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)

But which districts, sub-districts (or communes), and villages represent the self-adminstered area of the city of Pattaya? Johnluisocasio (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pattaya covers the Tambon (subdistricts) Nong Prue and Na Kluea completely, and parts of Nong Pla Lai and Huai Yai, all within Amphoe Bang Lamung. As it is at a different administrative level than the provinces (unlike Bangkok) it IMHO does not need to be mentioned here. andy (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2007 (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)

I thought the same thing as you do, Andy. jlog3000 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (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)

Please try to look at the article guys and see how my re-organization of the regions and sub-regions of the country look. Johnluisocasio (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was an improvement, in the earlier version the numbers were much easier linked to the map. Also those subregions are even more informal than the regions, which are rather standard to divide the country - you might see what I wrote in the article on Central Thailand. I also wonder why you included Phu Wiang Province, AFAIK that province isn't created yet - or do you have news I haven't heard about yet. Besides, there seem to be several more provinces about to be created, see my blog. andy (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnluisocasio. Sorry, but I don't like your re-organization and I find those numbers in brackets very confusing. Where did you get those "sub-regions" from? And: "provinces" have to do with administration, no? Not so much with weather forcast. --hdamm (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try checking at the Khon Kaen Province. Johnluisocasio (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there it says "there are plans to create a province named Phu Wiang", which means it might have one in the near future, but also that these plans can get shelfed or scrapped by a future government. Actually I don't know the current status of this plan, maybe it is already shelved now? But as long as this creation isn't officially done it definitely doesn't belong into the table, only in the section named "since 1932" - which I should enlarge, I have found a lot more facts of what happened in the last 75 years in the meantime. andy (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=FA"

A bot has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION : Incorrect Zoning ????

I have doubt, should "South Eastern" & "South Western" be swapped here ??

South Eastern Thailand sub-region (not official yet)
Krabi (กระบี่) [#2 in purple]
Nakhon Si Thammarat (นครศรีธรรมราช) [#3 in purple]
Phatthalung (พัทลุง) [#7 in purple]
Surat Thani (สุราษฎร์ธานี) [#12 in purple]
Trang (ตรัง) [#13 in purple]
South Western Thailand

.

.

.

.

 

Mori Riyo (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As said in the section "#Regions" above, I don't like these subregions within the table anyway, the four main regions are enough, especially as none of these regions are official. But of course west and east has been swapped around there. I have now reverted it to the old state before the edits of User:Johnluisocasio. andy (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was trying to make sub-regions out of each region to say the least or try to make that as a separate article, official or predicted. jlog3000 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Requirements for each subdivision

What are the requirements for the following subdivisions in population, area etc.? jlog3000 (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Province (Changwat)
• District (Amphoe, Khet)
• Minor District (King Amphoe, King Khet)
• Sub-District (Tambon, Khwaeng)
• Village (Muban)
• Community (Chumchom)

Reorganized into six regions

Most Thai sources agree on the six-region system, based on the 1978 resolution of the National Geographical Committee, which was appointed by the National Research Council, and I think we should do so too. The previous grouping was more similar to the administrative region grouping system used by the Ministry of Interior, which would have had the East combined into the Central region, leaving a total of four. This grouping was abandoned, however, and the Ministry of Interior currently uses a twelve-region system. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there are references related with the twelve-region system? jlog3000 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best place for this discussion would be in Talk:Regions of Thailand, which could need more on the various groupings, as it right is nearly only a list of the four regions. Especially references to official texts from the ministries would be great. As these regions are only a grouping and not administrative entities, even though the MOI creates a new grouping doesn't mean it is used in all governmental circles - especially for statistical purposes it does not make sense to change the regions because it will make comparisons difficult. The grouping of the provinces into four regions in this article follows the grouping done by the NSO in the 2000 census, see [1]. andy (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Provinces where capitals are not the biggest cities

"The only 6 provinces whose capitals aren't the biggest cities in their provinces are Tak (Mae Sot is the biggest city), Pathum Thani (Rangsit is the biggest city), Songkhla (Hat Yai is the biggest city), Chonburi (Pattaya is the biggest city), Narathiwat (Su-ngai Kolok is the biggest city) and Prachuap Khiri Khan (Hua Hin is the biggest city)."

-A few doubts here about Chonburi, Tak and Narathiwat (and Pathum Thani):

What is the source for Sungai Kolok being bigger than Narathiwat city? According to Wikipedia, Sungai Kolok has 38,600 inhabitants, but the article about Narathiwat has no population number. (Thai Wikipedia only gives the population of the whole Amphoe Mueang: 305,000.)

