Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Thailand-related articles

message: Here's my first attempt at a Manual of Style for the Thai language and Thailand.  Some major points to be hammered out:
* a standard system of transcription (this is the biggie)
** consonants I think we can agree on for most part, but vowels are a ridiculous mess
* a standard system for spacing between words (is it Hualamphong, Hua Lamphong or Hua Lam Phong?)
Also note that the capitalization of many places currently differs from what I proposed (which is based on the Manual of Style:Japan).
Any comments more than welcome.  I don't know much about Thai or Thailand, I just live here <grin> Jpatokal 07:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: I still think that the romanization for ก should be 'g' and not 'k'. Certainly for Central Thai/Bangkok the letter is always pronounced as a hard 'g'. The romanization of songkran provides a good example. With a 'k' sound the word means war, with a 'g' it is the water festival.
Equally, anybody who sees the romanization 'kai' and uses it is going to end up with egg rather than chicken. It is almost impossible for speakers unaquainted with un-aspirated consonants to get them right and this one is so simple to correct for them. I don't see that it will cause a problem for anybody who already knows a bit of the language either. --KayEss 16:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right that the romanization scheme isn't a good guide to the pronounciation. However as we don't write to teach the Thai language I still vote to stay with the standard romanization. To add pronounciation IPA would be better than any attemps to create something which an english-speaking would read correctly. And I am quite sure we'd alienate the normal reader if we'd write Goh Samui or Grabi, even though it's closer to the correct pronounciation. Thus IMHO the g vs. k belongs only in the article on Thai alphabet and/or Thai language, but otherwise we should follow the standard policy of wikipedia to use the most common english names. andy 22:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with andy.   The problem is that almost any word which we are transliterating will already have one or more pre-existing transliterations.  Our job is then to find the one which is the most common (obviously not an exact science, but it's better than pursuing our own crusade for accurate phonology).  I don't think there's any point in deciding whether g or k is "better", or changing existing entries.  Mark1 00:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said that we should change any article name, nor that we should use any spelling other than what is already known. As the Thai articles fill up though there are going to be more and more transliterations where we do have a choice and no accepted standard english spelling - it is only for those that I'm speaking --KayEss 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Situation of &#3585;

message: A little offtopic but mai pen rai: there is a Thai phrasebook under construction on Wikitravel, and somebody just added a lot of phrases — all in a bizarre, non-RTGS transcription.  I've gone through and attempted to fix some of the most obvious issues, but my Thai is very limited, so I would appreciate if somebody could take a quick look to verify my edits & fix any remaining problems. Jpatokal 03:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help: Wikitravel Thai phrasebook 

message: It seems that the preceding talk produced eight alternatives for a naming convention:
# First name (e.g Tipangkorn)
# First name + Additional name (Tipangkorn Rasmichoti)
# First name + Additional name + Surname (Tipangkorn Rasmichoti Mahidol)
# First name + Territorial designation, always "of Thailand" (Tipangkorn of Thailand)
# Royal title (usually prince/ss) + first name (Prince Tipangkorn)
# Royal title + First name + Territorial designation "of Thailand" (Prince Tipangkorn of Thailand)
# First name + Royal title + Territorial designation "of Thailand" (Tipangkorn, Prince of Thailand)
# First name + Additional name + Royal title + Territorial designation "of Thailand" (Tipangkorn Rasmichoti, Prince of Thailand)
Now I ask whether there is any realistic possibility for consensus to confirm one of these.... Please express your views - will any of them receive sufficient support to become a consented convention. Please see above discussions of already stated postions, and try to think whether there is a compromise that could be tolerated by all speakers above - to reach a consensus, it would not be highly useful to stick to one's own extreme alternative and refuse to budge. (A couple of days for attempts to reach compromise, consensus, or to divide hopelessly....)
Please remember to give objective reasons why an alternative is unacceptable and why an alternative is acceptable.  Arrigo 23:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This clearly is a no to any consensus. Btw, I do not understand why Adam Carr makes a false example of Elizabeth Windsor, as we here are not suggesting king Bhumibol Adulyadej to be moved to Bhumi Mahidol. Besides, European monarchs need disambiguation, using country name, as there plenty of other countries use same first names. There actually has been Queen Elisabeth II of Bohemia, though her husband reigned, using HER right as the heiress. (If Elisabeth were a first name used only in England, "Elizabeth Windsor" would undobtedly be under "Elisabeth II".) Let me also remind that here we are not discussing about naming of Thai monarchs, but of non-reigning Thai royals. 217.140.193.123 09:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We are indeed discussing the king as well as the other Thai royals. In any case, we don't call Prince Andrew, Duke of York Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor either. Adam 09:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If first names were used ONLY once in British royal family, i.e there ever were no more than one Prince Edward or Prince Frederick, and those names were never used in other countries, then they would (as then would also Andrew) be under their first name only. It is sufficiently respectful to use only the first name of a royal, as commoners woould get the surname, whereas it is a mark of royalty to be known by first name. "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" is a false example anyway, as the disambigation necessity is not helped by a surname - for example, there were several Edward Windsors. All in all, I find that Adam Carr tries to push his opinion using false examples. Btw, the introduction for this debate says clearly that kings and queens are not decided here, so it is only Adam Carr's wishful thinkin that this discussion determines such. There seems to be no problem in Bhumibol Adulyadej's current naming, thus it is not under discussion. 217.140.193.123 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Which of course they don't, so that amounts to a vote for leaving things as they are. I take it you would both favour moving Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth Windsor, to be consistent? Adam 08:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were no chance of other queens Elizabeth, and if we were deciding a naming policy for European royals, then I would favour moving her to Elizabeth II. Mark1 09:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I suspect that I've just missed something as I've been away for a few days. Earlier somebody said Tipangkorn Rasmichoti was the correct name (not Tipangkorn on its own). Is this analagous to the common American names like Mary-Lou or is it like a first name with a middle name (Homer Jay (Simpson))? In any case I prefer that shorter names are used and we add extra qualifiers only where they are required to disambiguate.  — KayEss | talk 09:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Official royal name is often long and consists of many parts, higher rank usually means longer name. Tipangkorn Rasmichoti is the first name. Official name for Bangkok or many royal temples are similar examples. -- Lerdsuwa 16:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If I understand you correctly then it seems that option (1) is not correct and that option (2) is the shortest possible correct name, which is the one that I think we should use. Longer formats need to be used where we have to disambiguate them, but exactly how this disambiguation needs to be done for any given royal I think depends on who we are disambiguating so would leave that for discussion on the royal in question. I don't believe that we have to come up with a disambiguation scheme here that will always work in every case, but we do need to choose the first preferable name to use for article titles.  — KayEss | talk 04:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that Adam's votes are not completely lonely, User:Antares911 is going along the same lines, and it was him who started the whole discussion due to his moving of articles and also the creation of some new ones which mainly consist of titles. andy 11:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus??

