Talk:Phuket province

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

written language[edit]

Small point, but the "statistics" block covers the Thai vowel 'u', which is under the first consonant. It should be moved down a bit. Tombloom99 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)tombloom99[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

just a thought, it might be nice if the pronunciation was mentioned. norbu 23:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An acquaintance of mine who's been there said that it's quite similar to "fuck it", but having a native comment on it would be best. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:24, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Phuket is pronounce poo-get with equal stress on both syllables. (I'm not a native but I lived in Thailand for a couple years)

Correct. Aspirated P, long U, unaspirated K (not quite the same as G but close enough), short E, T. "Fuck it", while unfortunately a common mispronunciation, is completely wrong, and so was the previous advice to pronounce P and H separately. Jpatokal 16:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a relief. When I was a lad we thought it was called... The Real Walrus 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if Phuket was or was not pronounced like the English exclamation that includes a swear word. Thank you for the clarification. -- House of Scandal 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering as well. This is so disappointing. 74.128.180.241 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, the pronounciation provided by the article still sounds pretty awkward Masterblooregard 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the article mention the pronunciation issue in more detail? Apparently this is a common misconception and was even mentioned in the film Juno. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damage[edit]

I've read news articles, which have said that a lot of Phuket has been destroyed in result of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake.

Those news articles are wrong. Some ocean front property was badly damaged, but to say that a lot of Phuket was destroyed is a gross exaggeration. Peregrine981 13:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Search for Gunther Grau[edit]

I am not sure who is reading this, but if anyone knows or finds Gunther Grau, a German citizen, can you please email to let us know if he is ok. He has a lot of friends in the US looking for him. stephastevens@comcast.net. We hope he is ok. He was vacationing in Phuket

know better[edit]

I am a native speaker and the one from Phuket, found a lot of mistakes made by somebody.... There are many meaning link to Malay, which have nothing to do with Phuket, which its population about 95% are Chinese(not only a working class), not Malay, and Malay who live in Phuket came from the southern part of Thailand, not originally here before!!!

Should somebody like to change some information about Phuket, which is related to Malay. These should be considered as a very sensitive topic, please use a reference-quoted!

I cannot see the article say anything like the population is predominately Malay, it only says that some of the old names of the island have Malay origin. Maybe you'd better be more specific what sentence is misleading in your opinion. andy 11:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, ok (1) the old name of the island is Tha-Laang, not Phuket at all, (dated back around 220 years). Phuket could be called by some other tribes but not the Siamese (Thai).

(2)descendants of the island is rather small and came from other areas, but not the Malays!!!(where can one get this information?). And there are some are indeginous but they are still living their lives like the island people. However, the first large group who came to Phuket is the Chinese tin mine workers (mainly Hokkien-Hakka Chinese- they came from the south-west of China and use the same accent like Taiwanese). And part of the other group is Thai from the mainland area (from the city nearby), who came to be the admins group (dated back circa 150 years). Later, two group has mixed, and became an originally Phuketian like today's population.

(3)and most of the words which are using in Phuket came from Thai and Chinese mixed together, not really from malay or so, except somebody who can speak them. Of course, there are some Malays (and some considered themself with BLUE malay blood) living in Phuket but this should not mixing up with the history and original root of Phuket!!!

Confusion[edit]

I thought, Phuket is the name of

  • an Island (Koh Phuket) and
  • a province (like in the article) and
  • a city (Phuket city)?

So actually - what we need is another article: Phuket city. An article about Koh Phuket would be nice but not urgent (the province and the island share their ground); then we would need a disamb, too. -- Scriberius 19:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion - there's both a city (Thai: thesaban) as well as a district (Amphoe Mueang). And Karon - while it is part of the district Phuket - is a separate town. andy 12:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a Phuket (disambiguation). andy 17:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junkceylon[edit]

I found this page after searching for Junkceylon and was redirected. How does Junkceylon relate to Phuket? Is it a historical name? A place? I do know it's the name of a shopping mall in Patong that is has been under construction off and on for the past couple of years or so. This is not criticism, mind you. Just a search for information and enlightenment. - Wisekwai 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In past versions of this article the history section ended with "Past names of the island include Ko Thalang and Junkceylon". However for unknown reasons the second name was removed, so now it only mentions "Ko Thalang". It'd make sense to research some history before the Burmese invasion of 1785, where that historical name would fit best. andy 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karon Beach sea turtle [edit]

There is a poorly placed, mispositioned, period, which I am attempting to move; but, my machine is not cooperating.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebResults 1 - 10 of about 1,150,000 for "sri lanka" "paradise" "" "". (0.14 seconds)

There are a miliion results f/ paradise & Sri Lanka, as many people make that association.

From an American English perspective, Junkceylon resembles "junk Ceylon" {Aw, Phuket}.

