Talk:Nakhon Si Thammarat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Nakhon Si Thammarat is part of WikiProject Thailand, a project to improve all Thailand-related articles. The wikiproject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on wikipedia 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.
Thailand To-do:
 WikiProject Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Okay, I say go ahead with Merge. --L joo 11:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'd like to move the wat sub-section to it's own page (full text and picture). I'd leave the picture here too, but reduce the text to more of a summary. Does anyone know what the user above is referring to? Sethking 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem with creating a separate article on that temple, it is definitely noteworthy enough to be worth an article on it own. In case you do it - don't forget to adjust the link in Wat Mahathat. On the Thai wikipedia it already has a separate article th:วัดพระมหาธาตุวรมหาวิหาร. Be Bold... andy 17:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged

I did the merge from Nakhon Sri Tammarat - one city, one article, pretty clear-cut.

I did a little editing, and removed "also known as Lakoun" as I could find no support for this by Googling; I'm just arrived in the town, and have seen no usage of Lakoun.

I also removed {{1911}} as there's only a couple of sentences left from the old Britannica entry. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)