This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
As of today I did a complete rewrite of this article, I also nominated it for DYK. Comments please! Sodacan (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, though it might still need some minor stylistic and grammar improvements. I've gone through a bit of the article and made a few changes:
Removed the infobox, as it's not really applicable and seemed more clunky than useful since the palace complex is not a single historic building. (Buckingham Palace, which is a featured article, does fine without one.)
Removed most image size specifications (those that were 220px) so they will follow user preferences.
Decapitalised terms (e.g. palace) when not appearing as part of proper nouns.
Rearranged some photos and simplified the layout map so that it always shows.
There's one thing I'm not sure about: use of the word chapel to refer to Wat Phra Kaew; the term's rather unfamiliar in this setting. I understand that's the term used by the source book? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will answer point by point:
Not that much of an issue, since most of the info is in the article anyway. Just to explain, I had the infobox there originally because I based the structure of the article on those of the
Topkapi Palace and the Forbidden City (All three of these palaces are laid-out similarly, the Buckingham Palace's missing infobox always felt like an oversight - even the White House
has one).
No problem here, except for the un-labelled map: it should be bigger than normal for visibility (this is in line with Wiki policy).
No problem here
No problem here, thanks for this I was having trouble with the code, but didn't know how to get and wrap around border. I had the hidden feature on the map, because originally I was going to put the map in the layout section at the beginning. Although I did like the hidey-thing, it was probably for the better that it went.
Some sources use 'chapel', but not all. There is no distinction of wats being: a chapel, monastery or sanctuary. However all wats are temples (wat as a general term), but in this specific case the more accurate and informative descriptive of the wat would be as a chapel. It has always been a fun-fact to point this out to school children and tourists on their visit. One source even uses the term Chapel Royal. Sodacan (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the subheadings confusing due to the exclusive use of Thai names, many of which appear similar, for the many buildings and palace sections. This being the English Wikipedia, I think it would be helpful to identify these with their English names or English translations of the Thai names. I'm not looking for a response. I'm providing my reaction. Underalms (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even I would find the translation more useful. However there has never been such translations in any source, ever. The repetition of 'Phra Thinang', which translates into English as 'Throne Hall', but in Thai could mean anything from: palace, pavilion or hall (as long as it is a royal place, in Thai it literally translates as 'Royal Seat' or 'Royal Sitting Place') - The usage could be very confusing. I decided to use the Thai name because all the sources differ on which building could be named what in English. Furthermore some of them such as the Phra Thinang Sanam Chan is not a 'Throne Hall' at all, it is literally an open pavilion with a seating platform inside. To call it a pavilion is right, but it would not be real translation or sourced one. So I decided to use 'Phra Thinang' and the original Thai names for all the buildings, since all of them are 'Phra Thinangs' but not all of them are Throne Halls. Sodacan (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
simple words like "island" and "royal residence" shouldn't be linked.
Is the building on an island in the river? It says it will be moved "to the east bank", but then it says it's on an island. It infers by the piped island link to River island that it is on an island in Chao Phraya River? Also, the image shows it on a bank "across from the Chao Phraya River", so it's unclear to me. Also, it says under "Site" - "with the Chao Phraya river to the west."
King needs consistent name: he's called "King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (Rama I)", Rama I, King Rama I etc. (His article, which might not be correct, says he didn't gain the name Rama I until after his death.)
Also, I've removed "the" from dates, as in "the 10, June 2012" (example)
Layout
"Palace's asymmetry and eclectic styles is due to its organic development" - asymmetry and eclectic style is due ...? or "asymmetry and eclectic styles are due"?
"the Second Kings or Viceroys of Siam" - who are these people?
"Rama I ordered his men to go upstream to Ayutthaya. They were ordered to dismantle ... " - repetitious wording
The whole section beginning "Desperate for materials and short on funds, Rama I ordered his men to go upstream to Ayutthaya. They were ordered to dismantle and brought down as many brick as they could find. As they could not take from the temples they began first by taking from the forts and walls of the city, by the end they had completely leveled the old royal palaces. etc." seems like it should go into the "Construction" section, or some section other than "Layout" - it seems off topic.
Name
"However during the reign of King Mongkut (Rama IV) the name Phra Borom Maha Ratcha Wang or 'Grand Palace' was first used in official documents. This change of name was made during the elevation of Prince Chutamani (the king's younger brother) to the title of Second King Pinklao in 1851." - this is confusing. What were the dates for King Mongkut (Rama IV)? Prince Chutamani was his younger brother who was given the title of Second King Pinklao?
He was a Second King, like a Vice President? or was he a full king, but the second one after the death of Rama IV?
Functions
"By the 1920s a series of new palaces were constructed elsewhere for the king's use; these included the more modern Dusit Palace, constructed in 1903, and Phaya Thai Palace in 1909." - this is more construction info. Should all the construction stuff be under "Construction"?
Would it be better to have a another section for straight, chronological history, to account for changes over time?
