Talk:Buriram

Comment
In the map, the dot for "Buriram" is in the wrong place. Compare with the page "Buriram Province" where you will see the correct location of the province. Sorry, I am not adept at modifying maps - can somebody help fix the error? David ruffolo (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing info.
Missing from  this article: List  of districts and sub districts (amphoe & tambon). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Buriram Songthaew System be merged into Buriram. The former article is very short, it includes only two lines, and has only 2.7 kB. This article has only a very short section on transportation, so this content would easily fit here. --RJFF (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move after over two months of discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

– All Thai province names currently follow the Royal Thai General System of Transcription. However, the spacing used in the current article titles do not match the Royal Institute's official directory at http://www.royin.go.th/upload/246/FileUpload/1723_5812.pdf. Now I'm aware of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Official names, but I don't think their advice goes against renaming these articles to comply with the standard, since the difference here is only in spacing. Using Google hits to guide choice here would be misleading, since Wikipedia's choice of spelling/spacing may have significantly influenced usage on the web over the past decade. The Statoids page, cited by the Provinces of Thailand article, follows the Royal Institute's spacing. I haven't listed the disambiguation pages and redirects here; they can be dealt with later. --Relisted. bd2412  T 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Buriram → Buri Ram
 * Buriram Province → Buri Ram Province
 * Mueang Buriram District → Mueang Buri Ram District
 * Chainat Province → Chai Nat Province
 * Mueang Chainat District → Mueang Chai Nat District
 * Chonburi (city) → Chon Buri (city)
 * Chonburi Province → Chon Buri Province
 * Mueang Chonburi District → Mueang Chon Buri District
 * Lopburi → Lop Buri
 * Lopburi Province → Lop Buri Province
 * Mueang Lopburi District → Mueang Lop Buri District
 * Phang Nga → Phangnga
 * Phang Nga Province → Phangnga Province
 * Mueang Phang Nga District → Mueang Phangnga District
 * Prachinburi → Prachin Buri
 * Prachinburi Province → Prachin Buri Province
 * Mueang Prachinburi District → Mueang Prachin Buri District
 * Sisaket (town) → Si Sa Ket (town)
 * Sisaket Province → Si Sa Ket Province
 * Mueang Sisaket District → Mueang Si Sa Ket District


 * Strong OPPOSE - The Thai government neither dictates nor overrides common English usage. Not only is something like "Si Sa Ket" unwieldy and rather ugly, it forces extra caps where none should be (in Thai, names like ศรีสะเกษ are a single word -- e.g. all of my Thai reference works and dictionaries say ศรี is a "bound element in place names"). The names without spaces prevail overwhelmingly, both historically and in current English common usage.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I am aware of the guidelines that favour commonly used names, but I reiterate that these guidelines are about wholly different names (The Hague vs  's-Gravenhage and Halifax, Nova Scotia vs Halifax Regional Municipality) rather than spacing variants such as these. The suggestion that all names should be treated without spaces doesn't hold, since if that were the case we'd have far more unwieldy names like Nakhonsithammarat and Prachuapkhirikhan, which are plainly not commonly used. Also, the request for Phang Nga is to get rid of the space. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment at the least, the proposed titles should exist as redirects -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects done. Dekimasu よ! 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – The difficulty I see with deferring to English common usage is the variability of such usage. We currently have many Thailand articles where naming varies both within and between articles. I think consistency of naming is important and inconsistency may diminish the perception of authority. Without any sort of definitive standard this will be difficult to achieve. I agree that a few of the RI's names are a little unwieldy, but I think extensive redirects can cover common usage variants. This subject has also arisen at OpenStreetMap Thailand where they also intend to use the RI as a source. Declangi (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to note that Ahoerstemeier, the creator of the province articles, has previously stated on his talk page that he's okay with renaming. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The blatant Appeal to Authority aside, RM discussions should judge current consensus. If he has an opinion (which will be gauged by its merits, no more or less than anybody else's here) he can list it himself.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what it is that you're construing as an appeal to authority here. I was simply informing the discussion of his opinion, since he doesn't seem to be very active currently. Note also that as the original author, it was his editorial judgement that determined the current spelling; his opinion provides context to the status of the current article titles. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (PS By okay with it I meant he did not oppose; sorry if that wasn't communicated clearly. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC))


