Talk:Thailand/Archive 1

So, who's ready to tackle splitting up Thailand into regions? --(WT-en) Evan 12:23, 4 Feb 2004 (EST)

Maybe I can get somebody local to do it?--(WT-en) ted 18:35, 5 Feb 2004 (JST)

I went ahead and did it. Basically I followed the layout of the weather maps in the local newspapers. There seems to be some question about whether or not they are really needed. I won't be bothered either way. Regions? Yes, or no?

I think that we currently have too many regions. The Toursim Authority Thailand splits Thailand into only 5 regions. North, North-East, Central, East, South. I think that this is more reasonable. Splitting up the south into more regions may be reasonable for a weather forecast, since the weather tends to differ quite much, but is not needed for a tourist guide IMHO. -- (WT-en) Fido 19:25, 15 Sep 2004 (GMT+6)

Agreed and implemented (this had been on my to-do list anyway). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:44, 15 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Should we change the name of South coast and Islands to South and Islands? I think that's reasonable because the region does not only consist of a coast and islands. (WT-en) Fido 10:47, 16 Sep 2004 (GMT+6)

Done. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:06, 16 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Thanks for fixing my links Maj. I guess I still need to work on my mark up a bit. -- (WT-en) Ted 00:36, 25 Feb 2004 (EST)

Red Bull actually is an original Thai drink (Krating Daeng is actually "red water buffalo" and the logo is exactly the same). In 1987 an Austrian businessman named Dietrich Mateschitz made a deal to introduce the product worldwide, and tweaked the formula (taste and carbonation). The original Thai company owns 52% of the new Red Bull which is based in Austria.

Correct on all counts, except that krating is an 'ordinary' bull, not a water buffalo (which would be kwai). And thanks to the deal, the guy who owns the Thai company in question is listed in the Forbes billionaires list... (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:51, 10 Jul 2005 (EDT)

In the section on Energy drinks. It says that red-bull is thailand, an Austrian I met in Singapore told me that it is Austrian and the red-bull website seems to confirm this (). Does anyone have any evidence to counter this? Suggesting that red-bull isn't from thailand to a thai, seems to offend them. --211.30.93.57 00:56, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)

As the Red Bull site states, the Austrian guy came across the original Krating Daeng in Thailand and remarketed it as Red Bull. The company is joint-owned by Austrian and Thai concerns.

The article also says Thailand is the original home of energy drinks, but I would bet Japan had them much earlier. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 01:09, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)

A few years ago I was on the receiving end of a phone survey about energy drinks. Apparently any drink with sugar and caffeine in it (e.g. Coca-cola or coffee if you take it with sugar) counted as an "energy drink". So I guess it depends on your definition of energy drink. WikiPedia:Energy drink --(WT-en) Ewlyahoocom 23:04, 1 May 2005 (EDT)

Introduction of energy drink to Thailand,was done by Osotsapha Co.,who manufactured Lipovitan-D under license from Japan. Then the market grew, with local Thai Brands coming into the scene, Osotsapha's brand was MAGNUM, TC Pharmaceutical was Red Bull. As for the Austrian guy, biz rumors has it that, actually, the guy went ahead and copied and marketted it in Austria, with the logo and brandname intact, as Red Bull, without licensing it from the brand owner in Thailand. Following the unexpected worldwide success of Red Bull, the Thai owner started suing the company in Austria on brand infringement. The Austrian company must have checked with lawyers and find that they could lose it all, so they negotiated with the Thai owner and gave part of the Austrian company shares to Thai owner, and after that, they also divided market segments. Thai owners would be selling in S.E.Asia and Central Asia, while Red Bull Austria would market to the rest of the world. -- 4 May 2006

I've lived in Thailand throughout the 1980's and know that Kratingdaeng was widely sold long before Westerners became familiar with it. Lipovitan D was the first of those kind of drinks. Then came Kratingdaeng, and then there were big advertising wars between Kratingdaeng and Magnum, with each brand trashing one another in "redneck" television commercials. Magnum took a blow when one of their chief endorsers, champion boxer KhaoKor, fainted in the ring during a fight with a Korean. Although these "stamina" drinks originated in Japan (and possibly the Japanese got the idea from somewhere else), Kratingdaeng, literally "bull that is red" and the famous charging bulls logo is absolutely Thai in origin. I have drank it in the early 1980's, definitely before the formation of any Austrian Redbull company. All these kinds of drinks were typically working class drinks. Truck drivers, taxi drivers, factory workers, etc. all imbibed them in prodigious quantities. The upper classes of Thailand would avoid these drinks, looking down on them as "redneck" beverages.

Project:Romanization currently states that "Koh" should be used over "Ko", but the esteemed Sir-Madam 202.47.247.130 has decided to change these back to "Ko". Please explain your reasoning; I think that "Koh" is both more common and more likely to be pronounced correctly. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:42, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Bump. I'd really, really like to hammer this out once and for all and would even be willing to flip back once again from Koh to Ko if we can just come to a consensus. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:54, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

Instant consensus:-

• guidebooks that use "Ko"
  • DK-Eyewitness
  • Globetrotter
  • Insight-Discovery
  • Let's Go
  • Lonely Planet
  • Periplus Travelpack
  • Rough Guides

• guidebooks that use "Koh"
  •  ?

I think there's been a general shift from "Koh" to "Ko" with publications over the last few years.

• maps that use "Ko"
  • B&B
  • Collins
  • Lonely Planet
  • Nelles
  • Periplus
  • Roadway

• maps that use "Koh"
  • Groovy Map

Berlitz use "Ko" (not sure if that's for maps or books or both or what).

Thai people are more likely to write "Koh"; non-Thais are more likely to write "Ko".

"Ko" is more common in Thailand on signs, buses, boats, advertisements, in magazines, etc.

"Koh" gets more google hits (the actual ratio varies a lot between different islands - no idea why).

"Ko" is currently more common at wikivoyage.org - despite the actual article names.

"Ko" and "Koh" are about equally common at thorntree.lonelyplanet.com

Neither "Ko" not nor "Koh" is likely to inspire a non-Thai to pronounce the word anything like Thais do; however "Ko" tends to produce something shorter sounding (but usually still not short enough).

If you rename the main articles, I'll take care of the links, redirects, etc.

BTW "Ko(h) Pha Ngan" is more common than "Ko(h) Phangan" or any other variation.

(Koh Kong should remain as it is, as "Koh" is pretty much universal for Cambodian islands)

OK, that's good enough for me. "Ko" it is once again then. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:36, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

Updates to links / redirects / etc now done.

The seven articles that need renaming are the seven islands listed in Thailand#Other_destinations - all Koh -> Ko, except Koh Phangan which should be changed to Ko Pha Ngan.

And finally, Ko is the RTGS spelling. −(WT-en) Woodstone 18:02, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

I live in Thailand and have to say that the sound of Ko in Thai is the same sound as the UK 'got' without the t, but with a low tone, since it is a short syllable.

