Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand/Archives/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Updating the Manual of Style (part 2)

Before this sinks into oblivion, let's try to formalise the above statements into a guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for royalty

It seems most of us (with the noted exception of User:Gryffindor) ultimately agree that the naming conventions for Thai royalty should reflect the current status quo, i.e. use the full length of the person's royal given (birth) name without titles, prefixes or suffixes, e.g. Dipangkorn Rasmijoti, as the names of the Royal Family members are mostly unique. A few issues still need to be ironed out:

  • What rules should be applied for those royalty who were not born into the Royal Family? Prominent cases here are Princess Srinagarindra the Princess Mother, whose birth name was Sangwan, and Princess Srirasmi, who currently still uses her birth name in her full royal title. Should we use the names later assumed as these persons moved up the royal ranks, or stick with the birth names? Princess Srinagarindra was also known as Princess Sangwan before she adopted Srinagarindra in her title, but she is rarely known as such today. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If we decide on the article title Srinagarindra for the Princess Mother, what about other persons with multiple given names, specifically Queens Saovabha Bhongsri and Savang Vadhana, who were known as Sri Patcharindra and Sri Savarindira in their widowhood? Should the most recent name be used (which would be consistent with the case of Princess Srinagarindra), or should we retain use of their former names (which I believe are better known in the English-speaking world)? If the latter is followed, this probably should only be applied to deceased persons. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Queen Savang Vadhana as a name is much better known IMO, so in this case go with the name they had as consort. No one will really know who Savarindira was. Gryffindor (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Using the given name for certain members of the Royal Family will be in conflict with using the most commonly known name. Prince Disuankumarn, The Prince Damrong Rajanubhab is almost always known in publications as Damrong Rajanubhab (which is a bestowed title), and I think that cases like these should be made exceptions to the rules. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Which Royal Family members should be treated according to these rules? Royals of Mom Chao level will use their surnames, so this probably means that the usual Given-name Surname format should be applied to them, as well as to members of the lower ranks (who are not considered royalty). --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That royal names are mostly unique is true only in recent times. Many royals in older times had very simple and common names which may have other meanings as well (King Mongkut's name literally means crown). How should we disambiguate such cases? Suppose we had an article about the Thai-style crown called mongkut, should King Mongkut's article be at Mongkut (monarch)? Or should we make an exception and apply a prefix or suffix instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case add the "of XXX (territory or kingdom)" just like the other monarchs. Or in worst case, yes just add king, see also the lists of Japanese emperors for example. Gryffindor (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • These conventions are unlikely to be suitable for royalty from older periods, i.e. early Rattanakosin and before, since it's unlikely that records exist that show such royals' actual given names, etc. I suggest that the most common name in English rule should be applied in these cases, although there will still be problems because many Ayutthaya rulers are now known by multiple names. Perhaps these should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for inviting me. Yes I stand by my opinion that titles should be included (if the British, etc. have them, then why not the Thais?). These are names that we are dealing with, and it does not mean that in future confusion could arise, therefore better to include them. If others disagree, well so be it, but I stand to my opinion. Gryffindor (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The common name rule suggests the name should be given as it would be on first reference in a newspaper article, i.e. with the title in front. The popes are done this way: Pope John Paul II. The reason paper encyclopedias strip off the titles is so entries can be alphabetized. In my view, it's time to update the conventions to keep abreast of modern technology. The main argument against this idea seems to be that editors are upset with the lèse majesté law. Kauffner (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for nobility

The issue with nobles is rather different, as most of them may be referred to by given name and surname (except perhaps those in older periods who did not use surnames). The problem, however, is that in Thai usage, these nobles are predominantly referred to by their bestowed titles rather than their personal names, and the same often applies in English-language use as well. These bestowed titles are often related to a person's civil office, and as such is often shared by many in succession. Thai-language conventions avoid ambiguity by placing the personal name in parentheses after the person's rank and title, e.g. "Somdet Chaophraya Si Suriyawongse (Chuang Bunnag)" (Somdet Chaophraya is the rank and Si Suriyawongse is the title). I think this translates to the following options:

