Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Burma, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
There is more than one name for this country. Strong arguments exist for the use of both names as an article title, however the most recent requested move discussion found that the article title should be at Burma. Myanmar redirects there. Discussion of the title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Burma is within the scope of WikiProject Burma (Myanmar), a project to improve all Burma related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Burmese-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
After a political "spring" igniting reforms to more democracy, the argument of pariah state impeding to name this country "Myanmar" is not valid anymore. The government becomes more and more legitimate. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I still don't really understand this argument, Germany is not called Deutchsland and Switzerland is not called Schweiz.
The meaning of an "official" name is that it is the name that has to be used in all languages. Locally some language users may use their own term, but refering to this entity officially, the official name has to be used. I'm not sure if Deutschland or Schweiz are the official names; if so, they need to be corrected too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have NEVER heard this definition of "official name" before. Why should ANY nation get to dictate to any other language (much less ALL other languages) what to call something. THAT seems massively arrogant to me. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
IP 61 and Khajidha, did you notice the information in the tan-colored box at the top of this page? There has been much discussion about this before, all archived so you can read it if you wish, and there is a link to the place where one can add more comments. CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The English for Burma is Burma (22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC))
This article should be renamed to Myanmar, it is the official name of the country. I am still confused why the name is Burma on here when for decades the country's name has been Myanmar. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The following two subsections were copied here from copied from Talk:Myanmar where a naughty person had turned the redirect into a talk page causing confusion for other editors. The last posting to Talk:Myanmar was by JamesBWatson at 11:29 on 17 January 2014 -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring the fact that English is an official language of Zimbabwe, one of the most widespread of its sixteen official languages. Many Zimbabweans are native English speakers and thus have more impact on English language usage than do the Burmese. --Khajidha (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section "Units of measurement" is as follows:
"On 10 October 2013, it was reported that Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce, had announced that the country was preparing to adopt the metric system."
I read the article, "Myanmar to Adopt Metric System", provided in a link at the reference (315), and I could not tell whether Dr. Pwint San was actually announcing the plan to adopt the metric system, and, if so, whether he announced it on 10 October 2013. If he did, then it would be good to shorten and simplify the sentence to:
"On 10 October 2013, Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce, announced that the country was preparing to adopt the metric system."
"Dr. Pwint San...announced" is more concise than "...it was reported that Dr. Pwint San...had announced".
Does anyone know when this announcement was actually made, or perhaps understand the article better than I do? If the sentence were simplified as I have suggested, would it be accurate? CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)