The closest representation would therefore be 'Ko'. 'Koh' softens the 'o', and lengthens the vowel which is much further away from the Thai. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.8.14.177 (talk • contribs) 20 Jan 2007

Yes, Wikivoyage is now standardized on "Ko". (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:37, 20 January 2007 (EST)

The location map of Thailand is in fact the location of Singapore. There is a good map of Thailand on Wikipedia. I'm too busy (read: lazy) to create an account and upload it. Could someone please do that? 61.90.155.15 10:45, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Well spotted, and now fixed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:50, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Seems to be no real consistency in how prices are denoted throughout the Thailand articles. I have seen it as Baht 999, 999 baht, B999 and 999 THB. There are probably other examples as well. Anybody got an opinion - I don't mind so much which but we should be consistent. (WT-en) Hkpatv 04:09, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

As the currency has such a short friendly name, makes sense to use it as opposed to an abbreviation - so: 999 baht 125.24.4.216 05:45, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

Lower case not upper? Have seen examples of both 999 baht & 999 Baht here and elsewhere.(WT-en) Hkpatv 20:19, 13 July 2006 (EDT)

I prefer "baht". It's not a proper name requiring capitalisation like "Fred" or "Shropshire" or "Bay Area Transit Authority"; it's just a word, a unit of measure like "liter" or "ounce" or "cubit". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:28, 13 July 2006 (EDT)

Agree, lower case - "baht" ~ 58.8.10.74 23:20, 29 October 2006 (EST)

Isn't there a Wikivoyage policy against including "sex tourism" related topics on Wikivoyage? If so, why is there a section of this article titled, "Prostitution"? (WT-en) EmbrunOntario 22:40, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

See Project:Sex tourism policy and its corresponding talk page. I haven't studied them, but you seem interested so I thought I'd point them out. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:45, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Per the policy, information that is not directly related to the prostitution aspect can remain -- for example, safety issues or mere gawking are acceptible topics. Check out the policy and see if you feel it is being applied appropriately. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:53, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Shouldn't this be noted somewhere? http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1013618386505

Already listed in Thailand#Civil conflict, no? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:48, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm in Maesot. The Friendship bridge to Myanmar has reopened, and I believe all other borders are as well. Can someone else confirm, so the warnings can be removed.

222.123.17.233 23:00, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Any confirmation from Three Pagodas Pass? ~ 203.144.143.8 23:09, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

If the country has returned to normalcy can we remove the ugly warnings? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:57, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

How a bout just moving the wrning to the stay safe section and reminding travellers to stay away from demonstrations, especially while marshall law is in effect. Any Ideas? (WT-en) Felixboy 11:48, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Martial law was never declared, even during the coup. And staying away from demonstrations is always a good idea. ~I'm starting to think the warning could be downgraded to a line or two in "History"... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:56, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Martial law was declared on September 19/20 and has not yet been lifted. The "political gatherings are limited to five people" restriction has been eased (now permitted indoors). ~ 203.144.143.9 18:37, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Oops; I stand corrected. Not very relevant to the average tourist though (unless their last name is Thaksin). (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:04, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Hat Yai is only a gateway, Mae Hong Son is much more important from a tourist's point of view I think. --(WT-en) Flip666 18:53, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Hat Yai is a major tourist destination for Malaysians, but backpackers. Mae Hong Song is not a major city (in size or tourism), but maybe it could be added under "Other destinations"? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:37, 11 November 2006 (EST)

Does anyone know emergency numbers, e.g. police, ambulance, etc.? --(WT-en) Flip666 ^writeme! • 07:30, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Emergency number in Thailand are 191 (Police), 199 (Fire Fighter).

The "hey, great beaches" bit has been there forever (I think Evan originally put it there?), and IMHO it serves to liven up what would otherwise be a really dull straight-from-the-tourism-authority intro. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I've spent well over a year in Bangkok, the last time in May, and getting metered taxis is generally no problem at all. If one cabbie balks (and usually only the sleazebags outside hotels etc try to pull this), get the next one. Cabbies like to complain, but you don't have to believe them -- eg. one popular line is to complain that gasoline is really expensive now, when every cab in BKK is actually running on CNG! The airport fixed price cars are limos, not taxis. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Re: removed racist reference to caucasians - it's extremely unrealistic to dismiss the term "farang" as offensive or unacceptable, and removing it from Wikivoyage articles because it's racist is a mistake.

However the term "farang" (to quote Wikipedia:Farang: a foreigner of European ancestry) has been used elsewhere where "foreigner" or "traveller" or "tourist" should have been used; I'm going to amend those articles and link from the edit summaries to here. ~ 58.8.212.199 08:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Now done. In the process, I've switched some related mentions such a "farang food" to "Western food", simply because not everyone is familiar with the meaning of "farang". I think it's probably best to stick with "Western" for food-related information, simply to avoid unnecessary confusion. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Agreed on all counts. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:43, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I would like to suggest we drop the use of amphoes in our articles. Amphoes are administrative divisions of provinces, most of which are already pretty small. Plus, many relative small provinces the size of your average American county often get divided into 15 or more amphoes, most of which have only one significant city at the most. All this naming of amphoes is fracturing our region articles and likely making them pretty confusing for the average traveler. I've traveled in Thailand quite a bit and I never knew or needed to know about them. (WT-en) Borndistinction has been graciously packing many province articles with great information directly licensed by the Thai tourism agency, but I think a lot of it now needs to be pushed down into city articles rather than this messy amphoe business. (WT-en) Texugo 02:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. The Borndistinction content needs a lot of refactoring... (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Wai

As a foreign visitor, you are not expected to know how to wai, nor to reciprocate when wai'd to; while you're unlikely to cause offense if you do, you may well look slightly ridiculous.

Thailand is very relaxed and I want to add here that if the situation is casual, looking "slightly ridiculous" might be just right.

No, it would not be. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:45, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The King & I Also, anything related to the stories and movies The King and I and Anna and the King is illegal to possess in Thailand. Almost all Thais, even ones in other countries, feel very strongly when it comes to any version of this story.

The second sentence above that Thais feel strongly is certainly true. My 84 year old Thai mother in law just about broke the arms of a chair in my living room when she saw Yul Bryner jumping around "like a monkey" in the King & I on TV. However, the reports that the videos are actually banned may be urban legend. I think it needs to be checked with the Thai embassy. I recall reading in the english language press in Thailand about the time when Jodi Foster version of Anna & the King came out that the daughter of the king had seen the film and was not displeased with it.

It's definitely still banned. See eg. . (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:45, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I really feel like this section is way overblown. From what I can tell, (WT-en) Borndistinction copied this whole section verbatim from [ this article], which is fine I think, but I'd rather see this stuff in its own travel topic because it's too much detail for the main Thailand page, and I don't see districtifying it and creating a Medical tourism section on every district article just to hold the listings. Our page for Medical tourism actually has a link to an as-of-yet-uncreated Medical tourism in Thailand page. I'm thinking that's where it should go. Any opinions? (WT-en) Texugo 02:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

First of all, to clear the misunderstanding about the content, this article is copyright of TAT and this page has got content from page.

The article Medical Tourism in Thailand had been created earlier but it was deleted due to the reason being not a travel topic which I think is not fair enough. Whereas, during the vote for deletion, it was discussed to be added to the Thailand page, so I've done that now. Any more suggestion? --(WT-en) Borndistinction 04:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes -- you've added way too much info, 99% of which is blatant touting, and I've reverted the whole lot. There is no consensus that this level of medical info is appropriate anywhere on Wikivoyage.

I've also removed all the spa stuff you added. Lists of spas should be added to the individual destination pages (Chiang Mai spas in Chiang Mai, etc), not the main article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:29, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Cool...! Ok then, I'll adjust the content to look better (wikivoyage style) :) --(WT-en) Borndistinction 06:38, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I've removed all links and mentions of specific clinics and hospitals in that section. If you think about it, it's absurd to include them at the national level, and that section is a huge magnet for touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the beer section seems quite out of date, so I propose re-writing it if people agree with my proposed changes.

I think Singha Light, Chang Draught and Chang Light all warrant a mention in the Thai beers section; and San Miguel, Asahi and Federbrau are now commonly available upmarket brands. In fact, it may be better to split the section up into "Local brews", "Upmarket Brands" and "Imported Beers", the latter including the increasingly common Belgian Beers (Duvel, Stella Artois and Hoegarden all easy to find now, especially anywhere tourists might find themselves), Beer Lao and Irish ales such as Guinness and Killkenny, also well established on the tourist trail.

Finally, the biggest anomaly that should definitely be corrected if nothing else is the mention of Kloster - a beer which has been discontinued in Thailand for many months now.

