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

• 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

– 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. Dekimasuよ! 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• 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: [1] [2] (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:

• 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

--RJFF (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

@Confabulationist: 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.