Talk:Chakri dynasty

Thailand High‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Third King

There're also the 3rd king too. It's originated by ancient army. The king lead grand army at the center. Upraja, vice king, lead the front line army and other royalty cover the rear. At the period of Ayutthaya, Upraja also called as 'Bantoon' and usually be the oldest son of king. Some time other son might elevated as 'Bantoon Noi' or Little Upraja and also be a second heir of the throne. In Bangkok period there was only one 'Bantoon Noi'. He was a nephew of King Rama I. His palace placed on the the ground that now is Siriraj Hospital, Thai people may call this area as 'Wang Lang' or the rear palace, originated by his duty to cover back in the army in the ancient time. --Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Rama III didn't name himself, Rama IV Named him. --Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 08:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Mahidol

His name should be Anandha Mahidol. --Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 08:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Naming

Agreed there. The 4th king is the one who named all the other kings, not the 3rd. The 3rd was called "last". If the 4th wants to rule, there would be no place for him. That is why he renamed the whole thing. Actually, it is more like "First Land", "Middle Land", and "Last Land".

name of article

Shouldn't it be written in small letters, "Chakri dynasty", considering nouns in English are normally written small? Gryffindor 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

Are women allowed to inherit the kingship? What is the succession law?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News

Mom Rajawongse Narisa Chakrabongse: The Royal Family of Thailand chronicles the descendants of King Rama V to the present day. This book is regarded as the bible of Thai royalty.Also Katya and the Prince of Siam tells the life of the Prince and Mom Catherine.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great

I am wondering if the translation of "great" is truly correct here. By western standards, calling three kings in just over two hundred years by such an honour, including the current one in his lifetime, would seem as if the Thais are self-aggrandizing their own nation and institutions. Alterntatively it could be down to translation. Words often have technically correct translation which doesn't always translate well and this means we can interpret things in more than one way e.g. orangutan (Malay language) can be equally tranlated as "old man in the woods" or "man of the forest" yet the imagery inferred to an english speaker in each case is quite different. At times finding a true translation cannot be donw and we simply use the foreign word e.g. "kitsch". Of course, I may be entirely wrong and Great may have been appropriately used in each case, if so please convince me. Dainamo (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this dynasty?

A map would tell a thousand words. I came here after reading that the kingdom was once much larger and that it once included parts of Burma and other regions.
If anybody has this info or a map (or cares to make one) please include it in the article. Much thanks.BrianAlex (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regents Ninth reign

Prince Dhanivat Bidyalabh Bridhyakon (1946) has an article on Thai Wikipedia title "พระวรวงศ์เธอ พระองค์เจ้าธานีนิวัต กรมหมื่นพิทยลาภพฤฒิยากร" also spelled H.H. Prince Dhani Nivat Kromamun Bidyalabh Bridhya]

--Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Chakri Dynasty's Family Tree

The family tree shouldn't be a stand-alone article. It would be better to have it as a collapsible box in the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds completely reasonable to me. I don't envisage that a large amount of debate would accompany this proposal. It would be good to act on this as soon as possible.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the merger. Sodacan (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 November 2016