  1. Use the personal name only, e.g. Chuang Bunnag. This may have the disadvantage of being unfamiliar and not in line with the most common name convention, especially in cases like Phraya Manopakorn Nititada, whose article would be at Gon Hutasingsa instead (although in such extreme cases where the personal name is rarely known exceptions should of course be made).
  2. Use the title, without rank, and disambiguate with personal name when necessary, e.g. Si Suriyawongse. Although these titles may have been held by many persons, it could be reasonably argued that of these various titleholders, only one or few are likely to have Wikipedia articles. If there are articles on multiple Si Suriyawongse titleholders, this could be disambiguated to Si Suriyawongse (Chuang Bunnag). This does not reflect actual usage of the name, though.
  3. Use the title and rank, and disambiguate with personal name when necessary, e.g. Somdet Chaophraya Si Suriyawongse, and Somdet Chaophraya Si Suriyawongse (Chuang Bunnag) if the former is ambiguous. This avoids the awkward format of title and personal name appearing without the rank as in the previous example, and takes advantage of the fact that holders of the same title may have different ranks, and thus may reduce the need for disambiguation (although this is rather uncommon). Such full titles are also likely to be the most common name, as in the case of Phraya Manopakorn Nititada.

These should of course be treated as general guidelines only, and in cases where common usage clearly prefers one name over the other, that name should be used as the article title. I myself am leaning somewhat toward option 3, as it does seem to be the most recognisable format, but 2 also seems workable. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanization

Based on the above discussion, I propose that the Manual of Style recommend that for general cases:

  1. For Thai-language terms, use the established English spelling of the word, if available. Otherwise, the Royal Thai General System of Transcription should be followed when romanising Thai words into English.
  2. The first appearance of the article subject in the lead should be followed by the Thai spelling of the term using the {{lang-th}} template, and preferably accompanied with IPA pronunciation using the {{IPA-all}} or {{pronounced}} templates. For example:

    '''Abhisit Vejjajiva''' ({{lang-th|อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ}}, {{IPA-all|à.pʰí.sìt wêːt.tɕʰāː.tɕʰīː.wáʔ}})...

    Which gives:

    Abhisit Vejjajiva (Thai: อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ, IPA: [à.pʰí.sìt wêːt.tɕʰāː.tɕʰīː.wáʔ])...

  3. If the title of the article is an English word different from the Thai name, provide a romanization of the Thai term along with the Thai script and IPA pronunciation as mentioned above, e.g.

    '''Bangkok''', known in [[Thai language|Thai]] as '''Krung Thep Maha Nakhon''' ({{lang|th|กรุงเทพมหานคร}}, {{pronounced|krūŋtʰêːp máhǎːnákʰɔːn}})...

    Which gives:

    Bangkok, known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon (กรุงเทพมหานคร, IPA: [krūŋtʰêːp máhǎːnákʰɔːn])...

  4. Occurrences of Thai script in an article other than the first occurrence should be placed within the {{lang}} template, with the first parameter specified as th, i.e. {{lang|th|อักษรไทย}}, to ensure correct display across browsers.
  5. In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), italicize romanized Thai words when used in the article text, but do not italicize the Thai spellings. Proper nouns do not need to be italicized.
  6. Capitalization of terms should follow English language usage as specified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters).

There is still the issue of what to do in the case two or more words being discussed share the same RTGS transcription. Take อำเภอบางสาย and อำเภอบางไทร, both in Ayutthaya Province, for instance. Both are transcribed as Amphoe Bang Sai. Should we make deviations from RTGS in such cases, so as to avoid confusion (when both occur in the same article) or the need for disambiguation (when different articles share the same spelling)? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In re the two sais, using the geocode presently distinguishes them, especially given the difficulty of trying to translate them into English. The one clearly means Sandy Haven, but the other could be Current Haven or perhaps Long Haven, or even Pretty Haven; natives won't know unless there's a story attached, and even then there may be conflicting versions. Pawyilee (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

General style guidelines

The following is proposed:

  1. Thailand does not have national ties to a specific variety of English, so either American or British English may be used consistently in an article, following Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. However, in some cases, use of a certain term may be preferred. For example, association football is known in Thailand as football and never soccer, therefore an article dealing with the sport in Thailand should refer to it as football.
  2. For articles with strong ties to Thailand, dates should consistently follow the day-before-month format, e.g. 14 February and 14 February 1990. The parameter df=yes should be used with the templates {{Birth date and age}}, {{Birth year and age}}, {{Death date and age}}, {{Death year and age}}, and related templates.
  3. Years should be noted in Common/Christian Era, although the Buddhist Era may also be noted where appropriate. When quoting sources or citing document titles which use the Buddhist Era, the original year in BE should be explicitly noted, and a conversion to CE/AD year provided in parentheses, e.g. the Copyright Act, B.E. 2537 (1994 CE).
  4. Following Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement, measurements should primarily be given in SI units, usually with conversions given using the {{Convert}} template.
  5. Use only the given name and not the surname when referring to a previously introduced person, since Thai people are primarily known by given name.
  6. When categorizing biography articles, do not specify sort keys to sort by surname in Thai people categories. However, sorting by surname is still desirable for non-country-specific people categories. A biography article for Name Surname should therefore be categorized like this:

    [[Category:Thai people|Name Surname]]
    [[Category:International people|Surname, Name]]

--Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

General naming conventions

The basic guideline to go by is of course Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For clarity, I'd also like to propose that this MoS recommend:

  1. In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), use the most commonly-accepted English name of a subject, if one exists, e.g. Bangkok, not Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, and Thailand, not Prathet Thai.
  2. For names directly derived from the Thai language, use the most common English spelling if one exists, e.g. Pattaya, not Phatthaya, and Muay Thai, not Muai Thai. If no common spelling can be established, follow the Royal Thai General System of Transcription, as described under #Romanization.
  3. With the exception of royals and nobles, articles about persons should usually follow the <First name> <Last name> format. The spelling of a person's name should follow the person's preferred spelling, ideally as expressed on the person's passport or other official document, although alternatives are acceptable if shown to be overwhelmingly common. (Note that while newspaper articles can serve as useful sources for spellings of names, they are not always accurate.) Another format may be used if appropriate, especially for historical figures, as specified by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

--Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC), 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for provinces, districts, cities, towns and villages

Currently, provinces are located at Xxx Province and districts at Amphoe Xxx, except for the districts of Bangkok which do not have any descriptive words. Towns and cities are also listed at their plain names, while villages usually have Ban preceding the name (although Ban could be considered to be part of the name itself). This, however, has sometimes been challenged, and there isn't clear consensus to support a specific naming scheme yet. Issues include whether it is appropriate to have the plain name refer to the city/town (which usually corresponds to the thesaban/municipality), or should it rather refer to Amphoe Mueang, the province, or just be a disambiguation page. Also an issue is district vs amphoe, and the inconsistency with Bangkok districts. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The following (unresolved) discussion is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thai districts#Naming of articles:

One thing not yet defined is the naming of the articles. So far there are two naming schemes in use - Amphoe name and simply name. Another possible scheme would be to use name District (or name district), which might be less confusing for non-Thais who don't know about what the word Amphoe means. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming - a common approach fitting with entities in other countries would be nice. There's also the problem what to do with the plain name if we don't put the Amphoe article there - should that one be reserved for the main town of the district (unless that one has a different name, e.g. Chaiya vs. Talad Chaiya), should it be a redirect (or disambiguation if necessary). In most cases the central town of a district is so small it hardly makes sense to give it a separate article. If it isn't a redirect we will easily have many red links inviting to create substubs like xxx is capital of Amphoe xxx' without much use, or duplications of the article already written but not found. andy 12:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Has this been agreed on completely yet? I tried to ascertain a standard from looking at what's being used, and for the most part I found it consistent: The page for name is the page of the city, i.e. Lopburi is the capital town/city of the province, while Amphoe name is the district which (usually) contains that city, and name Province is the province containing that city and district. This is what I used for the districts in Yasothon, with a disambiguation page including all three. I think this setup works well.rikker04 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually this was never really decided in a consensus, it was simply the naming scheme used by User:Waerth when he started creating district articles, and I simply continued to use it, so it's just the de facto standard. I did not put up the point because I don't like this scheme, I just wanted to avoid a massive page move with many broken links later because someone decides equally unilaterally that all district must be [[xxx District]]. For the three articles town/Amphoe Mueang/Province it might be better to have the town at xxx town and make the plain name the disambiguation already, especially as the town is mostly covering the rather modern creation of a thesaban, while the historic town is mostly covered in the province article already. And when a Thai speaks about "Surat Thani" he usually means the province, while other more think about the town, thus there are easily links to the town which actually belong to the province. andy 11:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New discussion

So a lot of time has passed, and this project has basically stagnated since pages were created for all the districts. Time to pick up the torch. Here's my beef: I am now of the opinion that having Amphoe at the beginning of every article name is no good. It's not helpful to users who don't know Thai, and it's not really part of the name of the place. Many an amphoe was once a tambon and probably a village before that. I think the important thing is the actual name, especially since there is relatively little overlap in Amphoe names. The text of the article can make clear that it is a district. I move that the basic name should be, simply, the name. If we decide to make this change, I am willing to help do the heavy lifting moving articles, and fixing links throughout Wikipedia using AWB. What say ye? --rikker (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
What about the provinces? Should the changes apply to them too? Paul_012 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There are IMHO only two reasonable naming schemes for the Amphoe articles - either the one now used "Amphoe xxx" (and previously "King Amphoe xxx"), or the one now used for many subnational entity articles in Wikipedia with the english name of the entity type, which would mean "xxx district". We should not use the plain name, which is in many cases not unique - there's usually at least a municipality with the same name, though this is probably less known and notable as the district. There might also be a subdistrict (though it may take long till that can get an article), and sometimes a small local river as well. And as far as I know, in the western tradition one assumes the plain name to refer to the city, while of course in Thailand it's opposite. A Thai person who goes to Amphoe Fang would say he went to Chiang Mai, yet if a farang says he went to Chiang Mai he always means just the city. So in many cases the plain names should be either reserved for the municipality, or become a disambiguation, and only if the town is really totally unknown we could make it a redirect and let the article start with the otheruses template. For the districts we might choose the third way most often, yet it is still better to have the articles with the full name, so the redirect might change easily into a disambiguation later without fixing many wikilinks and interwikis; also it makes it easier to find wikilinks placed without actually knowing the right entity referred to. The same arguing fits for the provinces, where now some plain names are redirects, while others are the central town, and a few are the disambiguation. I have had exactly this discussion when I met the one from TAT earlier this year, who as a Thai of course thought the province should be the most prominent one - so using the redirect with the otheruses template linking to the disambiguation page. andy (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
So should it be Amphoe Xxx or Xxx District? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Follow local conventions says to generally "use the official English name for the place and its type" if there is one, but that leaves the question of whether district is in this manner an official and direct translation of amphoe.
Another part of the naming scheme I'm having trouble with is the lack of descriptive terms for the districts (khet) of Bangkok. While district names usually refer specifically to the district proper or subjects which lie within it, there are several instances where this is not the case, e.g. Phaya Thai, where neither the road, intersection or palace bearing the name lie within the district; Sathon, where only one side of the road lies within the district area, while the name usually refers to the business area along both sides of the road in conjunction with Si Lom; or Bang Khen, the district of which is only a small portion of what it used to be, leaving the Bang Khen Canal, Railway Station, Intersection and Campus of Kasetsart University outside the district bounds.
For both amphoe and khet, though, the question is whether district solely refers to the administration level. I might, for example, refer to the Si Lom-Sathon Business District, which is not a district in this sense but a neighbourhood of the city. If this is not an issue, I think we should prefer district over amphoe or khet, even if it isn't universally used in official sources, for the reasons of this being the English language Wikipedia, etc. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Buddhist temples

Thai Buddhist temple articles are generally titled Wat Xxx (not Xxx Temple). Which part of the name is included, however, has been vastly inconsistent. For famous temples such as Wat Phra Kaew, Wat Arun, and Wat Pho, the most common name in English is often the unofficial short name. For others, this is usually the abbreviated full name of the temple, although problems arise with the issues of ambiguity and precision. Take for example Wat Mahathat Yuwaratrangsarit Ratchaworamahawihan; the name of the temple is Mahathat Yuwaratrangsarit, while Ratchaworamahawihan is a royal temple suffix. While the most common name used to refer to the temple is likely Wat Mahathat, this is ambiguous, so for precision the article may be listed at the temple's full name, Wat Mahathat Yuwaratrangsarit, or with a place name disambiguation, Wat Mahathat (Bangkok) (which however may still be confused with Wat Phra Si Mahathat, which is also in Bangkok).

Another case is Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Woramahawihan in Phitsanulok, which shares its name with Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Ratchaworawihan in Si Satchanalai. In this case, precision could be achieved by including the suffix in the title (Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Woramahawihan), by disambiguating the full name with place name (Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat (Phitsanulok)), or disambiguating the short name with place name (Wat Mahathat (Phitsanulok)), although in this case the last option isn't desirable because the short name doesn't seem to be the most common one.

For smaller non-royal temples, duplicate names are even more common, and disambiguation by place name is likely necessary in these cases.

The primary question is whether we should establish a naming convention for Thai Buddhist temples. I'd like to have one, for the sake of consistency, but it isn't clear if the common names for most temples do fall into the same pattern. If not, a universal naming convention would be pretty much impossible. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

A draft of the new MoS has been created at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)/Draft. Comments are appreciated. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me, looking forward to finally getting this going. I also think that, as there is consensus on the rest (?), this should go forward even if the royal naming gets bogged down again -- just tag that as disputed. Jpatokal (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RTGS and IPA

The proposed style guide encourages to use RTGS when no clear established spelling exists and add IPA for more detailed pronunciation. If the arcticle chooses to use a non-RTGS transcription, I would like to add both the RTGS transcription as well as IPA. The former is more accessible to many people, and gives at least a good approximation to correct pronunciation.

Abhisit Vejjajiva (Thai: อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ, RTGS: Aphisit Wetchachiwa, IPA: [à.pʰí.sìt wêːt.tɕʰāː.tɕʰīː.wáʔ])

But I'm not sure we should we use an example as Vejjajiva, which deviates so drastically from RTGS.

Perhaps a detail, but the IPA handbook uses [o], not[ɔː] for an implied vowel in a closed syllable, such as the last one in "mahanakhon". −Woodstone (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The form -ร is a special case for the implied vowel rule, and has an implied -อ vowel instead of implied โ-ะ. The name is pronounced [กรุง-เทบ-มะ-หา-นะ-คอน] (a very good demonstration of the limitations of RTGS, heh heh.) Anyway, I'm okay with your proposal. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for a translation assistance

The Thai.wiki article for the manga series Yotsuba&! lists a publisher as licensing the series. I am completely illiterate in Thai and unable to determine the English (or at least transliterated) name of the publisher. If someone could provide an assist over the English article, I'd appreciate it. Bonus thanks if someone can provide a reference from the publisher's website verifying they're publishing it, but just having a name would help get me started on mining that. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The publisher mentioned เน็ด คอมิกส์, transcribes as "ned comics". Their web site seems to be http://www.ned-comics.com/. −Woodstone (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You hit on the problem of a name transliterated from English to Thai, and trying to get it back again. When confronted with ลัดดา แทมมี ดักเวิร์ธ in a headline, I had to have Google search +tammy +obama to find out she's Ladda Tammy Duckworth. BTW, she contacted Wikipedia to request her en article not show her birthday or mother's maiden name, as these are common security check items. Apparently she hasn't objected to these appearing in her th one, perhaps because she thinks it too difficult for a hacker to translate them to English. Pawyilee (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Pawyilee, indeed, of course my first try was "ned khomiks", but then it dawned on me: this is not real Thai. Happens often when it appears difficult to decipher a word from the spelling. −Woodstone (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thankee, Woodstone. That got me the publisher's page on the series, exactly what I needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Siamese sex god Pragngan"

There's a bizarre flap over at Talk:Toa Payoh ritual murders (yesterday's FA) about whether or not it's kosher to change the mangled names Pragngan and Phragann to the correct Phra Ngang (พระงั่ง), and to remove the identification by a tabloid writer of what is apparently a Buddhist amulet as a "Siamese sex god". Please chip in! Jpatokal (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How could it not be bizarre, given the subject? But I did chip in with "idol chatter." Pawyilee (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:46, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Buddha's Birthday and Vesak

Hi, everyone. We have a DYK event for Buddha's Birthday and Vesak just like events for Christmas or April Fool's day. Many of Thai culture is based on Buddhism, so I think you guys can create/edit interesting Buddhist articles in upcoming five days. Once you create or five fold expand Buddhist related articles (famous temples, monks, movies, literature, paintings, foods, etc) within 5 days, and then nominate it to the below place. After a review, your article can be featured on the main page. So be hurry if you are interested. :) Thanks.

Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded for Buddha's Birthday (May 2) and Vesak (May 9) --Caspian blue 18:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mor lam at FAR

I have nominated Mor lam for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce term

Can anybody help me please with what Thai children use as a truce term. A truce term is a word used to call a temporary halt to a game for respite for something like discussing the rules or tying a shoelace etc? Fainites barleyscribs 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Virachai Vannukul

Anyone know who this guy is and whether he meets WP:N? I can't tell from the GBooks hits [1]. Virachai Vannukul (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding himself to List of overseas Chinese and ignoring requests for sources about himself. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on a brief Google search, Virachai Vannukul (วีระชัย วรรณึกกุล) was president of Air Siam, a former major Thai airline operating from 1965 to 1977. He was also vice president of Bangkok Metropolitan Bank (now part of Siam City Bank), and serves (served?) on the board of Thai Airways International. He is currently a director at Shinawatra University, presumably among other posts. No sources primarily concerning him as a person stood out from my search, though. --125.27.122.212 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thai Football Division 2 League Naming

Thai football league system for 2009 season has introduced new naming for each league level. For top 2 levels, Thai Premier League and Thai Division 1 League, their names are obvious. But the 3rd level (Division 2) is questionable.

  1. The official logo stated it as 'Regional League'.
  2. Main article name is Regional League Division 2.
  3. It has sub 2009-season articles for each region including north eastern, northern, central & eastern, Bangkok & field, and southern region. But all of them named as 'Thai Division 2 League xxx Region' as well as their templates: NE, N, C&E, B&f, S.

Well, how we will refer to the division?

  • Division 2 (for short?)
  • Thai Division 2 League (same to Division 1)
  • Regional League
  • Regional League Division 2

Another question is about the Bangkok region name, how to refer the region?

  • Its old name was 'Bangkok & Vicinity'.
  • Current is 'Bangkok & field'.
  • And I see somewhere says 'Bangkok & Perimeter'.

This will affect many articles & templates, so I think it needs discussion here :-) --PaePae | Talk 12:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic but

Can anyone help with this? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#What the heck are these things? Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Flu

FYI, there is a Thailand article now... 2009 swine flu outbreak in Thailand

70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thailand regions

Hi everybody, sorry for my stupid question but how many are Thailand regions?? I note that here it says they're only 4, instead here are 6. Thanks Sandr0 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a stupid question, but if you look a little further up the article given in your first link you'll find that there are indeed two different grouping systems in widespread use, as noted in Regions of Thailand: "Thailand is variably divided into different sets of regions, the most notable of which are the six-region grouping used in geographic studies and the four-region grouping consistent with the former administrative region grouping system used by the Ministry of Interior." --Paul_012 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ayutthaya page moves

If you care, please discuss potential page renamings of Ayutthaya, Ayutthaya Kingdom and Ayutthaya (disambiguation) at Talk:Ayutthaya (disambiguation). — AjaxSmack 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I've submitted a request to set up a list of the WikiProject's popular pages here. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 flu pandemic table in Thailand

FYI, Template:2009 flu pandemic table in Thailand has been nominated for dleetion. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration

In connection with the article Name of the Philippines, what is the transliteration of Philippines' name in Thai to Latin alphabet? (ฟิลิปปินส์) Thanks. --JL 09Talk to me! 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Thai name is a transcription of the English name, so the best reversed transcription would be Philippines. If you insist on RTGS, the transcription would be "Filippin". Transliterations of Thai into English are hardly ever used outside of academic context. −Woodstone (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Thailand to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of 2006 Bangkok bombings

2006 Bangkok bombings has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Chalermpol Malakham

Hi. Just a notification that I've nominated Chalermpol Malakham for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalermpol Malakham. Because this might be a language issue—I couldn't find sources to indicate notability because those sources are probably not in English—I'd like some input from Thai speakers. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand/Archives/2009&oldid=1146690524"