Talk:Bangkok/Archive 1

{{editsemiprotected}}Under the Sister cities section, it should read "Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan" instead of "Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan". They are sister cities with Fukuoka Prefecture, not Fukuoka City. Thank you to whoever can make the change.

 Done, appears to be correct and consistent with the other article. Thanks for the correction. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some serious cleanup, as already mentioned above. It really does read like a travel broshure — and a very long one, at that. But what I'd like to point out in particular would be the section with all the culture goodies. It does seem to make sense, but there are absolutely no references here for them. Sadly, I would like it to be kept, but if no references are added, someone will probably drop by and decide to remove all the information.

Also, is it just me, or is the article too long? Lady Galaxy 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no basis to support that a higher crime rate is related to illegal immigration. In the section Crime the following statement "A dramatic increase in the number of illegal immigrant workers in Thailand has resulted in many of the crimes being committed by these illegal immigrants." is supported by the reference [2]; however, in this reference there is no clear mention to this fact. On page 4, it only says "These illegal immigrant workers also committed crimes and spread some new diseases to the Thai people.", but it doesn't mention the proportion of the crime rate between illegal immigrants is higher that the rest of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.137.56 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Way is this article still called Bangkok, it isn't called Bangkok and hasn't been known as Bangkok in Thailand for 200 years when that king dude, King Rama the first, built his capital on the fishing port Bangkok and renamed it, Bang in Thai means village and makok (where the kok comes from means Olives or plums or even a mixture of both, so Bangkok means 'Village of Olives' or 'Village of Plums' or even 'Village of a Small Fruit Salad'. It is now Krung Thep meaning 'city of angels', but that is the short version the whole name is KrungThep Mahankhon Amorn Rattanakosin Mahintara Yudthaya Mahadilok Pohp Noparat Rajathanee Bureerom Udomrajniwes Mahasatarn Amorn Pimarn Avaltarnsatit Sakatattiya Visanukram Prasit; which in Thai iswrittn as one word of 152 letters or 64 syllables. If you want the full translation I have it, but please reply directly to me on my talk page. Cheers! 'The Ninjalemming' 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated above in #Krung Thep or an English equivalent surely?, this article is about the English name Bangkok, not บางกอก, and correctly refers to Krung Thep Mahanakhorn as it is known internationally. We are concerned with the name's meaning in English, not in Thai. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How are we determining the list of "Sister Cities"?

The wikipedia Town twinning article doesn't identify the 'authoritative' source. Sister Cities International web site doesn't show these same "sister cities". Likewise, List of twin towns and sister cities doesn't include anything between Turkey and Thailand (which, of course, may be an oversight).

• Was the "sister cities" section meant to be a casual association list (which, to me, would be content of questionable value), or
• Do "sister cities" come from a formal source/list of 'twins' (and if so, what is that authority/reference)? - Thaimoss 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Borndistinction (talk • contribs) 09:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thai Airways...now use the airport for domestic flights..." All Thai Air domestic flights now fly out of Suvarnabhumi (ref Thai Airways website 4-12-09). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.143.181 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an asshole who kept reverting the main Bangkok picture on the top right back to the map image. I'm sure it'd have been better with the collage...please do not be a NUISANCE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avcomth (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Bangkokian and I love my city skyline but I think the constant addition of another picture with our skyline in it is just too much. There are nearly 10 skyline pictures, and over 10 pictures about the transport system. Is that all that Bangkok has? Please look at articles for London,New York, and Paris and see how clean and organized and do not only refer to the major selling points of their city.

You do not see pictures of the Manhattan skyline in the entire New York City article, and you do not see pictures of London's architecture as well. It is very well balanced.