The palace is on a river island (Rattanakosin Island), which has the Chao Phraya river along its west side. So the palace is both on an island and on the east bank of the river, I am not sure how to explain it. Would a map help?
I personally prefer the use of King 'Rama' Number, because it is shorter and more practical for readers unfamiliar with Thai history (as it is chronological). The name 'Rama' was given to all the previous kings (and then assumed by later ones) by King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) in the 1920s. He did so to make it easier for westerners, Thai people themselves never refer to the kings this way, but as First reign, Second reign, Third reign, etc. This is a little confusing I know, the whole system is explained (even more confusingly) here: Rama (Kings of Thailand). Furthermore the use of 'Rama' is standard practice in most English language sources on Thai history. What I have done in this article is to use both: the full name (which is also their Wiki article names) and Rama in brackets, but only for the first mention. Afterwards only Rama is used in the rest of the article. However this maybe unnecessarily confusing for readers. I think I am too close to the subject, what do you think it should be?
Agreed
Layout
"Palace's asymmetry and eclectic styles are due"
The Second King (sometimes called Viceroy) was an official appointed by the (first) King to help him rule the country. He lives in a palace to the north of the Grand Palace, this palace is called the 'Front Palace', the name of the palace has since become a metonym for his office. His palace is to the 'front' or ahead of the king's palace because he used to command the army's front section during wartime.
Agreed, will try and restructure the sentence.
Agreed completely, starting to think this section needs a whole rewrite, if not at least some rearranging.
Name
King Mongkut reigned from 1851 to 1868. After his coronation he appointed his brother Prince Chutamani, Second King. In the old days when a Thai king gives someone a title he also gives him a new name to go with it. Thus Second King Pinklao (title and new name), the name 'Pinklao' is then used instead of his previous name. Pinklao is the name he is most known for in sources.
The Second King is indeed like a Vice President, in fact Pinklao described himself as such in a letter he wrote to President Buchanan (will find a source for this). The title is not hereditary, the tile remains vacant until a new one is appointed. Pinklao predeceased his brother in 1866, the title then fell vacant. King Mongkut died in 1868 and was succeeded by his son Chulalongkorn (Rama V), who appointed a new Second King
Vichaichan
in 1868.
Functions
I agree with you on this, a new chronological History section would be better, I will put something together later and link it here for you to consider. Sodacan (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just made this: User:Sodacan/Sandbox1/Box3, I have removed all of the subheadings as they restrict the flow of the chronology. What do you think? :) Sodacan (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
Yes, I like your history section in your Box 3. I think it helps to have all the history together.
I'm getting used to the article.
In "Outer court", what does "Directly down the main gate is the Phimanchaisri Gate" mean? Next to?
I hate to say this, but the Middle court panorama image, being cut off at the top the way it is, detracts IMO. At the very least, it shouldn't be a panorama. Also, there are so many images in the article, perhaps too many, as the text becomes sandwiched in-between. Especially since some of the ones you took are really beautiful, showing the detail, just lovely—I think those should be emphasized.
Good then, I shall paste the new arrangement in. What do you think about a map of Bangkok and a table in with all the kings in chronological order? These could help with some of the confusions.
Glad to hear that, I put in so much information, and the format could be a little confusing, jumping around between this king and that king! :)
I will try and write a better explanation for that.
Agreed, about the panorama and the other images. There are probably too many images in the article, I will try and get rid of one or two.
Please feel free to field any more questions, I am very happy to help with anymore historical content issues, Best, Sodacan (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(continuing)
This image should be down in the section the mentions the APEC Summit.
I'm ambivalent about adding any more information to the article, as it has so much already. We could try a map of Bangkok and a list of the kings and see how it works. Could the kings be made into a stand alone list, if necessary? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have this template: Template:Chakri Kings, which we could improve a little bit. A map sounds good, I will get on it. Perhaps something similar to this?: Sodacan (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that map is helpful.
"The Grand Palace is not a single structure but a series of numerous buildings, halls, pavilions set around open lawns, gardens and courtyards. The Grand Palace's asymmetry and eclectic styles are due to its organic development, with additions and rebuilding being made by successive reigning kings over 200 years of history." - should this go into the lede since its descriptive of the palace now?
I guess, it does seem a little out of place where it is, please move it to where you think is appropriate. Sodacan (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Entering through the main Visetchaisri Gate, the Temple of the Emerald Buddha is located to the left, with many public buildings located to the right" - this sentence needs rewording (I tried to figure out how), as there is no noun referring to who is entering - e.g. As one enters through the main Visetchaisri Gate, the Temple etc.