Similarly, the 120,000 figure at Mae Sot refers to the amphoe, not the town itself. However, it is indeed quite large and I remember reading about something in the range of 45,000-50,000 somewhere else. And of course, with the many Burmese refugees & semi-legal workers there, we also have to consider a substantial number of unregistered inhabitants, as in Pattaya (below). I wasn't aware that Tak (town) was that small (19,900) and would have thought it to be just slightly larger than Mae Sot, but if this figure is correct, then no objections to the inclusion of this example.

The population of Chonburi is given as 180,000, while the article about Pattaya says the following: "The city (Mueang) had 104,318 registered inhabitants in 2007. But like Bangkok Metropolis, that figure excludes the large number of people who work in Pattaya but remain registered in their hometowns, and many long-term expatriate visitors. Including non-registered residents, the population numbers around 300,000 at any given time. Other estimates put the figure as high as 500,000." I guess this qualification should also appear in this article ("Pattaya is the biggest city, if non-registered residents are included"); otherwise remove the whole Pattaya example.

[Also, I am quite sure that Rangsit has more inhabitants than tiny, sleepy Pathum Thani town (yes, I've been there once!) - but what is Rangsit? Apparently just a tambon of Amphoe Thanyaburi..... Does it really have any sort of town status, i.e. is there a thessaban tambon / thessaban mueang Rangsit? As it is now, we are left with a rather unconvincing comparison of 20,592 (tambon) vs. 18,320 (town).] ---Dekthep (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can find the official population numbers (i.e. the registered inhabitants) at the website of the Department of Provincial Administration (DOPA) at http://www.dopa.go.th/xstat/popyear.html

• Narathiwat 40,521 vs. Sungai Kolok 39,564 [2] - very close, maybe Sungai Kolok took over lately, those are the numbers for 2008, the 2009 numbers should come within the next few weeks.
• Tak 19,274 vs. Mae Sot 35,042 [3] - clear confirmation
• Chonburi 33,067 vs. Pattaya 104,797 [4] - clear confirmation
• Pathum Thani 18,843 vs. Rangsit 76,843 [5], even Khu Khot and Tha Khlong have more than Pathum Thani itself. Rangsit town covers the complete Tambon Prachathipat as stated in the Thanyaburi district article - note that Thesaban do not necessarily coincide with Tambon boundaries. andy (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the DOPA link, very useful. That removes the doubts, of course. Though I still wonder how Chonburi has such a small population of only 33,000...? And where did the 180,000 figure at Chonburi come from then? Does that possibly include several neighbouring thesaban, due to a somewhat quirky structure of the Chonburi urban area? The article Amphoe Mueang Chonburi states: "There are three towns (thesaban mueang) - Chonburi, Saen Suk and Ban Suan." According to DOPA, the respective numbers are: Saen Suk 44,366 / Chonburi 33,067 / Ban Suan 65,115 = a total of 142,548. Still doesn't explain the Wikipedia figure. Anyway, that statistical data also disproves the common assumption that Chiang Mai is the second biggest city in Thailand. One might argue about Nonthaburi being a 'real' separate city (as opposed to an indistinguishable part of the Greater Bangkok Metropolis), but Hat Yai is definitely bigger, and Udon and Khorat are virtually tied with Chiang Mai for a common 4th place. Here are the 8 cities (i.e. thesaban nakhon / thesaban mueang) with >100,000 population, not including Bangkok, in descending order:

1. Nonthaburi 264,000
2. Hat Yai 157,000
3. Chiang Mai 146,000
4. Nakhon Ratchasima 145,000
5. Udon Thani 141,000
6. Surat Thani 127,000
7. Khon Kaen 118,000
8. Nakhon Si Thammarat 108,000

(As for Samut Prakan: like Nonthaburi, it is of course a densely populated area in close vicinity to Bangkok, with more than 1 million people in the province as a whole, but the population number for the thesaban nakhon is only 56,000.) And by the way - the smallest provincial capital in Thailand is Mae Hong Son (6,440). --Dekthep (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Pak Kret, see also List of cities in Thailand by population andy (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Former provinces

The current section of former provinces IMHO does not fit into the article, not just because it is very incomplete (only the 4 Malay states which were "lost" in 1908), nor does a second list improve the readability of the article. A separate article List of former provinces of Thailand would make more sense, especially if it is a complete list - I could give lots of names for such a list, a few are collected in the Category:Former provinces of Thailand. This article should just mention the main changes in provincial outline, especially the abolished provinces in 1932, the temporary abolishment of provinces during WWII and at the same time the 4 provinces in the annexed Cambodian and Laotian areas. The "lost" territory is a bit tricky, as these happened when the Thesaphiban system was still in development, thus the 4 Malay states were not yet provinces in the modern sense but still the Mueang city states loosely bound with the central administration. andy (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:List odf Provinces of Thailand (with census data)

Patent nonsense

There was NO census in 2005 or 2009! If these numbers are from the Wikipedia articles, then it is the registrar data. The last census from which data is available was in 2000, and last year a new census was done, but AFAIK there are no data available yet. The right numbers can be found at statoids, or for 1990 and 2000 can also be collected from the website of the NSO - or in a spreadsheet I compile myself. andy (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem, just input the data or change the titles to suit!!!