Language, each word, all vocabulary, seems to alter in context. Just my observation.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one line[edit]

I removed a line about "picture perfect beaches" that have attracted "an amazing growth in number of tourists." It wasn't encyclopedic at all, it sounded like it was an attempt to sell time-shares or something. 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TAT[edit]

What this article contains is blatent advertising, with much of the article written in the tone one would expect of Wikitravel or a tourism brocheur. Major cleanup required to meet the WP:MoS, with particular regard to maintaining an encyclopedic Wikipedia:Tone. MrZaiustalk 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Highest Point in Phuket[edit]

Highest point in Phuket is wrong. I thought so and went out yesterday with a new altimeter, setting it at sea level in the morning and hiking up to the mountain (just west of Kathu waterfall) and found it to be 545 meters. There is no road, and except for an old rubber tree farm on one side, nothing there. Then i hiked back down to my bike and went immedietly to Mae Sip Song which is the mountain that most believe to be the high point. It is at least 20-30 meters lower than the mountain that has no name near Kathu waterfall. I wrote about it in detail on my blog: fiddlehead.wordpress.com Fiddleheadpa (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While indeed interesting, your finding will have to be published in reliable sources before it can be included in Wikipedia, according to WP:NOR --Paul_012 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Why not just "Phuket"?[edit]

The article seems to talk almost exclusively about Phuket the island, why isn't the article named just "Phuket"? Jpatokal (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a series of articles about Thai provinces. It does include some content regarding the smaller outlying islands, so having the article title reflect the wider scope of the article seems fine (and is consistent with other province articles). --Paul_012 (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike all of Thailand's other provinces, Phuket is an island, whose common name is unarguably just "Phuket". Jpatokal (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phuket is still an official province of Thailand, even if it's "just" an island.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phuket Province → Phuket – The common name of the island and province of Phuket is simply "Phuket", and the content of the article is clearly about the island as a whole, not the administrative division. The present name appears to have been adopted because all of Thailand's other provinces use the format "X Province", but Phuket is a special case since it's the only Thai province that's coterminous with an island of the same name. It's also worth noting that Bangkok is "Bangkok", not "Bangkok Special Administrative Area". Jpatokal (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This a common problem with all the Thai provinces, there is the coterminous capital city, and while to many non-Thai the city is the one which comes first to mind when using the plain name, for a Thai it is absolutely opposite. For Phuket, there are the island, the province and the city. For Bangkok, there is no problem since there is only the city itself. andy (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Coterminous = same boundaries, so Chiang Mai city is not coterminous with Chiang Mai Province, but Phuket Island is equal to Phuket Province (delta the outlying islands discussed below). There is also a Phuket (city) for the capital of Phuket Province, but that's already correctly disambiguated. Jpatokal (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. This article also contains content relating to the outlying islands of Phuket Province, not just Phuket Island. Renaming to Phuket could give readers the false impression of the article having a narrower scope. However, I suggest that Phuket be made to redirect here, with the disambiguation page moved to Phuket (disambiguation). --Paul_012 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is any realistic scope for confusion, as the current "content" about those islands is limited to a paragraph under Geography noting their existence and size, the largest is under 1% of Phuket's area, and none warrant their own page on WP. Why not simply continue to note their existence under Geography, and clarify that they are included in Phuket Province?
    • Also, looking at the lead now, the first paragraph is about Phuket being a province yadda yadda, and the second is about its location, largest island in Thailand, rich history, major trading route, etc. To me, #2 is far more interesting and important than #1, and the order should be reversed along with the renaming. Jpatokal (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at WP:PRECISION again, it doesn't seem to be a big issue here since this one article covers both aspects. What do you see as the disadvantages of re-redirecting Phuket to Phuket Province? Personally I'd like to preserve the consistency with other province articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, we should prefer names that are natural, precise and concise, which for Phuket means "Phuket". Specifically, per WP:CONCISE, we should use "the most concise title to fully identify the subject"; other provinces (eg. Chiang Mai Province) need the "Province" tacked on to disambig them from their capital cities, but Phuket does not. Also, as the article content is mostly about the island, not the province, calling it "Phuket Province" is too precise. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either the proposed move if others agree or redirecting Phuket to Phuket Province to preserve province article title consistency. Either way, the primary topic is the island which is covered concurrently with the province and Phuket should direct readers to that article, not a confusing DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  04:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current article name follows the naming convention for Thai provinces as Phuket Province. The article also covers several other islands in the province. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2 bridges?[edit]

At present, the introduction to the article says that 2 bridges connect the island to the mainland. I checked on Google maps and can find only one bridge. Can anyone verify this? Grandma Roses (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You will probably never see this reply, but the answer to your question is that the two bridges are right next to each other. One is for traffic and the other for pedestrians, and they have different names because they are separate spans even though there's barely any distance between them. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Phuket Province[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Phuket Province. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Food in Chinese?[edit]

Why are the names of foods listed in Chinese and not Thai and English? Seligne (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Pak Phra Strait[edit]

This is a pretty big omission and should be corrected. At least a mention in the geography section would be the minimum required. Why bother to mention the bridges but not define the body of water they span? I would edit it, but I don't feel entitled to do so. So I hope somebody who does feel sufficiently entitled will make this correction. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phuket Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist guide[edit]

This article reads like a tourism guide and several photos have no encyclopedic relevance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kudpung, I have been working on the Wikipedia article of the Phuket province, in which I have observed many inconsistencies and promotional tones throughout the entry. I would love to hear what's your opinion of the current version. It's not far from being better sourced as I typically work on prose and structural refinement, but I hope that it is now more align with the Neutral Point of View policy. Thanks! Bossza007 Here (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phuket_province&oldid=1194449834"