message: *I would be happy with 6, 7 or 8. I will explain why if asked. Adam 23:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This clearly is a no to any consensus. Btw, I do not understand why Adam Carr makes a false example of Elizabeth Windsor, as we here are not suggesting king Bhumibol Adulyadej to be moved to Bhumi Mahidol. Besides, European monarchs need disambiguation, using country name, as there plenty of other countries use same first names. There actually has been Queen Elisabeth II of Bohemia, though her husband reigned, using HER right as the heiress. (If Elisabeth were a first name used only in England, "Elizabeth Windsor" would undobtedly be under "Elisabeth II".) Let me also remind that here we are not discussing about naming of Thai monarchs, but of non-reigning Thai royals. 217.140.193.123 09:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We are indeed discussing the king as well as the other Thai royals. In any case, we don't call Prince Andrew, Duke of York Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor either. Adam 09:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If first names were used ONLY once in British royal family, i.e there ever were no more than one Prince Edward or Prince Frederick, and those names were never used in other countries, then they would (as then would also Andrew) be under their first name only. It is sufficiently respectful to use only the first name of a royal, as commoners woould get the surname, whereas it is a mark of royalty to be known by first name. "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" is a false example anyway, as the disambigation necessity is not helped by a surname - for example, there were several Edward Windsors. All in all, I find that Adam Carr tries to push his opinion using false examples. Btw, the introduction for this debate says clearly that kings and queens are not decided here, so it is only Adam Carr's wishful thinkin that this discussion determines such. There seems to be no problem in Bhumibol Adulyadej's current naming, thus it is not under discussion. 217.140.193.123 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Which of course they don't, so that amounts to a vote for leaving things as they are. I take it you would both favour moving Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth Windsor, to be consistent? Adam 08:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were no chance of other queens Elizabeth, and if we were deciding a naming policy for European royals, then I would favour moving her to Elizabeth II. Mark1 09:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I suspect that I've just missed something as I've been away for a few days. Earlier somebody said Tipangkorn Rasmichoti was the correct name (not Tipangkorn on its own). Is this analagous to the common American names like Mary-Lou or is it like a first name with a middle name (Homer Jay (Simpson))? In any case I prefer that shorter names are used and we add extra qualifiers only where they are required to disambiguate.  — KayEss | talk 09:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Official royal name is often long and consists of many parts, higher rank usually means longer name. Tipangkorn Rasmichoti is the first name. Official name for Bangkok or many royal temples are similar examples. -- Lerdsuwa 16:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If I understand you correctly then it seems that option (1) is not correct and that option (2) is the shortest possible correct name, which is the one that I think we should use. Longer formats need to be used where we have to disambiguate them, but exactly how this disambiguation needs to be done for any given royal I think depends on who we are disambiguating so would leave that for discussion on the royal in question. I don't believe that we have to come up with a disambiguation scheme here that will always work in every case, but we do need to choose the first preferable name to use for article titles.  — KayEss | talk 04:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that Adam's votes are not completely lonely, User:Antares911 is going along the same lines, and it was him who started the whole discussion due to his moving of articles and also the creation of some new ones which mainly consist of titles. andy 11:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: ===Discussion. Reasons for and against.===
First names of Thai royals are protected in practical terms, so no commoners are using the same, and (usually) only one member of the royal dynasty is ever known by a certain first name. In that sense, they are unique. No need to disambiguate against commoners, thus titulary is redundant in the heading. 217.140.193.123 11:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there a King Thaksin? Or does the PM think he's a re-incarnation? I know that this is due to a clash of transliteration rather than clash of actual name, but this does matter on the English language Wikipedia. And I'd still rather see us talk about it and come to a consensus rather than have a vote foisted on us.  — KayEss | talk 06:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal vote

