This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcities,towns and various othersettlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSoutheast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofThailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of theCounteracting 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, pleasejoin the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand
Bangkok was aGeography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Expand history section, breaking down by period into subsections. More regarding the 15th–18th centuries could be copied from the topic article, but more content regarding 20th century developments needs to be developed.
Rework most of the Cityscape section. Details should probably be limited to a few key neighbourhoods, presented chronologically along with the city's expansion. Reduce coverage of the road network (not of much interest to most readers; including a street map of the inner city would be better). Might be a good idea to reference more scholarly urban design analysis in discussion of the city's character. A separate Architecture subsection would be worth having if the content is developed.
The paragraph discussing ethnic neighbourhoods in the Demography section could be reduced.
The Culture section could use some work. Bangkok's mall culture could be discussed in further detail, while the Media and Art subsections could be more concise. The government's attempts at developing the fashion industry should also be mentioned.
Split the Transport section off into a subarticle, and shorten the presentation here. Don't include too much detail regarding each transport system.
The Education section also needs some work.
The Crime and Safety section could do with less statistics and more readable content.
Another section could be written about the city's infrastructure systems, including electricity, water supply, waste management and water drainage systems.
Phaisit16207, I've partially reverted your edit. I'm not opposed to using {{multiple image}}, but I'd argue against individual image captions, as they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox, which is to present an overview of the city, not highlight individual landmarks. Also, it would be highly preferable to choose images with proportions such that each row is equal in height (I'm not sure if {{multiple image}} works with {{CSS image crop}}), and avoid having any single image being overly large (as with Wat Benchamabophit in the reverted version).
As for the location map, I'm a bit reluctant to support the use of OpenStreetMap maps via Mapframe, as the system has been long plagued by a huge number of bugs, and the default rendering style is very busy and quite a bit distracting (especially for the infobox). The maritime borders being rendered the way they are also makes the map weird to look at. --Paul_012 (talk)15:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For {{multiple image}}, I accepted because I had read many articles about cities, such asNew York City andParis. I'm a native man, and I want to contribute my native city. I'm concerned about this change, but ultimately, I do it. Kept 5 of the 7 original photos, I replaced Chao Phraya skyline and traffic photos with single picture of the city's skyline, and I hope this revision won't create anedit warring. --Phaisit16207 (talk)17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(December 2023)Chronus, the above is what I meant. The spread of the multiple image template into infoboxes is relatively recent, so I don't really have a grasp on what most people think of it. (Your version has better proportions than the one I reverted in March though.) --Paul_012 (talk)19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012 Ok, but saying that "they take up way too much space and distract from the purpose of the infobox" is just your opinion. There is no policy or regulation that does not recommend individual captions or the use of{{multiple images}} in infoboxes. Furthermore, the use of photo montages in articles about cities is nothing new.Chronus (talk)19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no policy or regulation that recommends so. It's a matter of opinion either way, and we simply disagree here. Photo montages in city infoboxes are nothing new, but they used to be done as combined images, only converting to templates in the past few years. As for individual captions, in all of the examples you cited, the individual captions were introduced no earlier than 2022 (London,New York City,Paris,Mexico City,Shanghai). While it could be argued that there's presumed local consensus based on silence in those cases, I'm disputing the change here, so explicit consensus is needed. Has there been discussion on this somewhere? --Paul_012 (talk)20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my first language, so I confused “distracted" with "distant", also,the individual captions are better, because it is pointing which image is, so it’s easier for readers and editors to read and understand; anyways, the caption at the end, was already fattening the infobox, I would prefer to have individual captions, we can discuss about it further.QwertyZ34 (talk)15:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On my desktop screen, the combined caption takes up four lines of text, while the individual captions take up a total of six, with lots of white space in between, making the images take up an entire screen's height. I'm more concerned about the visual distraction than the screen real estate though. The purpose of infoboxes is to quickly present the main facts and figures about a subject. It is not supposed to be a gallery. Ideally, a single image that represents the subject should be preferred if possible. That's why the template parameter is called "image_skyline"—the original intention was for a single skyline image. But editors found a single image was often inadequate for providing a visual representation of a city, and edited montages (as collages of photos) became commonly used. Then people started to cram more and more photos into the montages. And when it became possible to use the multiple image template in infoboxes, some people began splitting up the captions, which would be appropriate for illustration elsewhere in the article, but for the infobox, it draws the reader's attention to the image captions instead of the overall headings, and becomes an unhelpful distraction, preventing the reader from seeing the actual content the infobox is supposed to be presenting.
As mentioned, part of the issue is due to the number of images crammed into the montage without much regard for how their dimensions fit together. With the montages I made, I tried to keep the width-to-height ratio around at 3:4 or shorter (though up to 2:3 might also be okay). See the edited montages inCommons:Category:Montages of Bangkok for example. These all look better than what's currently in the article, which is excessively tall. I think three rows of images should be enough for a representation of the city. If four rows are to be used, they should be limited to landscape images. Part of the problem with the multiple image template approach, as I mentioned before, is that there doesn't seem to be a way to crop the images to more suitable dimensions. Putting images together into the template without care for their proportions results in an unappealing mess with vastly differing size and rows of unequal height. If this is fixed first, it might free up enough room to re-evaluate the captions issue. --Paul_012 (talk)15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that individual captions are in most of capitals infoboxes make it also difficult; I'm understanding you, infoboxes aren't galleries: an image switcher or a "show" fonction would be preferred.QwertyZ34 (talk)19:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as there is still no template that combines the functionality of multiple image and CSS image crop, and that the current collage had much poorer composition than the previous montageFile:Bangkok Montage 2024.jpg, I've gone ahead and restored the montage, but replaced the top image with a slightly different one, asFile:Bangkok Montage 2024 2.jpg. As mentioned above, I'm not opposed to using collage templatesper se, but the constituent images need to be cropped to be proportionally consistent. And the overall collage/montage should fit within a 3:4 aspect ratio, or 2:3 at the tallest. --Paul_012 (talk)04:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deveoogu, please see the above concerns. I strongly think that constituent images should be proportionally consistent and limited in height for the multiple-image template to aesthetically work. --Paul_012 (talk)10:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=link}