Could someone please delete these blatant pictures, it is not only an eyesore but misrepresents the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.236.183 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of songs about Bangkok
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The official name is Krungthepmahanakornamornratanakosinmahintarayutthayamahadilokphopnopparatrajathaniburiromudomrajaniwesmahasatharnamornphimarnavatarnsathitsakkattiyavisanukamprasit, so why isn't that stated to be the official name?--CafeDelKevin (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is the full ceremonial name, not the official name. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 03:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't even mentioned here.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, under the section #Full name. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

English: The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Indra and built by Vishnukarma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.157.235 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been a slow, low-level, edit-war going on for several months over the order in which Bangkok's universities are listed. I've warned the most recent IP editor involved, at User talk:124.120.77.199, and asked them to come here to discuss it. If anyone thinks the order should be changed, please explain your reasoning here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, User talk:124.120.132.57 this time - same IP range, so probably the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the QI Book of General Ignorance:"Bangkok was the name of a small fishing port that used to exist before King Rama I moved his capital there in 1782, built a city on the site and renamed it....For Europeans (and every single one of their encyclopaedias) to go on calling the capital of Thailand Bangkok is a bit like Thais insisting that the capital of Britain is called Billingsgate or Winchester."N4m3 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The common English name is "Bangkok": every map, every guide, every place you e.g. by tickets to travel there, every news report uses "Bangkok". A good example is London - I don't know what it is in Thai but in e.g. French or Spanish it is "Londres", a related but quite different name. Even though the French language would have no difficulties with "London" no-one expects the article here to change its title to match the English spelling and pronunciation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this is the English language Wikipedia, and the English language name for the Thai capital is "Bangkok". In fact, even Thailand uses "Bangkok" as the English language name of its capital - it's what all the road signs say. (And we should most definitely not believe everything we hear on QI - the program is designed to make Alan Davies look stupid, not to further human knowledge) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the section on motorcycle taxis and tuk-tuks slightly to include a mention of the sign boards which are commonly in place quoting prices to nearby destinations, thus meaning that the fares are fixed and not negotiable. Dantilley (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

i delete http: // on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bangkok/185022688185306#!/pages/Bangkok/185022688185306 because it can not open

sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.90.75 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Education section mentions a small number of Bangkok's best-known universities. In the past few days, User:Palmykrongkan has been adding King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok and King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. While I don't doubt the quality of those institutions, I don't really think they count amongst Bangkok's top internationally acclaimed universities - but Palmykrongkan is being persistent in re-adding them after I've reverted the additions. Also, there has been an on-and-off slow edit war about the order of the others, with presumably students changing them round. So, can I ask for thoughts on which institutions should be mentioned in this section? Is there an objective measure anywhere so we could move from what looks purely subjective to, say, something like "The XXXX list of the world's top universities includes A, B and C"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 58.9.57.35 just added King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi - reverted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is more than a slight exaggeration to say

"Often after a downpour, water in canals and the river overflows the banks, resulting in massive floods."

I sugegst changing this to something like

Occasionally after a downpour, water in canals and the river overflows the banks, resulting in floods in some areas.

Markjholloway (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In which form will it be appropriate to add external link to Hotels in Bangkok Search Engine?

Here's the link: Hotels in Bangkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBloggerhost (talk • contribs) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the high rise in the bottom left corner, second row in , 7th apartment up......

There is a NAKED LADY!!!! very nice indeed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.191.13 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone's vandalised the article with something rude and taken away the infobox. Someone needs to fix this. Eternities (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed already. andy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Ratchaprasong and Sukhumvit skylines of Bangkok, the capital of and largest city in Thailand, with Lumphini Park in the center, as viewed from the Sathon District. Known in Thai as Krung Thep ("city of angels"), it became the capital in 1768 after the destruction of Ayutthaya by Burmese invaders.Photo: Benh Lieu Song

Archive – More featured pictures...

