes is relatively recent, so I don't really have a grasp on what most people think of it. (Your version has better proportions than the one I reverted in March though.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Paul 012 Ok, but saying that "they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox" is just your opinion. There is no policy or regulation that does not recommend individual captions or the use of {{ multiple images}} in infoboxes. Furthermore, the use of photo montages in articles about cities is nothing new. Chronus ( talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
And there is no policy or regulation that recommends so. It's a matter of opinion either way, and we simply disagree here. Photo montages in city infoboxes are nothing new, but they used to be done as combined images, only converting to templates in the past few years. As for individual captions, in all of the examples you cited, the individual captions were introduced no earlier than 2022 ( London, New York City, Paris, Mexico City, Shanghai). While it could be argued that there's presumed local consensus based on silence in those cases, I'm disputing the change here, so explicit consensus is needed. Has there been discussion on this somewhere? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Weatherbox record highs/lows

Given that multiple accounts and IPs have repeatedly tried to change the record highs/lows in the weather box from the 1981–2010 range supported by the main TMD document to include records from outside that range, I've let it stand and added proper citations to the TMD documents for the record summer highs/winter lows since 1951. The problem is that these records only include February to May for the highs and November to February for the lows, so presenting them in the table with the other months filled by data from 1981–2010 is misleading. User:Ileagae, please try to find a complete document with highs/lows for all months since 1951, if you can. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Please also explain why you think there's a need to change the rain parameters to precipitation. Rain is what the source reports, and that should be reflected here. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hat hatnote

SahdOnWikitionary, this seems very much like a WP:partial title match to me. Are there any examples of the Bangkok hat being referred to as bangkoks, apart from the the single 1918 one cited in Wiktionary, where the context was specifically about hat styles named after various places? It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would type in "bangkok" in the search bar expecting to find information about the hat. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Bangkok&oldid=1195090202"