Thoughts? (WT-en) Dantilley 10:30, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Plunge forward! I don't think we need to go into too much detail though, especially re: Western/imported beers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:34, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OK, has been done. I added a small section about Alcopops also. (WT-en) Dantilley 00:04, 31 January 2009 (EST)

According to Wikipedia. --(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 15:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

There should also be some mentino of the lady boys as there are alot of them about, especially in Bangkok. They can be a bit unnerving at first, if you aren't aware.

Any thoughts on why the table of contents gets messed up starting with "do"? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:10, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

I've spent over a year in Thailand and would like to say this is a really excellent article that really explains Thailand and Thai culture very well. One thing though, I think some of the prices are a bit outdated now... 800 baht for a day's site-seeing... 200 baht for a room... that's going to be hard to do anywhere that tourists are likely to be staying. Apart from that, spot on. :)

Please use your experience to update the article and make it even better! --(WT-en) inas 19:48, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Breadcrumb trail seems a bit messed up. I will try to sort it. Also with the state of the regional articles, I don't think this article is anywhere near guide status and I will knock it back to usable. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:23, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Problem with the breadcrumb seems to be changed names for the main regions and the re-directs in place.... a lot of fiddly work required from the top all the way down. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:38, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorted down through regions and provinces. I think the cities take care of themselves. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:29, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Thailand is thoroughly messed up, we had a huge dump from the Tourist Authority, which seems to be more or less discouraging users from editing, since it's so chaotic. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 10:38, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Ah. That would explain the general state of disarray. At least the breadcrumb trail is now fixed though so the overall structure of articles makes sense. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Why do we use the provinces here? They are way too small to be proper regions. For exmaple, and this happens all over Thailand, there's an article Lampang (province) that has Lampang City as its only listed city. I think this is completely unnecessary and we should merge the region article into the city. The provinces subregions don't make for good travel-regions. What do others think? (WT-en) globe-trotter 14:04, 29 December 2009 (EST)

I'm trying to get a new scheme of regions up without provinces (as most of them aren't filled with enough information). What do you think of the following scheme (already grouped on the regional pages):

Central Plains:

• Bangkok Metropolitan Area
• Sub-Central Thailand
• Western Thailand

Eastern Thailand:

• Eastern Gulf Coast
• Trat Province
• Inner Eastern Thailand

Southern Thailand:

• Andaman Coast
• Southern Gulf Coast
• Deep Southern Thailand

Northern Thailand:

• Far Northern Thailand (exotic part, minorities, trekkings)
• Inner Northern Thailand (ancient center around Sukhothai)

Isaan:

• Northern Isaan (Mekong Valley-Phu Phan Range)
• Central Isaan (Chi River Basin)
• Southern Isaan (Mun River Basin)

Some of these regions could use subdivisions in them, most notably the Andaman Coast. I'm not really happy with the Northern Thailand subdivision, so maybe someone knows a better one. Also, maybe Isaan needs 4 regions as it's quite a vast area. But I don't know a sensible way to split up the Mekong Valley (though we could always call then Northwest Isaan and Northeast Isaan). As last, I don't really know a name of the inner part of Eastern Thailand (away from the coast), many people use it to travel to Cambodia, so please give your ideas on these things=) (WT-en) globe-trotter 23:28, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Great work to get the ball rolling with this discussion GT. I have long thought Thailand to be an absolute WT mess, right from the overly complex regional structure down to almost every important article being ruined by that horrible data dump from the tourist board. I do know Thailand quite well and will try to help with some insights later today.

Thailand is an absolute mess, and as the most visited country in Southeast Asia, I think it deserves a lot better coverage on Wikivoyage. Just getting the hierarchy structure in order is going to take an amazing amount of time, but I hope we can do it. The tourist boards works with the provinces, that's why they also applies the provinces scheme here, but I think most provinces don't have enough content (many of the provinces just have their capital under the "cities" list). I really hope we could improve it. Maybe then regular travellers will also enjoy contributing, as I think many now are discouraged because of this mess. (WT-en) globe-trotter 17:20, 4 January 2010 (EST)

You might want to read the discussion at Talk:Eastern Cambodia GT. No provinces there :) A similar rationale to Thailand really. I will get around to giving Thailand some serious thought tomorrow. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:35, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Had a good look at this now and I think what GT is proposing is well thought out and smart. A few very minor comments:

• Can we get rid of all brackets in the region names? They lead to very confusing article names.
• Sub-central Thailand I would just call Central Thailand.
• Loose Koh Chang Peninsula and just call it Trat.
• For the north I would go for Far North Thailand and Inner North Thailand. Not very elegant but I cannot think of better.
• I think you are OK with 3 Isaan divisions.
• The inner east is really 3 mountain ranges and none have very easy names. Maybe stick with Inner East.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:42, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Some replies from my side:

• I also don't like the brackets, so they should be avoided. The problem with "Gulf Coast" is that it is confusing, as there is a part of it in the South and in the East. I propose we rename them Eastern Gulf Coast and Southern Gulf Coast. Big problem is the Deep South, as apparently there already is a Deep South in the United States. That's why I used the brackets there. I tried naming it Deep Southern Thailand, but I'm not sure if that sounds nice.
• I think Sub-Central Thailand is better, as the Central Plains are pretty much similar to Central Thailand. That is confusing I think. Maybe we could come up with something different...
• I agree with calling it Trat, but the city also has the name Trat, so we should call it Trat Province.
• Agree with the north, sounds good. Also agree with the notes about Isaan and Eastern Thailand.

I already made some changes to the regional division list above :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:59, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Maybe Lower Northern Thailand and Upper Northern Thailand sounds better? I saw Wikipedia use "Lower Northern Thailand" once, that's how I got to that idea. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:17, 10 January 2010 (EST)

I removed Surat Thani, because the cities had 10 listed instead of 9. I also trimmed the Other Destinations list to nine (and moved the others to their respective regions). (WT-en) globe-trotter 18:21, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'm still doubting whether Surat Thani should be removed or Hat Yai? I mean, Hat Yai is the third largest city in Thailand and the largest city of Southern Thailand. But Surat Thani is often used as a stop-over for Ko Samui, so might be more important for travellers? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

For the general traveller I would say Surat Thani is more important. Hat Yai is (inexplicably as it is horrible!) popular with Malaysian visitors. Hat Yai has very little to offer other than shopping. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:37, 5 January 2010 (EST)

OK, I agree, so I changed to Surat Thani. Just a bit weird now that the second, third and fourth largest cities of Thailand aren't listed now (Nonthaburi, Pak Kret and Hat Yai). But well, they are not really travel destinations, so it's fine. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:35, 9 January 2010 (EST)

A list of tasks on which province articles should be moved with which city articles. What do we exactly have to do here? We get rid of the Province pages, so we have to move the content to the relevant city pages (later we will clean them up too). Do not simply move content to the city articles though, as that would mess up those pages too much. Do the following:

• Try to integrate the info in the Understand, Get In and Get Around sections of the Province into the same sections of the cities.
• The See, Do, Learn, Buy and Sleep sections have a different approach. These listings are not useful for travellers, they are just a dump from the Thai tourist agency (TAT). To not mess up the current articles, it's best to move them to the Talk page for future reference.

First start a new topic on the Talk Page of the relevant city, and call it "TAT Listings". Then add a sentence like "I placed a lot of TAT listings from the Province page at Talk:Pattaya/Listings for future reference.", and press Save. Click on the red Talk-link you just created, paste the linkdump in there and Save. Some provinces are a bit harder, as content has to be moved to several cities. See the table while clicking on this link: Talk:Thailand/Regions

Please modify the table (at that link) while working on it. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:39, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Great stuff GT. This will be invaluable when the collaboration really gets going next month. I would suggest starting a Talk:Thailand/regions sub page and moving this there. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)

OK, I moved the table to Talk:Thailand/Regions :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:33, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I like the regional scheme I presented, but two regions seem to need further subdivisions as they have plenty of content: Far Northern Thailand and the Andaman Coast. Subdividing these units is quite a challenge though, as small specific areas are filled with content, while usually the areas around it are empty. This is also a problem in Southern Gulf Coast, as for example Ko Pha Ngan is already in practice functioning as a region. Not sure what to do with that.