Currently there are three unconnected bits:

• the second paragraph of Bangkok#Topography and Climate
• the section Bangkok#2011 floods under Current Issues
• a wikilink to the 2010 floods (not mentioned in the text), in Bangkok#See also

I think all these should go under Topography and Climate. Having a Current Issues section at all looks a bit recentist to me. It would have to be moved out of there anyway once the floods are over, and back in for next year's rainy season. Sections shouldn't come and go like the tide.--88.73.158.36 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear 88.73.158.36, I heartily agree. See To-do list for Bangkok up top, which is a good idea, but seems to be escaping notice. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in with the current narrative (too detailed), but the ref could be useful elsewhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The industry took off in the 1960s to serve some 700,000 American soldiers who took leave in the city during the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="Altman2002">{{cite book|last=Altman|first=Dennis|title=Global Sex|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jrMB8V2DWjsC&pg=PA11|accessdate=8 April 2012|date=1 September 2002|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-01605-4|page=11}}</ref>

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bangkok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

Article is not particularly well written. A lot of scruffy paragraphs which are not concise. History is not adequate.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Considering it is a capital city sourcing in parts is poor. Its uses many poor quality sources and entire paragraph unreferenced.

1. C. No original research:

There are entire paragraphs which are unsourced and look as if somebody living in the city wrote them.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

The article is very long as expected but it needs a major injection of quality and to be better written more/concise in parts.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

No problems I can see with neutrality

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm failing this as I feel the problems with it are too numerous to make it worth putting it on hold. The prose is not the quality of a GA. Many paragraphs are unsourced and contain badly written text. Better quality sources could be used to write this article. At present I feel it has quite a long way to go before reaching GA. Start focusing on comprehension/concision. History section is not adequate for such a major city. Look in google books and try to replace a lot of the sources and source/improve the quality of text for the unsourced parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

(Originally posted at User talk:Paul_012)

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)

PS The image I originally used was actually File:Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall P1120862.JPG. It was changed somewhere along the way. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 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)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bangkok/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC).Substituted at 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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."

Thank you.

70.61.84.234 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Good point. Cannolis (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,The pronunciation of BKK should be:ˈbæŋkɒk and not ko:k

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bangkok?s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.114.224 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Although as local pronunciation, it should /bɑːŋkɒk/ not /bæŋkɒk/ 171.97.1.125 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Both the English and Thai pronunciations are presented in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/cg/cityhall.php?pidx=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The ref was originally introduced as an archive link to the Wayback Machine, but that link actually returns a robots.txt error. I've removed it, since the statement's quite adequately supported by the other existing ref. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (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. 112.198.79.149 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not according to WP:COMMONNAME. - Takeaway (talk) 07:53, 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)