message: First names of Thai royals are protected in practical terms, so no commoners are using the same, and (usually) only one member of the royal dynasty is ever known by a certain first name. In that sense, they are unique. No need to disambiguate against commoners, thus titulary is redundant in the heading. 217.140.193.123 11:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there a King Thaksin? Or does the PM think he's a re-incarnation? I know that this is due to a clash of transliteration rather than clash of actual name, but this does matter on the English language Wikipedia. And I'd still rather see us talk about it and come to a consensus rather than have a vote foisted on us.  — KayEss | talk 06:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion. Reasons for and against.

message: Add your vote by writing under each of the propositions you approve (not leaving an empty line between previous voter and yours)  #, your signature, and (optional) your short reasoning. Longer reasonings should be added to above subsection "Discussion. Reasons for and against."
The voting is intended to be a multi-proposal approval vote, with 8 precise alternatives. Each voter is entitled to vote for one or for several alternatives, which vote signifies that the voter approves all the alternatives s/he has voted for. Opposing votes are not used (not allowed), since it is already an opposing vote to an alternative that the voter does not vote for it. The approval voting system eventually accumulates votes highest to that or those alternative(s) which is approved by most of participants. If numerically a rough consensus is reached, the winning alternative becomes the guideline for the MoS regarding non-reigning Thai royals.
1. proposition "First name (e.g Tipangkorn)"
# Arrigo 09:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast votes

message: There is no need for a vote.  We already know what everyone thinks. Mark1 08:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let´s see. There are at least 8 users above who have stated that they would support Option 8. So I believe that that result should be applied. Gryffindor 21:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I attempted to construe the votes according to what each participant has said in the precise discussion above. Conditional approval opinions cannot be counted - those require the person's own unambiguous decision here. Unclear votes cannot be counted, due to self-evident reasons. Everyone is welcome to confirm one's own votes and/or to make changes to one's own contstrued votes. 217.140.193.123 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: How does No.2 proposal make any sense? Since when are royals referred to with their first name and their (other) names? Considering Wikipedia has pretenders even listed with their titles such as Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, and Thai royals are very much alive and in power, how does Proposal 2 even make sense? So pretenders are kept with title, but royals not? Gryffindor 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: An editor (visit User talk:Gryffindor) has made a bunch of proposals to move Thai royals from their current locations.
The first of such motions received its verdict today. See Talk:Srinagarindra - Gryffindor had wanted Srinagarindra to be moved to some heading where there would be plenty of royal and princely titles etc. Sadly, Gryffindor's request did not gather sufficient support, actually it gathered opposition. The admin denied Gryffindor's request.
There are afoot more of these Gryffindor moves: see Talk:Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, Talk:Galyani Vadhana and Talk:Prajadhipok. 217.140.193.123 06:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like alternative (2) above gathered enough support to be included in the manual of style. Why don't you go ahead, make it official and start clearing up the articles. −Woodstone 07:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't know how to do this (change article names).  Could somebody else give it a go?  Changes would apply to Ploypailin (turn into Ploypailin Jensen since she is a commoner), Soamsavali  (remove surname), Bejaratana, Vajiralongkorn, and Sirikit (remove titles for all three). Patiwat 02:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will happen? 