Please give your comments about the sub-divisions underneath, and also some ideas what to do with the Southern Gulf Coast.

Anyway, here are the proposals from my side, please give your comments to improve it:

Far Northern Thailand:

This seems the easiest one of the three, most backpackers start around Chiang Mai, some of them take the Mae Hong Son loop, and most do a trekking around Chiang Rai. Thats why a division into these three areas seems most logical to me, though I don't yet know any good names for them:

• Chiang Mai Area - including the provinces Chiang Mai, Lampang, Phrae
• Chiang Rai Area - including the provinces Chiang Rai, Phayao, Nan
• Mae Hong Son Area - including the province Mae Hong Son and the part of Chiang Mai Province that has the road to it

Maybe anyone has a better idea?

Andaman Coast:

This is what I got now:

• Phuket - including Phuket Island and Phang Nga islands (its already like this)
• Krabi Province - same as now
• Northern Andaman Coast - including the provinces Phang Nga and Ranong and parts of Surat Thani Province (notably Khao Sok National Park), excludes Phang Nga islands

I moved Trang Province to Deep Southern Thailand for convienience, as otherwise it'd have to be it's own almost empty region. I also moved Phatthalung Province from Southern Gulf Coast to Deep Southern Thailand, otherwise it would look weird. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:22, 11 January 2010 (EST)

The regional structure of most areas are quite straightforward, but Southern Thailand has so much content, it's definitely an exception. How shall we divide this region? The Gulf Coast and Andaman Coast are logical subdivisions, but then both would still have way too much content.

I suggest the subdivision as shown on the map. I quite like it, the only part I'm not so happy with is the "Northern Gulf Coast". Surat Thani Province could easily do with its own region article, as it also has all the islands. But then we'd be left with just Chumphon and there is not much to do around there. We could "fix" this by adding Prachuap Khiri Khan Province to it (which have Hua Hin and Cha-am), but I am not sure if we want to go into that direction. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:05, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Liking that and think you have thought it through well. I was unsure about Phuket being its own region until checking to find it has more than 20 sub-articles! Amazed by that and suspect some of them are very thin or over-lapping. All good and I think we should go with it as is.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:14, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Liking that, the only thing i'm not entirely happy about is the name for "Nothern Golf Coast", I think it's best when we can work out names that doesn't only work in regional context, and there is plenty of golf coast up north. Although I can see where you are coming from, as I have trouble thinking up a suitable name too.

I know it's not entirely accurate, but how about Bandon Bay instead? best I can come up with. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 11:23, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I have really never heard of Bandon Bay before, it's obviously correct, but I'm not sure if it is recognizable to travellers. I agree that it is a better name than "Northern Gulf Coast" though. I actually wanted to make a separate region called Surat Thani Province, and then include the whole Gulf Coast north (including Hua Hin and Cha-am) into "Northern Gulf Coast" (and then maybe we could call that region Kra Isthmus). But the problem is that we included that area in Central Thailand now. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:45, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I also suggest we change Deep Southern Thailand into Pattani Region . --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:20, 18 January 2010 (EST)

That could almost be taken as a political statement... I think "Deep South" is the most common term and certainly easily understood, while "Pattani region" could easily be confused with the province. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:15, 18 January 2010 (EST)

I would be very wary of using Pattani as a regional name for the Deep South. Apart from being geographically controversial, there is a Pattani separatist movement. I suspect many would dispute the objectivity of that referenced Wikipedia article. On Bandon Bay, I have never come across that name before and am not sure it will mean anything? Sounds like it should be in Australia :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:26, 18 January 2010 (EST)

OK, we can just leave it at Deep Southern Thailand. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:39, 19 January 2010 (EST)

it's all in the pronunciation, BANdon and it's aussie, banDON and it's Thai :), anyway, how about we just KISS and call it Central Gulf Coast? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 11:54, 19 January 2010 (EST)

Hi - let's have a section on recommending the best 5 or so movies to watch to understand Thailand. They often do that kind of thing in Lonely Planet guides and I find it very useful. Also Books too.

Sure, I'd say plunge forward and add some movies you think are interesting! I suggest we could list Ong Bak, Tom-Yum-Goong and Suriyothai. Many Thai movies seem to be about sentimental romance, kickboxing, katoey and ghosts ^^ --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:10, 28 January 2010 (EST)

I like the region Lower Northern Thailand (though maybe it could actually be a part of the Central Plains), but Far Northern Thailand has way too much content. I suggest a regional scheme as shown on the image at the right side. What do you think? I still wonder whether we should keep "Far Northern Thailand". Maybe we can just make the provinces an immediate sub-region of Northern Thailand. But it is true that many travellers visit Far Northern Thailand as one region -- hopping from Chiang Mai to Chiang Rai or to the Mae Hong Song loop, never visiting Sukhothai. Also historically they are different, Far North being associated with Lanna, while Lower North is associated with Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:39, 4 February 2010 (EST)

I would be in favour of Northern Thailand as a top level region then the five sub-regions - i.e. exactly as drawn. Avoid installing another layer.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:52, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Yes agreed, I already did it this way. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:19, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Many islands in Thailand feature different districts: just look at Ko Samui, Ko Pha Ngan and Phuket. What do we do with these destinations? Ko Chang places all the listings in that article, while the other islands are heavily districtified. As the discussion started here , I suggest we use the huge city template for them. I noticed some edits where users thought places like Samui South Coast were actually regions instead of districts, so to avoid confusion I think the huge city template is an improvement. Or are there other suggestions we could do? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:10, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

When did it appear and why are we discouraging travel in Thailand? A few protests? What's new? Even the ever over-reacting British FCO is only advising "extreme caution" --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:52, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Yes it's definitely unnecessary and overtly cautious. Avoiding protest areas could be advised, but avoiding travel to all of Thailand is ridiculous. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:55, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Taken from the Bangkok page under the "stay safe" banner(I have modified it to suit the entire country) this information might be good on the Thailand page as well?

Elephants are a large part of Thailand's tourist business, and the smuggling and mistreatment of elephants for tourist attractions is a widespread practice. Be aware that elephants are often separated from their mothers at a young age to be cruelly trained under captivity for the rest of their lives. If you must go on an elephant ride, purchase an elephant painting or use elephants for other activities please take their mistreatment into account.

A depressingly common sight on the congested streets of tourist centers is elephant begging. During night hours, mahouts (trainers) with lumbering elephants approach tourists to feed the creatures bananas or take a photo with them for a fee. The elephants are brought to the city to beg in this way because they are out of work and are mistreated and visibly distressed under the conditions of the city. Please avoid supporting this cruelty by rejecting the mahouts as they offer you bananas to feed the elephants.

Due to its location, lax laws, and resources, many illegal animal products come through Bangkok. Rare and endangered species are often sold at markets for pets (especially at Chatuchak), and many other animal products are sold as luxury items. Avoid buying rare pets, leather, ivory, talons, dried sea creatures (such as starfish), fur, feathers, teeth, wool, and other products since they are most likely the result of illegal poaching, and buying them contributes greatly to animal endangerment and abuse.

Drugged animals such as lizard's and birds are somtimes used by touts as photo subjects. These touts are often seen on the main tourist beaches of thailand. The tout will take a photo with you and the doped up animal for a fee.

