The reason was: there are so many "Wat Phra That" in Thailand, esp. in Nan (there are 25+ with a ธาตุ in their name, that are listed in the Thai Fine Art Department's list). So I sometimes don't know, where to locate a certain temple :-)
Using the actual locality, here "Pua" for the town instead of "Nan" for the province, avoids confusion with temples that are located in the provincial capitals. Only adding the name of the town after the temple name would be enough to distinguish different temples carrying the same name. Otherwise you might end up with unwieldy category names such as "Category:Wat Thep Phithak Punnaram, Pak Chong, Nakhon Ratchasima"; and all temples that are located in provincial capitals would become something like "Category:Wat Phra That Khao Noi, Nan, Nan" or "Category:Wat Phra That Khao Noi, Nan city".
What is the present standard way of naming temple categories actually? Category:Buddhist temples in Nan now shows categories with the name of the town after a comma, but also with the name of the town between round brackets. My preference goes to the version with only a comma, if only because it looks nicer to me and uses one less character than brackets. - Takeaway (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a "present category naming standard". In German Wikipedia the ones with brackets seem to prevail (see here)? But right now here on Commons I tend to put the corresponding province name after a comma, like your preferences. The ones with brackets are quite old. I hesitate to put the stress of renaming all of them on me ;-)
I wouldn't want to start renaming them all either! It's just so there's at least some rule to follow instead of making up novel ways of naming these categories. :) - Takeaway (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of "Phra That": it is my understanding that these words can actually mean two things:
1. A honorific prefix to the name of a temple which contains a Buddha relic
2. A specific style of chedi, mainly found in Isan (which also must contain a Buddha relic?)
We now have the Category:Thailand Phra That which seems to combine both options but I think Pawyilee created that category for the second option: the specific style of chedi from Isan.
Would it be a good idea to distinguish them by creating a subcategory called Category:Phra That (chedi style)? - Takeaway (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interjection (just some intermediate thoughts): after rummaging through my vast library with books about Thailand I found in a book (Joe Cummings: Buddhist Stupas in Asia) this photo of Pha That Pathum (or That Makmo - Watermelon Stupa; on the grounds of Wat Wisunalat in Luang Prabang).
I was explained once by a fairly learned Isan friend of mine, that it is about chedis with a certain shape, to distinguish them from "normal", bell-shaped chedis. Why certain of these Isan (and Laotian?) chedis are built in this way and why other's aren't, he didn't tell me. File:Phra That Phanom 04.jpg shows the shape most clearly. It is as if the "lotus bud" crown is expanded to become a much more prominent feature of the tower. It was years ago though that I was told this and perhaps I didn't understand him correctly, or didn't remembered it correctly. I hope you can find a definitive answer in library! Perhaps Paul 012 might know something more about this matter too? - Takeaway (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've heard of the term being used to refer to a specific architectural style before, at least in Thai (i.e. I've only seen the first meaning). Phra that (as in relic-housing stupas) come in a large variety of shapes and styles. I wouldn't assume anyone using the word is referring to the specific style found in Isan. As for the category, it seems Pawyilee included temples from all over the country when first creating the category, so limiting its scope to Isan-style structures doesn't seem to be the original intent. I'm not convinced that the description of having a "distinctive architectural style that is sited on a square base" is actually accurate. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My further research was rather unfruitful. I found no other information than what is already pointed out in German and English Wikipedia. So I would also reject the idea of creating a new subcategory. --hdamm (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Hdamm - Hilfe! Ich habe den begründeten Verdacht, dass es sich bei einem Teil der Bilder, die ich gestern als dem Wat Chet Yot zugehörig (z.B. die Innenaufnahmen) hochgeladen habe, um Aufnahmen des Wat Phra Singh handelt. Nun bitte ich Dich flehentlich um eine richtige Zuordnung, wenn Du mal Zeit hast! Herzlichst --Ziegler175 (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bei den beiden oben von Dir erwähnten bin ich mir nicht sicher, fast sicher aber bin ich bei dem und den folgenden 2(-3) Bildern, weil ich in der Kategorie der Wat Phra Singh und deren Unterkategorie "Murals..." ganz ähnliche Bilder fand.
Vielen Dank für die Entmoppelung buddhistischer Tempel - es genügt also offenbar der Name des Tempels, werde es mir merken :-). Herzlichst --Ziegler175 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, ich hoffe, ich habe alles nach Wunsch erledigt? Ich habe nicht nur rekategorisiert, sondern auch gleich einen neuen Namen vergeben. Du kannst höchstens noch die Beschreibungstexte nachführen.
Zu File:ThaiLamphunKukut11.jpg: ich bin mir da ziemlich sicher, das dieses Foto nicht im Wat Chamadevi aufgenommen wurde. So weit ich mich erinnere, gibt es dort doch nur ein Gebäude im "Bangkok-Stil", so das hier ganz rechts im Bild. Das ist ganz klar ohne den aufwändigen Unterbau.
Ich forsche mal noch ein wenig, vielleicht finde ich ja noch was raus ;-)
Hello. I add this category based on the description by the uploader. Unfortunately, I do not have more information about this temple. However, I am pretty sure it is not Wat Ban Pong (see [1]). Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
_(4335506018).jpg){kind=link}