 * Support all but Phang Nga should rather be replaced by Phang-nga per these documents by the Department of Provincial Administration (DOPA) that list the official romanisation of all Thai provinces and districts:  (It is difficult to properly read syllables that start with /ng/, so a hyphen is often utilised in these cases) I am aware of WP:COMMONNAME, but I do not consider these variants different names, they are just different transcriptions/spellings of the same name and in my view it is advantageous to consistently use the spelling that corresponds with RTGS (which is the most commonly accepted system of romanisation of Thai) and the official spelling used by the Thai administration, which is by the way also the spelling used on Thai road signs (e.g. road signs to Chon Buri); so even if it might not be the most common spelling in literature, it is the most common spelling "on the ground") --RJFF (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are more signposts: to "Buri Ram", "Chai Nat" and "Suphan Buri", plus the signs at the "Si Sa Ket", "Prachin Buri", "Chon Buri", "Buri Ram" and "Lop Buri" railway stations. --RJFF (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We should add: --RJFF (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nong Bua Lamphu → Nong Bua Lam Phu
 * Nong Bua Lamphu Province → Nong Bua Lam Phu Province
 * Mueang Nongbua Lamphu District → Mueang Nong Bua Lam Phu District
 * Yes. The omission was a mistake on my part. Also support Phang-nga per the provided links. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:NCGN instructs us to follow a geographic reference work like Britannica, Merriam-Webster, or an atlas. So it shouldn't have anything to do with royal institutes or road signs. Both our guidelines and CMOS recommend The Merriam Webster Geographical Dictionary. Their spelling looks pretty close to what is being proposed, with "Chon Buri" and "Lop Buri." Confabulationist (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * If you propose to principally follow the forms used by Merriam Webster (or Britannica), it means in concreto that you support moving to:
 * Chon Buri (supported by Merriam Webster and Britannica)
 * Lop Buri (supported by Merriam Webster and Britannica)
 * Phangnga (supported by Merriam Webster and Britannica)
 * Prachin Buri (supported by Merriam Webster and Britannica)
 * Suphan Buri (supported by Merriam Webster and Britannica)
 * But oppose moving:
 * Buriram (supported by Merriam Webster)
 * Chainat (supported by Merriam Webster, while Britannica uses Chai Nat)
 * Correct? --RJFF (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * *Merriam Webster and Britannica have the same publisher and follow the same style, so I assume Chainat/Chai Nat is just a typo. It looks like they are trying to follow the official spellings. We don't have to reproduce their typos. I support the DOPA list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confabulationist (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - before closing an admin should check for new users and ongoing SPIs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. We can't have it both ways. Either these changes are significant enough to follow existing guidelines (or provide a case for an exemption), or not significant and shouldn't even be considered. Either way, no case above to answer. Why have guidelines at all if we just ignore them? Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But they do follow existing guidelines. WP:WIAN refers us to "major English-language encyclopedias" or Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary and I have shown that most of the changes are supported by both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Geographical Dictionary. Kauffner's sock may be banned from !voting, but his argument is valid. I thought we were pretty close to having consensus before you came. I don't really understand your point. --RJFF (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was particuarly replying to your argument above I don't think their advice goes against renaming these articles to comply with the standard, since the difference here is only in spacing (my emphasis) which seems to me to be saying let's ignore the guideline because the difference is only spacing. But, the main point of this RM seems to be only spacing. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So does your "oppose" refer to my weak argument or to the move request per se? Just because you reject one argument by one of the supporters, you don't necessarily have to oppose the move request itself. There are other arguments like the reference to Britannica, Merriam-Webster, the GNS/BGN register (see below), which are considered significant works of reference per WP:WIAN (which is the applicable guideline for the naming of articles on geographic names.) --RJFF (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My vote refers the move request. I would have thought that didn't need saying, but is it clear now?
 * The argument is not just weak. It is invalid. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. The GEOnet Names Server (GNS), being "the official repository of standard spellings of all foreign geographic names, sanctioned by the United States Board on Geographic Names (US BGN)" uses them too. And the BGN is mentioned as one of the possible indicators of the widely accepted name per WP:WIAN, too. So several of the sources listed at WP:WIAN support the changes of Chai Nat, Chon Buri, Lop Buri, Phangnga, Prachin Buri, and Suphan Buri. However they don't support the change of Buriram and Sisaket. --RJFF (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, one of the bullet points of WP:WIAN reads Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names..., so the Thai DOPA's list may be considered a significant source for determining the "widely accepted names" that should be used as article titles, despite WP:OFFICIAL (which is, unlike WP:NCGN, an essay and not a guideline!) --RJFF (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIAL is labeled an essay, but in content it collates relevant information from WP:AT (policy) and individual naming conventions. Dekimasu よ! 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The relevant policy is WP:AT. If the essay is at variance to the policy, that should be noted and corrected. But there's no evidence that it is, so far. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case we do not need to apply WP:OFFICIAL anyway, as the proposed spelling is not only the official one, but also supported by independent reliable sources as listed in the relevant guideline WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). --RJFF (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. We should follow a reference rather than what the author thought looked nice when he created the article. My preference is to follow BGN spellings. These are quite similar to those proposed above, aside from Buriram and Sisaket. NotUnusual (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be okay by me. In line with the applicable guideline, much better than no move at all and, hopefully, a viable compromise solution (if I understand him right, User:WilliamThweatt's "strong oppose" was mainly against "Si Sa Ket" and not so much against all moves in general). --RJFF (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Buriram. 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/20121118031145/http://www.buriramcity.go.th:80/index.php/2011-10-22-09-49-03/2011-05-30-04-48-48/2011-05-30-06-29-21 to http://www.buriramcity.go.th/index.php/2011-10-22-09-49-03/2011-05-30-04-48-48/2011-05-30-06-29-21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amnat Charoen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 16:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Brmu logo Transparent.png