What do you think? Also what area would it come under? (WT-en) Sam 22b 04:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

I have added it in under the "respect" headline. Please feel free to make any changes to make the section more understandable. I beleive this subject should be listed on this page because it is a concern for alot of travelers and it is mentioned in all the guide books. (WT-en) Sam 22b 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it should be under "Respect", as that is more about cultural matters. The Thailand page could use a section like this, I'd put it under "Stay Safe". But I wouldn't just use this copy+paste directly from the Bangkok page, as the information is clearly too specific as it is catered solely on Bangkok. When I have time, I'll try to rewrite it somewhat to fit Thailand as a whole and make it unique prose. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks globe trotter. I did change it a little from the Bangkok page taking out a couple of references to bangkok and adding a paragraph about the touts on beaches. Just now I have taken out the reference to Bangkok in the second paragraph. The 3rd paragraph needs work as it talks specifically about Bangkok. Im not sure about "Stay Safe" but there arent many options with the wikivoyage layout.(WT-en) Sam 22b 06:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Though able to make very few contributions, am impressed with extensive discussion content. Why rated just an outline? Suggest it may well qualify as Guide Article. (WT-en) Hennejohn 20:18, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

That is because all cities and other destinations must be at usable status before Thailand can be at usable status. I made a list, so we can see which we still have to bump up:

So not that much work left, except for Ko Pha Ngan which still needs a vast overhaul and some of its underlying destinations must be improved. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:52, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Isaan, being an "overlooked part of the country" still has very little content in its sub-region articles. Would it be worth considering removing these subregions? At least until the Isaan article is so brimming with content that it needs to be burst into sub-regions (which is unlikely). (WT-en) Travelpleb 14:30, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

This edit highlighted that it might be good for our Thailand articles to adopt a consistent, clear and unambiguous abbreviation for Kilometre Post numbering to avoid casual editors confusing a numbered Kilometre Post entry with distances listed in km.

My suggestion would be to use a format like Km331, ie with the 'Kilo' capitalised, the 'Mike' in lower case, no full stop or period and then the Kilometre Post digits. Does anybody disagree? -- Alice^✉ 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I object strongly. The standard abbreviation is "km"; I see no reason to even consider using anything else. I see little reason not to just say "the 331 km post", since electrons are cheap and readers might not understand other forms, but "km 331" seems fine to me and "km331" acceptable. Pashley (talk)

• When I started using km posts in the Khao Lak article I revamped, I noticed that no one there was taking advantage of them. So I created an info box explaining, etc. I thought about how to abbreviate them and settled on "kmxx". I really could not think of a reason to capitalise the "k" as written out I would probably say, "...go 3 km to kilometre 13." If there is no guidance I try to always opt for the simpler alternative. Seligne (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

For those not familiar with Thai Kilometre Posts, Khao_Lak#Orientation.2C_addresses.2C_and_navigation explains.

I do believe that we need to make a distinction for two broad types of target audience. Readers, so that they understand what they are, and casual editors so that incidents of "km 331" or "km331" are not changed by mistake to "331 km". Although electrons are cheap, the human labour of our editors, although volunteered freely, is not without value and cost of time to those giving it. Again, this is no big deal, but it might not hurt to give some advice to avoid a confusion of forms and counter-edits.

My revised proposal is, therefore, to use KP in upper case, no full stop or period and then followed immediately by the kilometres in digits with no intervening space. -- Alice^✉ 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are members of the language police who've been going about changing Thailand articles written in American English to British English, such as you can see here: . Is there really any clear preference for one type of English over another in Thailand? I think these are nuisance edits, but I stand to be corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

When I started editing Thailand at another site I found that there was no consistency in the form of English used. I looked up their policy and for SE Asia, it was their policy to use British English, based largely on the fact that Burma and Malaysia had been British colonies and Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam had been French, from which Brit English borrows much of its spelling. Next I checked to see if the Thai government had a policy. I could find nothing official. As I was in language school at the time, I checked with a few of them and found that they taught Brit English. So, given those few data points, I elected to use British English. I do not regard this as a big deal, but I am something of a stickler for internal consistency. If an article were a mishmash of US and British English, I would standardise on British English. That has been my policy since and I think that you will find that most of the Thailand articles use that form. Earlier there was a discussion on this subject, but I can't recall where it's located. There was a mild consensus at that time that we use British English. Seligne (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Seligne. I will respect that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this is not the place to suggest this, but since I work on Thailand a lot, let me deposit it here. Frequently, I feel hamstrung when wanting to add info about leaving A to go to B. E.g., this morning in the Krabi bus station I made a significant finding: government buses from here go to the Southern Station in BKK. Private buses from her go to the Northeastern Station. This is important because the Southern is hard to get to and from and costs a fortune. If you are going from Krabi to a point north of BKK as I am, going to the NE station saves time and money as there is no taxi fare to make the transfer.

Where does this info go? Get In seems inappropriate, unless we put the info in the Bangkok Get In section and expect people who are travelling from Krabi to BKK to Chiang Mai to reference that page.

Meanwhile, we have a Go Next section that is a) not used at all, b) a laundry list of place names. What am I missing here? Seligne (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

My feeling is that when getting out is really different from getting in, it's fine to create a "Get out" subsection of "Get in." I wouldn't make it an entirely different first-order division of the article. "Go next" is supposed to be a section where places to visit next are linked and briefly described. You're talking about logistics that are more general than could be normally covered in "Go next," unless Bangkok is a viable "Go next" suggestion from Krabi or Chiang Mai, in which case it would be fine to mention how to get there in their "Go next" entry. Does that make sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the original intent, Go next is de facto typically a list of nearby place names followed by one-liner descriptions. If there is anything in Go next at all. My observation is that travellers come here on a limited time budget. (Read Reddit/r/Thailand for corroboration of this.) They typically fly into BKK, want to see an island beach, then want to see Chiang Mai. My travel pattern is much the same. So detailed info on how to get from a seaside area to the other top destinations would not be unwarranted in my opinion. Seligne (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thoroughly agree with your time budget analysis, Seligne and your example is a very telling one. Since it would probably be a marathon effort to drop the standard "Go next" level 2 header section, I would suggest adding a "Get out" level 3 header section to it for these occasions when the traveller's needs should be put above "curator of the wiki" type occasions. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Or if it makes sense to include Bangkok or/and Chiang Mai in the "Go next" section of various articles, explaining how to get there as part of the "Go next" listing is totally appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will stick this info in the Krabi Town Go Next section and see how that works. Thanks for the input. Seligne (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I changed this edit:

According to a World Health Organisation report Thailand in 2010 had 38.1 road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year, a rate exceeded only by the statistically insignificant territory of Niue and Eritrea, the Dominican Republic and Libya. The majority of fatalities include motorbikes. Motorcyclists (including passengers) are required to wear crash helmets and to keep their headlights switched on at all times. Enforcement varies widely, but in tourist areas spot checks for helmets and/or licenses are commonplace. While the fines are light (typically 400 baht) the inconvenience can be considerable as offender's vehicle and/or driver's license is impounded until the fine is paid, and the queue at the police station can be lengthy.

To this:

According to the WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013, Thailand in 2010 had 38.1 road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. This is the second highest in the world. 74% of those fatalities involved "motorized two or three wheelers". Motorcyclists (including passengers) are required to wear crash helmets and to keep their headlights switched on at all times. Enforcement varies widely, but in tourist areas spot checks for helmets and/or licenses are commonplace. While the fines are light (typically 400 baht) the inconvenience can be considerable as offender's vehicle and/or driver's license is impounded until the fine is paid, and the queue at the police station can be lengthy.

Why?:

1. I removed the link in accordance with the WV external link policy. I did, however, include the exact name of the report, easily available via search.
2. If you read the report, Eritrea and Libya did not participate in the survey (p. 41 in the report). There are no numbers given for those countries. How can we make a statement and give a citation for it if the cited reference does not support the statement?
3. I removed Niue. (p.171 in the report). It is a tiny island of 1,465 persons. In 2010 one male died in a car accident. It is a statistical outlier and is mere noise, with all due respect to the deceased, in this survey.
4. See Thailand page in the report (p. 214). Seligne (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a summary of the conventions used on Thailand articles. All are either codified in the Manual of Style or were arrived at by discussion.