Chakri Dynasty → Chakri dynasty – This is the only dynasty article in Category:Asian dynasties, Category:European dynasties and Category:Middle Eastern dynasties using a capital D. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W. (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above claim is untrue. The articles under Category:Dynasties of ancient Egypt, for example, are all capitalised. There have been previous discussions regarding the capitalisation of dynasty, but their scope was limited to Chinese history. I don't think they apply to this article, because unlike the use of Chinese dynasty names, which mainly refer to historical periods, this article is about the ruling house known as the Chakri Dynasty. (Compare to e.g. House of Windsor, which is spelled with a capital H in the article text.) There appears to be much variation among book and scholarly sources. This proposal needs more policy-based arguments than claiming consistency alone. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the opening statement. Using sentence case and consistency are part of Wikipedia:Article titles, which is a policy. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So is capitalising proper nouns. This discussion needs to establish whether or not dynasty is part of the subject's proper name. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR I've removed the {{requested move/dated}} transclusion above to remove this page from bot listing, as it appears there is not a consensus forming for this move. I have not closed this discussion, as Paul 012 seems to be leaving this open-ended encouraging further discussion. If a consensus is reached, consider opening another RM. — Andy W. (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a general consensus that WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS apply here, that these suggest rendering 'dynasty' in the lowercase, and that WP:CONSISTENCY with other similar articles should be a priority. Therefore, the article will be moved to the proposed title. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chakri Dynasty → Chakri dynasty – Consistency with other pages in Category:Asian dynasties and use in reliable sources, e.g.[1][2][3] Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until .... I cannot read the references in the article, but the external links all treat Chakri Dynasty as a proper noun with both words capitalised. Perhaps better references in the article would be the first step before deciding on any change? Dbfirs 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three better references above all treat it as lower case. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that fact after I'd opposed the move, so I changed my comment. I suggest that you put the references into the article, then you would have some grounds for your case. We are inconsistent in our capitalisation of Dynasty as shown in our list. Dbfirs 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what you mean by your final comment. I've just looked at the first 10 instances of "Dynasty" in that list, and they all redirect to an article using lower case. It's the list that's inconsistent, not the article titles. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what I wrote, and the first ten of a long list is not a representative sample. See Mangrai Dynasty in the same country, and Phagmodrupa Dynasty in the section above, plus lots more. What do we do about "House", "Empire" and "Kingdom"? Dbfirs 12:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Chicago Manual of Style, the copy editor's Bible, says to lower case "dynasty." Section 8.71 gives "Shang dynasty" as an example. Dynasties are considered descriptive designations of periods rather than political divisions. So it's Shang Kingdom but Shang dynasty. Pandas and people (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We normally follow what reliable sources do rather than obey one particular giver of advice, but reliable sources seem to be split here. (We need some in the article.) How important is consistency between articles? Should this be widened to be discussed at WP:Manual of Style (which doesn't seem to follow its own advice)? Dbfirs 08:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style appears to disagree. It recommends CMOS in two different places. This is a style issue, so the style manuals are the relevant authorities. I don't think there is any style manual that tells you to capitalize. It's just sloppy editing. Pandas and people (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We must be reading different articles. I see no recommendation, only a partial disagreement. Dbfirs 18:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article, it says, "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included in this Manual of Style. Among these are:" Then a bunch of style guides listed. Being one item on a long list may not seem like much of a recommendation. But most of the books listed aren't relevant here. They are specifically for British English, Australian English, or something like that. Pandas and people (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the section above regarding the different meanings of dynasty, i.e. historical period vs ruling house. Does the CMOS address the latter at all? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything like that. The manual online at Amazon, so you can check for yourself. It's page 418, paragraph 8.71. Pandas and people (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago's reasoning is obviously correct, and MoS uses similar proper name versus description reasoning throughout. Anyway, a few points, in two different directions: Familiarizing yourself with other style guidelines is a process, and MoS pointing out some major ones does not in any way mean "MoS says do exactly what these style guides say". MoS its is own style guide. It addresses only matters of perennial dispute on Wikipedia itself, and leaves the rest up to editorial consensus, which obviously should be informed by a comparison of major style guides. However, the idea that "We normally follow what reliable sources do" is also frequently misinterpreted to mean "do what the specialist sources do", when what WP really does is what the general-audience sources do (see WP:SSF for why). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Google Ngram. Timmyshin (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see that it was more often published with a capital "D" in the early 1980s. Dbfirs 08:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you like [4] Timmyshin (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it was only transient and there are not many publications, but the frequencies are comparable. The only reason I was inclined to oppose was that the only links in the article all had a capital "D". Dbfirs 08:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MOS:CAPS and for WP:CONSISTENCY with the other "Foo dynasty" articles. The general rule of MOSCAPS is do not capitalize if in doubt (i.e., if reliable sources are not consistent on the matter), and they are not about "dynasty" and the like, including in this specific case. Proof: Google Books results; weeding out titles Capitalized In Title Case, the usage is about a 60/40 split, favoring lower case, and we would still use lower case even if it were a 30/70 split favoring capitalization. We've already had the same basic discussion many times previously, for "dynasty", "family", "regime", yadda yadda, and the result is always the same: the descriptor goes in lower case. See, e.g., two RMs at Talk:Kim dynasty (North Korea), among many others (I'm having connectivity issues right now, so I can't diff-dig for a bunch more of these). There are a few other "Dynasty" stragglers that should also be moved, aside from a handful where the proper name of the entity actually includes that word (or a cognate in another language we're translating). PS: Sometimes dynasty articles use a plural of the family name, without "dynasty", if it's more familiar that way, which I doubt is the case with Chakris, though that should exist as a redirect. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kim move discussion was really about including "Communist", but I'll take your word that the matter has been discussed many times before because you make a very good argument. I would have been happier to support in the first place if the article had even one reference to a lower-case usage instead of all links being to "Chakri Dynasty". What are we going to do about all the other capitalisations of Dynasty in other articles? How do we decide whether there are some cases of "proper name" as Paul 012 suggests above? What about "House", "Empire" and "Kingdom"? Dbfirs 19:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per what has been said above. Other examples can also be found here on Wikipedia. Dynasty isn't a proper noun here, thus I think there's no need for a capital letter. Keivan.f^Talk 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consistency?

The consensus was clearly that the word "dynasty" is not part of a proper noun so I've changed Mangrai Dynasty to lower case, and Celia has changed Phagmodrupa Dynasty. There are lots more to do if we are serious about consistency. The article still has links only to Chakri Dynasty with a capital "D". How about adding some references which use a lower case "d"? Also, does this policy apply to "House", "Empire" and "Kingdom"? Dbfirs 20:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question to ask at the talk page for MOS:CAPS, not here. I'd suggest requesting input there. However, the general guidelines with regard to capitalisation, MOS:CAPS for prose and WP:NCCAPS for article titles, make it clear that unnecessary capitalisation is avoided on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. It seems that we have to search Google for every individual article to determine whether the article title is always regarded as a proper name (in which case it's Dynasty, as in Dragon Dynasty) (or just usually, as in this decision on the Egyptian Dynasties), or whether some reliable sources treat the word dynasty as not part of the proper title (as here). I still think that the first place to look should be the English references given in the article, and this article hasn't any! All of its English links use a capital D. Sorry to go on about this. I'll shut up now! Dbfirs 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start of Rama X's reign

The Thai gov't has determined that Vajiralongkorn's reign began upon his father's death, 13 October 2016. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Succession Tree

Why does the line of succession tree only begin with King Bhumibol Adulyadej who died in 2016, and not include the 7 previous kings? --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added! Sodacan (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNA.

Has any of the Chakri descendants done a Y-DNA test? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

King Ananda Mahidol portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

House of Mahidol 1966 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]