Talk:Wat Saket

Vultures of Wat Saket

" ... Wat Saket was often used as a place to cremate the dead within the city walls. Since it was located outside the city wall Siamese in those days had a tradition not to cremate the dead within the city walls ... " This is contradictory: according to the first sentence, Wat Saket is inside the city wall — but the second sentence states that it was outside the city wall! Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following.

In the early Rattanakosin period (between reigns of Rama I and Rama V) Siamese had a tradition of not cremating the dead within the city walls, because it was believed to be an evil portent. Wat Saket was outside the city walls, so it was often used as a place to cremate dead bodies, which were carried through the west gate - Pratu Phi (ประตูผี, "ghost gate"). Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The following sentence, too, does not make sense.

These miserable events are in the memory of contemporary Siamese, until it was said that "Raeng Wat Saket" (แร้งวัดสระเกศ, "vultures of Wat Saket"), paired with "Pret Wat Suthat" (เปรตวัดสุทัศน์, "preta of Wat Suthat"). Does the author mean that the vultures are now believed to embody the preta (hungry ghosts)? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your above proposal looks good, except that Pratu Phi is in the east side of the city, and wasn't the only gate on that side. As for the second query, as far as I know it's just a common rhyme, the two famous temples being not far from each other. Wat Suthat is supposed to be famous for its preta wall murals. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

The given co-ords are 13.753864°N 100.508097°E - but this is about 170 m E of the site; the correct co-ords are 13.753865°N, 100.506533°E. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The given co-ordinates are a location between the ubosoth and the wihan of the temple compound. The Phu Khao Thong (Golden Mountain) is another object that is present in the compound. So, the given co-ordinates are correct for the Wat Saket location. Only if the article would be about the Phu Khao Thong of the temple, the co-ordinates would be wrong. --FredTC (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Those coordinates are over-specific by two or three digits. The article also has two sets of redundant coordinates, with the one at the top corner (in DMS) giving the location of Phukhao Thong. I'd suggest removing the decimal one and moving the DMS one into the infobox. Either the location of Phukhao Thong or the Ubosot would be fine, but at this level of precision it wouldn't make sense to use an arbitrary point that doesn't really represent anything. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

When you draw a line from the west wall of the wihan to the east wall of the ubosoth, the given co-ordinates are right in the center of that line. I guess this is the way the co-ordinates were created. Deleting 3 digits from 13.753864°N 100.508097°E would give 13.754°N 100.508°E which is near the north-west corner of the Phra Rabiang of the ubosoth. The 4 decimals position 13.7539° 100.5084° would be on top of the roof of the ubosot. A DMS notation without decimals of 13°45'14"N 100°30'30"E would also be on the roof of the ubosoth. What would the preference be, decimal degrees with 4 decimals or DMS with no decimals for the seconds? --FredTC (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Either should be fine. Personally I usually input them as DMS, though not for any particular reason. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)