Currency: 100 baht (rather than ฿100 or THB100 or some other variant)

Measurements: Metric

Temperature: Celsius

Time: 24-hour clock

Spelling: British English

Telephone numbers: A Thai number should be listed like:

+66 2-123-4567
+66 43-123456
1155
1800-747-747
1900-666-666

where "66" is the country code, the next 1 or 2 digits (beginning 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7 for land lines) are the area code and the remaining digits are the subscriber number.

You always need to dial "0" in front of the area code (or "2" for Bangkok in our first example; or "43" for Khon Kaen in our second example) to dial from inside Thailand (if you are not using the full international format).

(Thailand changed to a closed dialling plan in 2001, which means it is one of the few countries where even calling within the area code always requires the complete number, including the area code, to be dialled. There are no "local" parts of a telephone number in Thailand that can be called from within that particular area code using abbreviated dialling!)

Landline numbers in Thailand are always 8 digits long (when the STD prefix of 0 is omitted); mobile and VoIP numbers have 9 digits and begin with a 6, 8 or 9.

Note that international format is not used for the last three examples of non-geographic numbers (the tourist police, a toll free number and a premium rate number respectively) since they generally cannot be dialled from outside Thailand.

Emergency phone numbers: When listing hospitals, etc., list the local number. Below are national emergency numbers.

• Tourist police: 1155
• Police (general emergency): 191
• Ambulance & rescue: 1554
• Medical emergency: 1669
• Fire: 199
• Crime: 1195
• National disaster warning centre: 1669

Seligne (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

—The preceding comment was added by Seligne (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 February 2014

I think that's a very useful summation for new (and not-so-new) editors, Seligne.

(For anyone who is unfamiliar with Seligne's work, he is the editor that has done more than anyone else to kick our South-east Asian articles into shape.)

The only slight quibble I would have is with the phone format.

A basic principle on Wikitravel for many years (and this Wikivoyage site that will eventually supercede it, I hope) is that we try to be as brief as we can get away with in Listings, without sacrificing clarity or introducing ambiguity. That's presumably why we use M, Tu, W, Th, F for the days of the week, rather than Mo, Tu, We, Th, Fr.

With phone numbers we write them in the international format as recommended by the ISO organisation with two little differences to assist travellers:

1) instead of having a long string of numbers, we separate the numbers with spaces. This means that, instead of using a long string like +6621234567, we break it down into the constituent parts of +66 2 123 4567 which make it easier for humans to dial.

This spacing has no effect for most software - it can still recognise the "+" sign and replace it with the international dialling access code and ignores the human-friendly spaces when dialling the number.

2) many countries other than Thailand do have a "local" part to their telephone numbers that can be called from within that particular area code using abbreviated dialling. In those countries, we would show the local (or truncated) part as being conjoined with a hyphen, thus: +66 2 123-4567 before Thailand changed its system.

However, for the past few years there has been no local abbreviated dialling in Thailand so no hyphens should now be used in Thai numbers. Correct formats are thus:

+66 2 123 4567
+66 43 123456
1155
1800 747 747
1900 666 666

--118.93nzp (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

No quarrel with you on this. I merely tried to compile the guidance as it exists at this moment. I expect it will change at some point. That is one more reason this little section would have been so helpful to me as a newbie. Seligne (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Thailand guidance was buggered on 9 July 2013 when hyphens were sprinkled all over it.

People that live in the NANPA have had a wonderfully simple number system for many years and are used to having hyphens separate all their number groups.

However, many years ago we took the decision to not have hyphens in phone numbers (or italics or brackets or parentheses - only spaces) except to indicate that part of a number that could be dialled locally using abbreviated (or truncated dialling). Now that many parts of the NANPA don't have any part of a number that can be dialled locally using abbreviated (or truncated dialling) they've got very confused and seem to want to add hyphens for all parts of the number, rather than strip them out when local dialling ceases to be possible. I prefer to leave them out - otherwise a French listing instead of looking the way the French are used to:

• 48.8548462.3561961 Le Mémorial de la Shoah (The Holocaust Memorial), 17, rue Geoffroy l’Asnier, ☏ +33 1 42 77 44 72. Su-W,F 10:00-18:00; Th 10:00-22:00. Admission free. 

has to end up looking like this, with a surfeit of meaningless hyphens:

• 48.8548462.3561962 Le Mémorial de la Shoah (The Holocaust Memorial), 17, rue Geoffroy l’Asnier, ☏ +33 1-42-77-44-72. Su-W,F 10:00-18:00; Th 10:00-22:00. Admission free.  --118.93nzp (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6672587/2015/10/21/thailands-latest-booze-diktat-no-more-beer-selfies

Don't know if it warrants a mention in the article but it's maybe still kinda interesting for voyagers. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

In my recent edits (there aren't that many of them), I have been writing ฿100 rather than 100 baht. I feel like this is less cluttered and easier to read. Anyone disagree? Jacoman891 (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

How widely is that abbreviation used in Thailand? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe there is any kind of consensus. 100 Baht, 100 baht, B100, 100B or just plain 100 seem to all be common. Jacoman891 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I don't support a change. At Wikivoyage:Currency, the preference has been to avoid using symbols except when they are close to universally accepted and used in the country in question, although we may have made a mistake on Indian rupees. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's the page I should have found before asking on the talk page - baht it is. Thanks! 85.211.223.42 17:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Glad to point you in the right direction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The dress section writes that wearing shorts should be avoided yet a large number of young Thai males wear them, at least in big cities. From this, I don't think the comment "Men's shorts should be knee length or more, if worn at all" is accurate at all. It just seems incredibly out-dated. 88.97.73.128 12:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then please plunge forward and delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just 30 minutes ago I activated 20 hours in 30 days EDGE/GPRS for 100 baht, using USSD-code *777*725# to do so. My preceeding EDGE/GPRS period ended yesterday. This means "AIS no longer offers 2G GPRS/EDGE services" is not the actual situation. --FredTC (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

So they are still providing service (on the 1600 MHz band??) despite the notice about end of service for 2G numbers. Happy if 2G phone owners can still use AIS, too.--Goodsoil (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Goodsoil, in November 2013 I started using the 20 hours 30 days package, because my phone could not do 3G with the SIM2-slot of my dual-SIM phone in which my AIS SIM card was placed. The service desk of AIS in a shopping mall told me so. They offered me a 100 hours or 20 hours EDGE/GPRS package instead. In november 2015 I bought my present phone that supports 3G on both SIM slots. I have not been informed about stopping the 2G service, probably because in June 2016 I was not in Thailand (June 30 2016 was the ending date of the 2G service as stated in your link). So maybe they changed the 2G into 3G with a speed limit, and I don't know about it. When I came back to Thailand September 1 2016, I could still use the usual activation USSD-code. So, if the real situation is that I have 3G with speed limit, a phone without 3G, but with only 2G technology, cannot be used anymore. However a package is available that resembles the original 2G service. So should my change be reverted, but with some info about the EDGE/GPRS-like package mentioned? --FredTC (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

No point in reverting. If it seems to work that is good enough for travellers. I now recall some mention that AIS would lease capacity from DTAC 1600 MHz network to keep at least dual-band 2G phones working and others are now rare as hen's teeth. Thanks for catching this. --Goodsoil (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Those who want to attend the cremation of the late King Bhumibol on october 26, 2017, have to know how to behave and how to dress. I think this information sould be added in the cautionbox. I have no information about it. It might be black-only, but at another cermation (Princess Galyani Vadhana) white or black and white combined were both allowed. Maybe somebody has more details. --FredTC (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Reality and Denial of Sex Work in Thailand in an English-language Thai publication Pashley (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not just Thailand of course. International Labour Office: Sex industry assuming massive proportions in Southeast Asia Pashley (talk)

There is a warning about 1000 baht counterfeits. But there is no info given how one can get them. Do ATM's or banks give them? One cannot get them as change from a larger value banknote, since 1000 baht notes are the maximum denomination that exist. Only if you pay for something with foreign banknotes like $100 of €100, you can get a change with 1000 baht notes. Does anyone have a good suggestion for making the warning more practical? --FredTC (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've heard some about this informally, know two long-term expats who are moving from Thailand to the Philippines for lower prices & less language difficulty. Here's the first published comment i have seen;

"Expensive" Phuket dead as a dodo this high season

How accurate is this, is it temporary or a long-term trend, & what, if anything, should the article say about it. Pashley (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion here about changing our standard currency notation for Thailand from baht to ฿. Please comment in that discussion. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Which is more commonly used, i.e.,are travellers more likely to see the time shown in the format "17:00" or 5PM"? Ground Zero (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see often this style

ปิด: 23.00 น

CLOSED: 11.00 P.M. (and in few cases 23.00 P.M.)