I am going to incorporate this table into the Provinces of Thailand article anyway. Petebutt (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

flags

Please upload all flags to English wikipedia, or commons. Flags are in th:ธงประจำจังหวัดของไทย. Thank you.--183.89.251.249 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm doing this now.--DKH2010 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check the source and copyright status of images before uploading them; images without proper attribution may not be kept on the English Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is "Province" part of the proper names

The provinces are mostly listed without "Province" as part of the name, but the individual province articles include "Province" in the name. Is "Province" or "changwat/Changwat" part of the proper names, or is this a misapplied disambiguator? In other words, should individual province names indeed be "Xxx Province", or should they be something like "Xxx (province)"? Nurg (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

All of the official Thai sources include the term Changwat (and same for the lower administrative level), but it is required in Thai as well as a disambiguation, as there are often more than one administrative unit at different level sharing the same name. To add confusion, if in Thai someone just uses the name "Chiang Mai" he usually means the province, whereas in English it usually more refers to the city - hence in most cases the plain name here is occupied by the article on the provincial capital. andy (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if the term is considered a disambiguator, it is considered a "natural disambiguation" and is actually preferred to parenthetical disambiguation (see WP:NATURAL). Thus we have New York City rather than New York (city). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

77 Provinces? Bung Kan

Where is Bung Kan province? There are now 77 provinces. Also Pattaya is also an administrative district isn't it? 203.131.210.82 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There are 76 provinces including Bueng Kan. Bangkok is not a province, but a special administrative area, which however is at same administrative level as the provinces, thus is often wrongly stated that there are 77 province [6]. Pattaya is also a special administrative area, but not at province level, only a special local government within Chonburi province. This should however all be covered in the article already. andy (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Province capitals

Should we contine to list them? I don't think the concept of a provincial capital even officially exists. The current listing appears to just be the municipal locations of the Provincial Hall building of each province. This likely fails Wikipedia's policy on no original research. And frankly, it's extremely awkward to see Chaeramae listed as the "capital" of Ubon Ratchathani Province. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about the policies, but I always think that section in all related articles and templates should be removed, because there aren't such things as provincial capitals in Thailand. It's actually as simple as that. Even if we substitute this term for with "provincial seat", "seat of provincial government", etc., they still imply a federal system to me. However, other people may take the meaning of the word "capital" differently. I don't know. The Collins Dictionary, for example, defines the word "capital" as "the seat of government of a country or other political unit." I don't see Chaeramae or Mai Khet as awkward according to this definition. --Potapt (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Even there is no concept for the province "capital" in Thai, the usual definition of capital is simply "seat of administration". I have no problem with a list collecting referenced locations for the province administrations, especially as other language editions as well as Wikidata will still list these values - I don't know if compiling a list from other sources counts as original research. Especially in those cases where the province hall was moved from inside the city named same as the province to an outskirt which happens to be a different municipality/TAO it would make sense to list the date when this move was done - at least in Wikidata. What kept me from being more active in this (apart from being busy with other things) - why we have to use the local administrative unit which contains the province hall, the Tambon is usually more detailed, or actually would have to list both? That'd be very confusing in Wikidata then. Though I have not much hope of a perfect solution, at least for Wikidata I'll try to post a question in the general discussion there. andy (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Provinces of Thailand. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908070156/http://stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/pk/pk_57.pdf to http://www.stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/pk/pk_57.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated population for each province for 77 provinces updated reference

Hello All Editor for Wikipedia I have just modifying updated population for all provinces with reference from government so if you have comment please kindly contact me directly on my talk page.. Thank you and looking forward to brainstorm for something great in near future soon....Tris T7 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Manifest error - 76+1 versus 77+1 provinces?

The introduction to this page specifies 76 provinces plus Bankgok as a special administrative area. However the long list given in the body of the article contains 77 provinces plus Bangkok as a special administrative area. I have no idea what the right answer is, but someone who knows the true situation should make approproate edits. A history of recent changes would also be useful. Pauldoust (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you re-check your count? I count Bangkok plus 76 provinces in the list table. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. My mistake was that when I pasted into a spreadsheet, Bangkok occupied two rows because of the note about "special administrative area". Pauldoust (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chai Nat hyperlink

I have noticed that the hyperlink for Chai Nat Province leads to the town of Chai Nat. Is someone able to correct the hyperlink to the province? AridCeption (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. The source is hidden in the templates at Category:Country data templates of subdivisions of Thailand. This one seems to have been missed when the others were previously fixed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)