Talk:Grand Palace

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Length 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vague: ″Cannon emplacements were replaced with guard houses and were given rhyming names.″ 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831130827/http://emuseum.treasury.go.th/upload/knowledge/emu01082554.pdf to http://emuseum.treasury.go.th/upload/knowledge/emu01082554.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200439/http://www.inded.kmitl.ac.th/journal/images/stories/year5_1/4.pdf to http://www.inded.kmitl.ac.th/journal/images/stories/year5_1/4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425070918/http://www1.mod.go.th/heritage/king/grdpalace/index1.htm to http://www1.mod.go.th/heritage/king/grdpalace/index1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are two date mentioned on following;
* Construction of the palace began on May 6, 1782, at the order of King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I)
* The construction of the Grand Palace began on 6 April 1782, at the order of King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I)
Which one is correct? --Janak Bhatta (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. The error was introduced in this edit. Reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two types of Date 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can someone at least fix the structure and style? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright violation