Removal of Khmer script for Northern Khmer dialect
Hi Potapt, I've noticed you've been removing the Khmer script for Northern Khmer names of locations. I was wondering if you got any source backing the fact that Northern Khmer uses only the Thai script and is codified in this script because that's not what the article says. Additionally the name "มืฺงแปะ" seems to be giving results on Google totally unrelated to Buriram, that's quite bizarre. Thank you! Pierrevang3 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've found this, which states the following:
 * Having now precisely defined the term, one special feature of the Khmer language of Surin is that it is an oral language, almost without written form. This might have been an ordinary situation in pre - protectorate Cambodia, especially in the remote provinces. Dr. Christian BAUER first disabused me of the common stance that there is no written form in Surin, and I owe the complete copy of manuscripts recognizably written in Surin, of which I have since seen the original, to Pr. François BIZOT. These manuscripts are all of religious matters, written in moul form, and only a few monks and a few men who have been monks can read or re-copy them. However, Khmer scriptures are far from unknown in this part of Isan. They are even rather frequent equally always in moul, since it is the writing used in all tattoos. It is noteworthy that these tattoos, oddly enough, even in Khmer alphabet, are more popular among the Isan Lao people than among the Isan Khmer, and anyway almost none of the latter can read them.
 * Olivier de Bernon (Associate Professor, Department of Khmer Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Silapakorn University, Bangkok. - Director of Studies, École française d'Extrême-Orient, Paris) refers to the "Moul form", which is a particular style of the Khmer script, the Âksâr mul.
 * Given that the Northern Khmer dialect has very little literature, the fact that the very little that does exist is written in Khmer script is, I think, particularly noteworthy in terms of how the Northern Khmer dialect should look like in its written form. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, that article dates back to 1988, but the orthography has evolved since then. This sample is taken from the Manual of Northern Khmer Orthography compiled by the Royal Society of Thailand. It is commonly used in materials for teaching Northern Khmer in schools, such as  and . As for the spelling "มืฺงแปะ," according to this orthography, to denote the vowel /ɤː/, it uses the form -ื combined with a dot below to distinguish it from the vowel /ɨː/, represented by the form -ื. However, on the Internet, the dot is often omitted in typing, or the entire vowel form is substituted with non-standard ones. Hence, you may find other variants like "มืงแปะ," "เมืองแปะ," or "เมิงแปะ" instead. Potapt (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)