Talk:Provinces of Thailand

older entries

In case anyone cares, using the Mozilla 1.3.1 browser, the map overlays the right-hand portion of the list of provinces, with the browser configured to approximately 3/4 width of my 1024 x 768 screen. With the browser set to full screen, the map clears the text, but I don't normally operate this way. I don't know if it has to do with this, but there are HTML coding errors, notably text within an ordered list, but outside of a any list-item. This is illegal. e.g.

 69: <ol start=1>
 70: <strong>North</strong&gt
 71: <li&gt<a href="/wiki/Chiang_Mai_province" 

FWIW. Bill 15:32 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I checked the illegal coding by test-correcting it and it does not appear to be the cause of the overlap. Bill 15:50 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I did not know that this kind of using lists is not official covered by the HTML standard, it works fine with Mozilla as well as in IE - I did it to have the caption and the following list item texts aligned well, without having to do a complete table. The reason for the overlap is simply that the list and the graphic are too wide with a big font, but two double-columns below each other as looks bad. Anyone have a better idea how to present the list? BTW: IE does not overlap the table and the text, that one moves the table below, seems to Gecko having a bit problems here. andy 07:58 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard dictates that any text occuring within a list must occur within a list item. Although it looks the way you want it to now, future browsers, written to the standard, may not do what you expect, or worse, they may refuse to display the page. I checked the stylesheet that this page links to (/style/wikistandard.css) and it does contain two errors:

• border-width: 1 (requires unit of measure)
• padding: 2 (requires unit of measure)

as well as a number of warning conditions. It would be interesting to fix the errors and see if that helps the overlap. Mozilla does tend to be pretty standard-compliant, whereas IE is renowed for its non-standard behavior.

All that said, the Thailand pages are really magnificent; I can't imagine any other encyclopedia coming close to what has been done here! Bill 15:32 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment - I am so free and take that compliment for myself, as most of the recent pages on Thailand were at least partially by myself. But it is of course still work-in-progress, still not all provinces are covered and many other things to add (more cities, the kings are still incomplete, national parks, and so on). If you want to contribute on this topic you're welcome.

However as you already checked yourself these illegal lists are not the source of the overlap problem, that must be something to do with the way Gecko handles the div and tables. The question is if this is a bug in Mozilla, or if the HTML created by Wikipedia is broken. I noticed it on other pages occasionally as well - so maybe you better ask it the Wikipedia:Sandbox instead of here, there it would have a much bigger audience. andy 16:05 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You probably mean Wikipedia:Village pump. The sandbox is not for asking questions. (I would not expect an answer there.) -- Cordyph 16:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of course I meant that one, and Bill also went to the right place... andy

The errors in the stylesheet apply to the #powersearch element. Nothing to do with the content of this article. I've instered a BR clear element to fix the overlap, though I'm not entirely sure why it was there. BTW, why is this list in a table? It doesn't look like tabular data to me. It looks like four lists. -- Tarquin 16:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Now it never aligns next to the image, it is always underneath it - that way it doesn't look much better either. There are in fact five lists, but if these five lists are underneath each other wouldn't look nice, thus the table to have them next to each other. andy 16:35 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For me at least, it is now displaying the same way on Mozilla and older versions of both Netscape and IE. The top quarter of the map aligns to the right of the text; the map extends vertically and right justified past the end of the text, as I would expect it to do. I don't find the current format objectionable. Bill 16:42 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But now it is impossible to see both the map with the numbers and the table which explains the numbers on the same screen without scrolling back and forth - the table is always below the map. Only when the font is quite big and the screen narrow it look OK, otherwise it is one big white space in the middle of the article. That was exactly why I tried to place the image next to the table, to allow to do this. Sadly I have no idea for an alternative design right now. andy 18:08 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you're willing to settle for two columns of province names that seems to work pretty well. I tested it and couldn't get it to overlap no matter how narrow I made the browser window. You'd just delete the <br clear="all"> and reformat the table. OTOH, Tarquin is correct about this really being a "list" and not tabular data. Using tables solely to format is frowned upon by many since it tells an untruth about the nature of the data. Still, it's a very common practice. Bill 20:37 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Map & Region Names

Maybe I need things spelled out for me in monosyllabic words, but it would be nice to have a link between the regions of the map image & the regions the provinces are grouped under. Unless my eyes deceive me, these should be linked as follows:

• North - Green
• Northeast - Peach
• Central - Yellow
• East - Blue-green
• South - Purple

Does any one object to these color names -- or have better choices? -- llywrch 22:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought that the color codes are quite obvious for everyone who knows the Cardinal directions and the fact that maps are usually drawn with north to the top. But maybe you're right and this isn't so much basic knowledge as I thought, so just be bold. andy 09:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well it's only intuitive if you're used to matching the options & performing deductive reasoning. It took me only a moment to sort out which belonged to which; but having done phone support for computer software (as well as taking catalog orders) I know just how easy it is for two people to stare at an object & see it in two different ways. For example, some people might make the mistake of thinking the blue-green region was central, the peach east, & the green north, then wonder what happened to the north-east region -- and get angry because we didn't make it more clear. It never hurts to tell people something in two or three ways. (And my question was more about the choice of what to call the colors; I wouldn't be surprised if some people think that the peach color doesn't look very peachy.) -- llywrch 03:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Thailand has 75 or 76 provinces, actually?!?

Formally, Thailand has 75 provinces (or Changwats) and Krungthep Maha Nakorn (or Bangkok). Bacause Bangkok is capital territory like Canberra of Australia, Warshington,D.C. of U.S.A., ect., not count in province. Bangkok'citizen will elect to choose their governor by themself unlike others provinces that the governors come from ordering by Ministry of Interior except City of Pattaya, a part of Chonburi province, is another self-administrated area. Pattaya's Mayor come from election.

see from Ministry of Interior

Seeing that the Thailand article states 75 provinces plus special administrative areas, should Bangkok be removed as a province in this article as well?--Paul C 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed absolutely right, confer http://www.statoids.com/uth.html -- please update the article and related articles to that effect. —Nightstallion (?) 18:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bangkok is not a province, but a special area. Yet it is at the same administrative level as the other provinces, and thus usually included like a 76th province. Pattaya is a totally different story, as that is a municipality, but with a different structure of administration than the other 3 levels in Thailand. But unlike Bangkok it is part of a province. I have reworded it a bit, better now? andy 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Districts

What is the difference between a "district" and a "minor district"? Nik42 07:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found the exact answer for this yet, only that the two have very similar duties. Usually a newly created district is a "minor district" for some years, until it gets elevated to "district" status. andy 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Regions

"... are grouped into 5 groups of provinces - sometimes the East and Central are grouped together"

Actually, the grouping system varies widely among fields. In geography class taught in school, a system of six regions are usually used (North, Northeast, East, Central, West, and South). The weather forcast divides into North, Northeast, East, Central, Eastern South, Western South, and Bangkok. Can any one system be referred to as a standard, or should all (or none) be mentioned?--Paul C 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The regions North, Northeast and South are quite standard, the fact that weatherforecast separates the western and the eastern coast is simply because due to the mountains in middle the weather can be different. For the central, east and west there is a bit description in Central Thailand. andy 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)