message: Despite (or because of) all the debate, there are some wild consistencies in how article names of Thai royalty are titled.  Right now we've got:
*Given name or extended given name: Ananda Mahidol, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Ubol Ratana, Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, Dipangkorn Rasmijoti, Srirasmi, Galyani Vadhana, Chulabhorn Walailak, Bajrakitiyabha, and Ploypailin (even though technically she isn't royalty)
*Given name + surname: Bhumi Jensen (again, not royalty), Soamsavali Kitiyakara (still royalty after her divorce)
*Given name + english title: Princess Bejaratana, Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand
*Name + thai title: Sirikit Rajini (even though this mixes up the word order - grammatically, this should be Rajini Sirikit).
Whatever system is used is going to cause lots of confusion to readers as long as there are so many inconsistencies. Patiwat 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like alternative (2) above gathered enough support to be included in the manual of style. Why don't you go ahead, make it official and start clearing up the articles. −Woodstone 07:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't know how to do this (change article names).  Could somebody else give it a go?  Changes would apply to Ploypailin (turn into Ploypailin Jensen since she is a commoner), Soamsavali  (remove surname), Bejaratana, Vajiralongkorn, and Sirikit (remove titles for all three). Patiwat 02:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies among royal names in article titles 

message: "Articles of Monarchs of Hawaiian Kingdom have the monarch's Hawaiian reign name as the heading, and the ordinal if necessary for disambiguation. For example, Kamehameha IV, Liliuokalani. The possible christened name is not to be included into the heading, and not any other non-reign name. The titulary (Queen, King) is not used in the heading, nor any style or honorific. The territorial designation ("of Hawaii") is not to be used in the heading since there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. The text of the article follow standards and guidelines for WP biographical articles." 217.140.193.123 13:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchs - how it is done in Hawaii 

message: Don't know if this page is still active, but...
"However, do not capitalize suffixes in the titles of historical periods and events, such as Sukhothai kingdom, Chakri dynasty."
I hadn't seen this before, and have made some changes toward Chakri Dynasty instead. Why, though, the decision not to capitalise, as in Ottoman Empire and Ming Dynasty? Paul C 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just for the sake of consistency.  Either is correct English. Markyour words 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: I still believe, that we should at least give some titles to the articles in order to be compliant with the naming conventions on other royals. Something like "Princess Galyani Vadhana" for example. Gryffindor 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prince Charles is given as "Charles, prince of Wales," so Galyani should be "Galyani Vadhana, princess of Narathiwat." But I get what you're saying. Living royals hold a particular title at the present time, and that title should be given. Dead royals have generally held more than one title over the course of their lives and don't hold any title currently. They should be identified by the name by which they are best known, followed by a parenthetical remark if necessary, e.g. "Ramkhamhaeng (king of Sukhothai)", "Naresuan (king of Siam)", "Vajirañāṇavarorasa (Buddhist reformer)". (I came up with this based on the style used in Britannica, although it isn't 100 percent consistent. Wikipedia often gives "prince" and "duke," but not "king." This strikes me as goofy.) Kauffner 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again said the pot of petunia. There are hundreds of Charles' in European aristocracy, but a single Galyani in Thai aristocracy. So it is necessary to disambiguate Prince Charles from all the other Charles, but not for any of the Thai nobles. It is however necessary for the lower noble titles, like Si Suriyawongse, which was more like the job name than the title and thus given to several people in a row. It is still common in WP to add the titles only for disambiguation, not for referencing the person in the full royal style. And Britannica still does not have "King" in their article names either, see e.g. Mongkut. Please don't move articles unilaterally, or even ignoring the oppose votes for a previous requested move! andy 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with andy.  No need to disambiguate royal names using titles.  It's not as if there is or will ever be more than one Bhumibol of Thailand.  Patiwat 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Easy tiger (or petunia), no one died and put you in charge of what can be moved and what can't. As far as Britannica goes, it uses descriptive tags in parenthesis like "k. of Siam" or "q. of U.K." You're looking at the stripped down version of Britannica on the Web, but I have the "Pantip Plaza" version. The tags strike me as a clear improvement over not knowing what the article is about until you open it. I take it you want the article title to be shortest possible description, the fewest unambigious letters. I don't see any advantage to this. An article title has to be typed in only once, when its being moved. It's not like a short title increases processing efficiency. Kauffner 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Thai royals 

message: Where should nicknames of Thai people be placed in the article?  Nicknames are an important part of Thai society, and newspapers usually refer to people by their nicknames (บิ๊กแอ้ด Big Add, กบ สุวนันท์ Kob Suwanan, แม้ว Maew).  Should they be placed in the introduction or in the body article - and where specifically?  Patiwat 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicknames go in the intro. See Babe Ruth or Joe DiMaggio for a model. Kauffner 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put nicknames? 

message: I don't know if this is a matter of transliteration or something else, but someone here might be less clueless than me: Tevarit Majchacheeap or Tavarit Majchacheep or some other combination? Neither version dominates Google hits; the International Shooting Sport Federation seems to use the latter. -- Jao (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For names it is quite difficult - the official transcription (RTGS) which is at least partially used for placenames in Thailand, is rarely used for personal names. If I am not totally wrong, a Thai can choose the romanized spelling to be used in his passport himself, so it's not easy to say which is the "official" spelling without checking the passport. andy (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your quick answer. -- Jao (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of a biography