Talk:Burford

Pronunciation

 * or

Should that second option just be an r-coloured schwa or do people really say "Burrrrrrrford"? I wouldn't have thought Burford was quite south-westerly enough for such a strongly rhotic accent. I'm probably wrong, but it seems best to seek clarification so I thought I'd leave a note. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 11:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably the second option is just intended to reflect any rhotic pronunciation (American, Irish, Scots), using more familiar phonetic symbols than [ɚ]. I think the town itself is in a firmly nonrhotic area. --Angr 13:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's the case the second option should probably go, otherwise we'd be justified in having options for every conceivable pronunciation by a native English speaker: slightly different vowels for people from different parts of England and so on. Also, I'm not sure that the area is quite as firmly non-rhotic as you suggest. I've left a message on the talk page of the user who added the pronunciation note to see if he can shed any light. Good to see pronunciation guides on Wikipedia! &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 06:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the guy who added the pronunciations. Trilobite's right in that the area isn't firmly non-rhotic, although of course there are many non-rhotic speakers and the rhoticism is tending to die with succesive generations. Thinking about it I spose r-coloured schwa is probably more accurate, or maybe a syllabic is more it (than ). Is there somewhere I could hear some clips of the IPA sounds so I could be more certain? Alternatively we could just give it phonemic slashes (instead of the square brackets) and leave it as it is. Thanks lots from bringing this up as it's always important to get these things as accurate as possible - it's nice to know that someone else is as concerned about such things as me! :-) &mdash;Xipirho 20:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know myself whether writing r-coloured schwa means anything different from writing schwa followed by an r. I had sort of assumed one was more pronounced or noticeable than the other but sitting here trying to pronounce 'Burford' with varying degrees of rhoticity I'm wondering if it's essentially all or nothing. At least we have confirmed there are rhotic speakers in the area which clears up the confusion. As for clips of IPA sounds Wikipedia has quite a few sound samples, reached from various articles but a good starting point might be International Phonetic Alphabet for English or table of vowels perhaps or all the articles along the lines of fricative consonant for consonants. Also some of the external links on International Phonetic Alphabet lead to pronounceable charts like this one. I'm very much in favour of putting IPA pronunciations in Wikipedia, especially for place names, but I tend to chicken out of having a go at them myself because it's such a minefield trying to get it right. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 09:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two points -

1) Why has the IPA been changed to the backwards epsilon, when hardly anyone actually says that sound (instead they say a long schwa), and the Oxford dictionary uses a long schwa, not the backwards epsilon in its IPA prono guide!?!?

2) Was "Big Ben" from THIS Burford or one in America? Could well be this one, but just checking.

Xipirho 12:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The backwards epsilon is the most usual way of representing the "NURSE vowel" of RP; Oxford uses the schwa in order to keep the number of symbols it uses to a minimum. As for "Big Ben", I know nothing about the character, but according to Burford (disambiguation) there is no Burford in America (though there is one in Canada). User:Angr 10:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GoldenDragonTapestry.jpg
Image:GoldenDragonTapestry.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. h BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The most significant feature of Burford
Burford's most significant feature, the one thing that hits any visitor immediately, is that it's on a huge slope. The whole place seems to be built on a 45-degree incline. This should be made much clearer in the article. BartBassist (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole
Revisiting the article again, after a gap of a few weeks, I notice how unbalanced its structure is. Chrisemms (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burford. 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/20160304025349/http://www.genoot.com/eng/oxf/b/burford/gardner.html to http://www.genoot.com/eng/oxf/b/burford/gardner.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Toponym
The text says that the name is from 'burh meaning fortified town or hilltown', suggesting that fortified town and hill town are the same thing. The element burh is very familiar, usually at the end, e.g. Edinburgh, Peterborough, Middlesbrough, and is usually interpreted as indicating a fortified place. Does this really apply to Burford, or does the Bur part mean 'hill' in this case, as I was told today in conversation? Or is it not known which it is, so that the text should say something like 'burh, a fortified place or burh [or whatever] a hill' [i.e. different etymons]? Or do they have the same etymon, a place on a hill being easier to defend? Snugglepuss (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)