"The Visetchaisri Gate is the main entrance into the Outer Court, as one enters through it the Temple of the Emerald Buddha is located to the left, with many public buildings located to the right" is this better? Sodacan (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template with all the monarchs is now in the History section. Within are all of the royal portraits, so I decided to remove the others in the article as there is no particular reason why they should be there and this will also clear up some for the clutter. I have also included the map of the Rattanakosin Island and surrounding area. Sodacan (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
A big improvement. I like what you did. Visually I only which that there were a way of including some of the detail, to give a flavor of the richness, but I don't see a way. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Monument within Wat Phra KaewOutside decoration, Wat Phra Kaew
These are photos from the Temple: Wat Phra Kaew, so they would not really fit here. However I know what you mean, if I have some free time soon I will go down (hopefully once the tourist season is over) and take some more photos along the same lines. Sodacan (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
"Today the Grand Palace is still a centre of ceremony and the monarchy, and serves as a museum and tourist attraction as well." - does this mean that it serves as a centre of ceremony for the monarchy? Or the centre of ceremony (of all kinds, religious perhaps) and is the centre of the monarchy also? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, all kinds of ceremonies happen (religious rituals, state functions (such as state banquets) and royal ceremonies (royal funerals and lyings-in-state)), it is also the center of the Thai monarchy as evident by the location of the Bureau of the Royal Household and the office of the king's private secretary within its walls. Sodacan (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
"On the morning of 9 June 1946 the palace bore witness to his mysterious and unexplained death by gunshot." - This was King Rama VI? Was this political, or what? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No this is the young King Rama VIII or Ananda Mahidol, the older brother of the present King. No one knows, it's still a mystery, his article summarizes it pretty well the different theories of what might have happened. Sodacan (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great article, a lot of effort went into it but I'm finding it quite tough to read in its entirety. I think to split many of the components into separate articles and condense would be the way to go. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this before I redid the article, however I went against it for several reasons. Firstly the article is only 108,122 bytes long, for comparison the Topkapı Palace (112,000 bytes), Palace of Westminster (125,470 bytes) and Windsor Castle (107,574 bytes) (the latter is a Featured article). I actually used the Topkapi Palace article as a template, seeing as they are similar structures; laid out similarly and serve similar purposes in the past, as well as being important national monuments. Secondly the main problem for this article is the sheer amount of Thai names and words, which breaks the flow of writing and makes it tough to read. I am not sure how to solve this. The names of the different buildings are very complicated. Really they should be translated to Throne Hall, Residential Hall or just plain Hall, some are just pavilions/gazebos! However all the English language sources disagree on how they are called so I just decided to keep the Thai name, also there is just one Thai word that is used for all of them (Phra Thinang; meaning literally 'royal seat' closest English translation being 'throne hall'). Finally a large part of the article's contents are descriptions of the buildings (layout, architecture, style, shapes), as oppose to a narrative with history and facts. I tried my best to mix both, and to be as informative as possible. So there are a lot of info here. The Inner Court section is my favourite because I decided not to do a descriptive section on it, instead I went with a narrative of its history intersperse with some stories about its inhabitants. A full descriptive section would mean naming and describing over twenty (or more) different structures belonging to the different queens and wives of King Chulalongkorn. Anyhow this is my opinion, I will await for consensus if the article should be split. However I think it should remain, it is very informative as it is. Several small and inconsequential articles would quickly become orphans and context would be lost upon readers (mostly tourists I would imagine). Plus reorganising the refs will be a nightmare. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vague: ″Cannon emplacements were replaced with guard houses and were given rhyming names.″
In our article Bob (given name), Rob and Bob are (and as i write, Rick, Hick, and Dick, still are, despite my intent for an article-split to, say, Rhyming name (Middle Ages)) two examples of (groups of) ″rhyming names″. The term, used here (as currently) in the absence of examples, could be suggesting 4 guard houses ″were given rhyming names″ Break, Make, Rake, and Take (good martial rhymes in English). Or instead a group of three neighboring towers named Mobjob, Thickstick and Stakebreak. Hence i tag that usage as vague. --Jerzy•t 06:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Palace. 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:
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.
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.
I have just modified one external link on Grand Palace. 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:
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.
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.
There is a lack of logic in the structure and the content of this text. It is quite obvious. For instance some information is repeated in the nearest paragraphs: "... but the Grand Palace is still used for official events..." and "...but it remains a working palace..." three paragraphs later. There is absence of logic in simple enumerations: "... is made up of numerous buildings, halls, pavilions set around open lawns, gardens and courtyards." A hall is a part of building, it is one level down in the hierarchy, so this enumeration just jumps out. The preamble itself looks like a set of sentences randomly selected from the "History" part. Some of them are too detailed for preamble, some of them are repeated several paragraphs later. All sentences contain plain facts but one sentence "Its asymmetry and eclectic styles are due to its organic development..." looks stolen from some diffuse writing. And so on and so on. Sorry, but it looks like a written-off essay from secondary school, not a serious article.
I would rewrite it myself but English is not my mother-tongue language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.238.114 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
It looks like the content of this article is just copied without proper attribution here. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of this article was written in 2011-2012. If anything it is this book plagiarises it. Sodacan (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This Heinz Duthel is a shitbag who's long made a business of plagiarizing and making copyright violations of Wikipedia content for fake personal promotion. The way things are, though, it's hardly worth the effort for editors to attempt taking legal action against such bad-faith actors. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the appropriate comment at the publisher's site, but I am not eligible to leave comments at the Amazon's page. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
_map.svg)