I understand by this that the Thai themselves use the 24-hours notation, and use either the 24-hours notation or the AM/PM notation for foreigners. --FredTC (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we can provide such advice per Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy. I think we should delete all such information and just warn people, for example, not to take any illegal drugs in Thailand and what the likely penalties are. If you get in trouble, it's not up to Wikivoyage to advise you what to do that's illegal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Edited out accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

While we've just had a long one at Indonesia, here's one for Thailand. I've always thought Thailand used British spelling until I just stumbled across this.

Per wv:spelling, it says to use British spelling, and moreover, the last time I was there in Thailand, I can briefly remember they were using British English, not American. And while I know Thailand had no colonisation by any country, it is heavily influenced by neighbouring Malaysia. Oh and not to forget that an unusual pattern is that apart from some countries in South America and Japan, any country that drives on the left uses Commonwealth English.

The Bangkok Post seems to be using British spelling, and so do our articles, however, there's not much consistency, however, this is not surprising for those whom which English is either a second or third language, where such inconsistencies occur. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, I had a look at Bangkok and Phuket, but unlike Indonesia, there's consistency. But of rather en-AU/GB, than with usage American spellings. Probably some influence on neighbouring Malaysia or Australia (as most Thai international students end up studying in Australia). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe w:Tinglish is something to be mentioned. --FredTC (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

lol, always thought that Tinglish was similar to Singlish (which is en-SG). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the British spelling is the best, thinking about the practice of romanizing Thai names. Example: Khao San Road (official spelling) is often spelled as Kao Sarn Road. The r in Sarn should not be pronounced, but the a before it should sound longer. This is quite common for an r at the end of a syllable in British pronunciation, but Americans make it sound more like an r. So this way of romanizing looks like being done for British English speakers. --FredTC (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought using Australian english because there's a heap load of international Thai students in Australia (compared to other countries), and they're often the few people who can fluently speak like a near native level of English, and that Thailand was never a British colony, but the spelling differences are so small that it doesn't really matter into which one anyway (apart from maybe catalog but that's also not really a huge problem anyway). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think Thailand is a bit complicated. While Thailand was never colonised, the British had a huge influence on Thailand prior to World War II, and many of the Thai elites still send their kids to Britain for university (for instance, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was born in the UK), which would also explain why Thailand drives on the left. However, after World War II, Thailand became (and still technically is) a U.S. ally, and would have received a lot of American influences because the American soldiers sent to fight in Vietnam had their R&R in Thailand, which is why Pattaya became the sex tourism destination it is today. And not to mention, quite a good number of Thai elites also go to the U.S. for university. My experience in Thailand is that usage is quite mixed, and tourist personnel are probably trained to understand different varieties of English given the diverse origins of Western tourists in Thailand. I try to default to American terms whenever I talk to people in Thailand since that is probably what they will be exposed to on TV; just like pretty much anywhere else outside the Anglosphere, American dramas are way more popular than British dramas in Thailand. The dog2 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Given the terms per wv:spelling, + FredTC's local knowledge (they live in Chang Mai for 6 months a year) I've switched it. Generally given, Thailand is quite a mixed country between British, Australian and American. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Love the site, both for actually planning trips and for daydreaming. But, I'm wondering why country articles don't seem to have a spot where they give a sense of the local climate. I was thinking to myself, 'do I want to go to Thailand in August or will it be too hot/too wet?' and there seemed to be no way of checking that. Extreme weather, I see, is mentioned in Stay Safe section, but normal weather doesn't seem to have a place in the article skeleton? This seems a strange gap - am I missing something? 176.35.165.90 13:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thailand#Climate --Ypsilon (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Further to Ypsilon's post: the "Climate" section is normally a subsection of "Understand" in Wikivoyage articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also see Bangkok#Climate, Chiang_Mai#Climate, Nakhon_Ratchasima#Climate etc AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Last few days I saw many prices from Thai articles being removed because they were older than 7 years. But that has changed the possibility of paying 80 baht where the article said 65 baht to paying 150 baht and not knowing you payed far too much. I think removing the price info is not helpfull for the traveller. Is it possible to mark such prices and not deleting them? --FredTC (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should discourage price info for individual venues. We can provide a price range for commodities and services that are expensive (or can be perceived as overpriced, such as the Mouline Rouge where tickets start at 87€). Most of the western world will see high inflation in the coming year, rendering prices obsolete. /Yvwv (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly possible to mark the date of a price, but I definitely don't blame anyone for removing very old prices as useless. I disagree about discouraging people from posting prices. The main reason listings now have a "last edit" field is precisely so that the date of the price can be noted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It depends on the inflation situation in each country. In countries with high inflation (more than 10% per year), the prices of goods and services relative to each other go out of date quickly. Where inflation is low or moderate, such the inflation in the EU, US and UK, relative prices remain more stable, so knowing that something cost €10 seven years ago is still useful. Ground Zero (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I look at the 6 December 2014 version and the 27 December 2021 version of the Bangkok article, I see:

• meaning that trips to the city will cost 250-400 baht (plus possible expressway tolls of 45 and 25 baht (2014)
• meaning that trips to the city will cost 250-400 baht (plus possible expressway tolls of 50 and 25 baht (2021, but now removed)

In my own experience of March 2020, those prices were still valid. The omission of the info can easily create a situation for arriving passengers to accept a "cheap offer" to drive you without the meter for "only 750 baht".

The situation for the river boats is the same, also unchanged, but is still there in the article. But other prices have changed, so inflation is not equal for all services/products. After thinking about marking the prices that did not change in 7 years, I also tried to have a suggestion for how to mark. What about 250 baht and maybe additionally have a "mouse over" message? --FredTC (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Introducing another template is probably a bit courageous at this point, but Wikipedia actually has one for inflation+prices. I'd probably rather keep the 7 year old prices(with the date of last edit), though... Deleting them completely is too much. If the article is consistent, someone will fix it eventually. -- andree 20:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

7-year-old prices are okay (just) for a place like Canada, and three-year-old prices are completely irrelevant for a place like Venezuela or Lebanon or Syria where the currency has collapsed. I have deleted three-year-old prices in those countries which I guess makes me the editor who eventually fixed it. A one-size-fits-all-countries rule makes no sense. This discussion should take place on Talk:Thailand. I don't know the situation in Thailand, so I can't comment on that. People who know the country better should decide whether 7-year-old prices in Thailand are worth keeping or not. As FredTC notes, an inflation of 5% does not mean that every price has increased by 5%. A template that adjusts prices automatically would provide false information to readers. Let's not do that. Ground Zero (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A template that adjusts prices is useful in Wikipedia for giving the value of historic prices. It is useful to know that the $825 that you would have paid for a Model T Ford in 1909 is the equivalent of $23,763 today (and it is not important that it could be $12,000 or $40,000 if you used different price comparisons). In a few cases prices may be regulated and we could have a similar template (eg. we could increase all the anytime rail fares in England by 3.8% on 31 March 2022), but it is not worth the effort for the few cases.