Yes I am serious. If they call it Krung Thep nobody would know what it is. The whole world except the Thailand population call it Bangkok. We need people from Thailand to share some info on this. --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci, you might actually want to read WP:COMMONNAME first. - Takeaway (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/22/thailand.water.rising.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305120205/http://www.tri.chula.ac.th:80/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html to http://www.tri.chula.ac.th/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120152600/http://www.port.co.th/pat/topic7/stat_012.pdf to http://www.port.co.th/pat/topic7/stat_012.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eng.gov.spb.ru/figures/ities
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806191943/http://www.manila.gov.ph:80/localgovt.htm to http://www.manila.gov.ph/localgovt.htm#sistercities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What is Bangkok's oldest name? 119.46.190.52 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of paragraphs without citations, as well as long stretches of text with just one or two citations. —howcheng {chat} 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112051933/http://rirs3.royin.go.th/word24/word-24-a3.asp to http://rirs3.royin.go.th/word24/word-24-a3.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302033915/http://www.wangdermpalace.org/thonburi/index_thai.html to http://www.wangdermpalace.org/thonburi/index_thai.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219220002/http://203.155.220.230/info/passbkk/frame.asp to http://203.155.220.230/info/passbkk/frame.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016093625/http://iad.bangkok.go.th/sites/default/files/internew/623-55%20new.pdf to http://iad.bangkok.go.th/sites/default/files/internew/623-55%20new.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207064853/http://www.tourism.go.th/2010/upload/filecenter/file/stat_2554/Sep/Update53%20on%206sep/bangkok.pdf to http://www.tourism.go.th/2010/upload/filecenter/file/stat_2554/Sep/Update53%20on%206sep/bangkok.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911034352/http://www.thairath.co.th/corp/index?subMenu=info to http://www.thairath.co.th/corp/index?subMenu=info
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923083010/http://www.exat.co.th/statistics/10/12/ to http://www.exat.co.th/statistics/10/12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603110642/http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/articles-72628_Ch3.pdf to http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/articles-72628_Ch3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527060147/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMfzhH0cMlYhkVxkytUzlBScCrDQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMfzhH0cMlYhkVxkytUzlBScCrDQ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tri.chula.ac.th/triresearch/bangkokport/bangkokport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303175713/http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2004_35_3/42-3238.pdf to http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2004_35_3/42-3238.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501194858/http://203.157.6.204/Admin/filestat/57.xls to http://203.157.6.204/Admin/filestat/57.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827062830/http://statistic.police.go.th/stat/40_50/MONTH53.xls to http://statistic.police.go.th/stat/40_50/MONTH53.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904061248/http://www.thaicvs.org/images/51/13Bkk.pdf to http://www.thaicvs.org/images/51/13Bkk.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416000813/http://www.un.or.th/unagencies/index.html to http://www.un.or.th/unagencies/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manila.gov.ph/localgovt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501041551/http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=38 to http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705201641/http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/page/index.php?&153-Geography_of_Bangkok&l=en to http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/page/index.php?&153-Geography_of_Bangkok&l=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523102723/http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2917&alt=1 to http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2917&alt=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cdsd-rta.net/images/stories/valasan/valsan%20y54%20b3%20year2548/155403.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130101120642/http://www.bangkokplan.org/website/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=54&lang=en to http://www.bangkokplan.org/website/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=54&lang=en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.polsci.chula.ac.th/pitch/urbanmaids2010/sp.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bangkok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731203525/http://www.cps.chula.ac.th/pop_info_2551/Image+Data/Publications/Cps_res/Data/RR-No07_Full.pdf to http://www.cps.chula.ac.th/pop_info_2551/Image+Data/Publications/Cps_res/Data/RR-No07_Full.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122000518/http://english.wh.gov.cn/publish/english/2013-11/21/1201311211840450118.html to http://english.wh.gov.cn/publish/english/2013-11/21/1201311211840450118.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119175347/http://www.unescap.org/esd/apuf-5/documents/SACR.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/esd/apuf-5/documents/sacr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204201228/http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/eco_datas/account/gpp/2010/All%20GPP%20Book%202010p.zip to http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/eco_datas/account/gpp/2010/All%20GPP%20Book%202010p.zip
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002125223/http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=17 to http://office.bangkok.go.th/iad/eng/viewpage.php?page_id=17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki article Bangkok contains several sections such as: Economy, Tourism, Culture, Transport, Health and Education. But all of these sections lack a weighted value. That's why "Human Achievement Index" of United Nations Development Program in Thailand gives weighted value to the eight most important key areas of human performance in Bangkok.
The reverted section "Human achievement index 2014" immediately displays the eight key areas. As expected Bangkok takes 1st rank for "education". But for "Housing and living environment" it ranked 69th, which is "low".
Moreover, Wikipedia Netherlands (who is stricter in the encyclopedia vision) welcomed these HAI 2014 sections in their "Provinces of Thailand" articles.
Finally, there is a possibility of a "See also: HAI 2014" or not even that.SietsL (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The UNDP's HAI is barely recognised outside of Thailand. It could have its own article, and could probably be mentioned in the infobox for each province, but its existence doesn't warrant extended discussion in the article body of every province and Bangkok. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Krung-devamahanagara amararatanakosindra mahindrayudhya mahatilakabhava navaratanarajadhani puriramasya utamarajanivesana mahasthana amaravimana avatarasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually tries to make a distinction between a city and the administrative district that bears its name. Samut Prakan is one of the rarer cases (for provincial centres) where the city doesn't have its own article, probably partly due to the haphazard way its municipalities are split. Ideally we'd have a base article at Samut Prakan describing the city, and Samut Prakan (city) would redirect there. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A red link is never useful to the reader. A link to an article that comes close to the intended target certainly is. Links are not intended as signals to other editors. −Woodstone (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)