When I see a price in a travel guide I use the price to give me a rough guide to the price. I might see that one place does dinner for $10 and another $75. If the exact price matters, then I will look at the website or phone the place to check, but in most cases it will just help me narrow down the choice or help at the advance planning stage (stopover in Bankok or Singapore?). AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at inflation statistics for Thailand, on average, prices are more stable than for most countries, although over 7 years, you would expect many prices to go up while others are going down:

2021 0.86%, 2020 -0.85%, 2019 0.71%, 2018 1.07%, 2017 0.67%, 2016 0.19%, 2015 -0.9%. Ground Zero (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Flightnavigator seems to be deleting 7-year-old price information in articles about many different countries. Is there consensus for this? In some countries, 7-year-old price information is as good as meaningless, but in others, it is still useful for getting a general sense of how expensive something is. Flightnavigator, are you making sure to only delete this information in cases where it's no longer useful? —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage makes a less-trusted impression with outdated prices. Imagine LonelyPlanet having outdated prices. It would be less famous and bought way less often. LonelyPlanet brings out a new version of every country every 2-3 years with updated prices.

When I did read a Wikivoyage article before deleting outdated prices, I did not trust any price. Wikivoyage has content from Wikitravel that is up to 18 years old. Prices up to 18 years old mostly don't have a timestamp. So a reader has no clue from which year these prices are.

After deleting old prices, readers can finally trust the prices in an article.

When I posted a price of 2012 somewhere, an admin deleted that price because it was to old. Another admin wrote somewhere that a price of 2016 is up to date. So a seven year old prices make a good choice to be the limit for being sufficiently up to date.

I am in favor of deleting outdated prices. It makes an article more trustable. How to prevent prices from being deleted? Update the prices within those many years and add a timestamp (e.g.: "meaning that trips to the city will cost 250-400 baht (Sept 2020)".

Timestamps encourage users to update a price by themselves.

—Flightnavigator (talk · contribs) 15:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Flightnavigator, it is often better to leave the outdated prices alone. There are two reasons:

• Many of the prices have not changed much (or at all) during the last 5 or 10 years. The price for riding a bus in my area hasn't changed in about 10 years. The "outdated" price is current and accurate.
• Many of the prices are just one person's estimate. I could go to a restaurant and spend $15; you might go to the same restaurant and decide that it's more common to spend $10 or $20. What's most useful to the reader isn't knowing whether it's exactly $10 or $15 or $20. What's most useful to the reader is knowing that it's not $3 and not $50. If you delete that information because my estimate of $15 is "outdated", then you are removing useful, practical information.

We normally indicate dates only in the listings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rather than delete it, I think it's better to do a bit of preliminary research and check whether prices have dramatically changed over the last 10 years. As others have said, not every country nor every travel-related good or service within a country (e.g. food and transport) has experienced inflation over the past decade. And sometimes the prices are expressed as ranges or ballpark figures, allowing for some variation. I also agree with the other point mentioned above that the usefulness of the prices often lies relative to each other. If you see two listings where the tickets to one place costs $10 and the other $20, you can be fairly confident that the price ratio will be similar for a very long time. On the other hand, 7 years is an arbitrary length of time. During the pandemic and accompanying lockdowns. supply chain issues faced by many countries have caused prices of basic commodities to fluctuate wildly. Prices of essential food items and petrol/gasoline have sometimes doubled or halved in the course of 6 months. But we can't delete every instance of a price which is not close to the current value. Gizza ^(roam) 07:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do think it's useful, though, to indicate what year a price is from. I usually include a year anytime I add a price to an article, even if it's not in a listing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Granger. A price should always have a year attached to it. Otherwise, it could be from 2006 and the reader doesn't know it's out of date. Ground Zero (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing

City bus prices that don't change over the years are an exception world-wide. Usually they get higher every 1-2 years.

Let's say a Wikivoyage user reads a city bus price from the airport to the city for US$3 without a month and year attached. But at the airport the bus costs US$4,20. The Wikivoyage user is confused, whether he takes the right bus and if it goes to the right direction.

On Wikivoyage it's comparing a price that is one year old with a price that is 18 years old. Without actually knowing how old they are!

I agree, that added prices should always have the month and year attached to it.

Flightnavigator (talk · contribs) 19:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's say a Wikivoyage user reads a city bus price, and then sensibly clicks the link in the sentence to verify it. Travelers know that prices change over time, and travelers during the pandemic know that bus routes have been cancelled and rescheduled.

I don't think it is a good idea to just remove price information. It's very helpful to update that information, but an approximate price is more helpful than no price. I wouldn't bother putting a month on the price, though. "As of 2022" (Happy New Year!) is enough precision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of prices in Wikivoyage articles. The average Wikivoyage does not want to check several prices, if even one ;)

For less developed countries there are often no official websites with price information to check.

And most people, who do vacation in foreign countries are not experienced travellers. They are tourists, who travel once or twice a year. They are looking for a travel guide with information that can be trusted.

It could be a solution to add the word "about" in front of an old price:

"The bus from the airport to the city center costs US$3."

to -> "The bus from the airport to the city center costs about US$3."

or to -> "The bus from the airport to the city center costs around US$3-4."

Now it's a factual correct sentence. And the average Wikivoyage reader is not confused anymore and sees this website more reliable.

Stated prices which obviously changed significantly during the years, should be removed. Otherwise it's misleading average tourists, who cannot estimate prices easily especially in less developed low-priced countries.

Flightnavigator (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think adding an "about" or changing to an arbitrary range is useful – what if the price is the triple now? Adding a date is. Locals and others who know the pattern can of course add suitable modifiers. In a place with moderate inflation and reasonably stable politics, even the 18 year old price may be useful: e.g. here in Finland prices go up with inflation, more in some sectors than in others, but a city bus from the airport does not cost €0.10 or €20, and that can be inferred from 18 year old prices and is useful to know. Even more useful in places where trustworthy information may be hard to get at. An 18-year old price for a grill kiosk, in a town where the other eateries have no prices or prices from other periods, is less useful. I don't know whether it is worth the trouble to remove it. If a place is about as expensive as you would expect in the area, an outdated price doesn't say much, but if you don't know the average prices, it can give a hint. Adding a {{sleeppricerange}} might be more useful – that template should probably have a lastedit field too. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

With this edit a mistake was corrected. The mistake was that within the 7 years one of the data connected to the taxi price was changed, so the price was not over 7 years old. However this was only an example, not a complete list of deletions that were not necessary. Looking at the inflation figures for Thailand given by Ground Zero (03:15, 30 December 2021), I see a total inflation of 1.75% in 7 years. So I think that all "7 years deletions" for Thailand articles should be reverted, not just the one that was corrected in the Bangkok article. Looking back in time, I think that if deletions based on age of the data must be done as a guideline on Wikivoyage, 7 years is not the one to use for Thailand, but 10-12 years would be more realistic. Note: these remarks are only for Thailand, I'm not well informed about the situation for other countries. --FredTC (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you're probably right about reverting all of those removals in the Thailand articles.

In the other cases, if you're checking the article history to find out whether the price has been changed in the last n years, and if you don't want to go to the trouble of looking up the current information yourself, then maybe most the helpful thing to do is to leave the old price but add the year. For example, this sentence:

• Ming Ye offers a wide range of Chinese stir-fry and delicious sushi, as well as Brazilian dishes for cheaper prices (around R$3 per 100g).

would become:

• Ming Ye offers a wide range of Chinese stir-fry and delicious sushi, as well as Brazilian dishes for cheaper prices (around R$3 per 100g as of 2010).

This seems simple enough, and provides the traveler both with information and with a warning about how much that information can be trusted in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply