text:
Talk:Buffalo (disambiguation)

Which

 * Buffalo is the snow capital of the World?

I made this a disambiguation page because I do not know what Buffalo the anonymous contributor was refering to.

BTW: I would have thought Antarctica held the title. -- (WT-en) Huttite 00:34, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Buffalo New York — it's by far the biggest city called Buffalo. I'd be willing to wager it gets more depth of snow than Antarctica due lake effect snow.  If you look at Wikipedia's article about lake effect snow, they have a picture of the US Great Lakes emitting snow.  Buffalo is smack in the middle of the clouds in the picture. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:58, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * I have no doubt that you are right. I will copy the comment to Buffalo (New York), because of the potential confusion with Mount Buffalo in Australia and the other Buffalo cities. - (WT-en) Huttite 01:40, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * BTW, Antarctica actually gets rather little snow. It's just that what's there used to never melt. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:28, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

More famous rule?
Would Buffalo, NY be more famous than any of the other places with the name? I've never heard of any of the other places, but that might be Midwestern ignormoose too. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 07:08, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm inclined to think that it's the "so much more famous" one, but my perspective is a bit provincial as well. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:28, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Yeah, I would disambiguate Buffalo, NY and Buffalo, the animal, but these other places are either not named Buffalo or really minor. I say move the main city here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:02, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Well, it took more than four years, but I went ahead and made this change, because I couldn't disagree with it. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:04, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Good work. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:16, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Buffalo (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Buffalo National River

In "Do", the subsection "Boating" has a sub-subsection called "Canoe Rental Providers" that I think needs to be improved to make it more understandable. The way the contact info is arranged is kind of confusing to me. —The preceding comment was added by 70.232.34.216 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 July 2007

title: Talk:Buffalo National River


text:
Talk:Bukhara

According to Wikipedia, Bokhara was used in 19th century English, whereas Bukhara is the contemporary spelling. I'm moving the page then, as we have to name articles according to the most common English name. Please feel free to revert if you think it's not right. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 07:08, 29 March 2006 (EST)

I'm inclined to move it back, but asking for opinions first. I put it as Bokhara; that's the name I know from rug books and from living in Iran. However, the map on our Uzbekistan page has Buxoro and both the map at the utexas.edu map collection site and my National Geographic map have Bukhoro. Now I'm confused. Anyone else got comments? (WT-en) Pashley 10:28, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

The UNESCO World Heritage Site and Project:World cities with 100K population or more lists both use "Bukhara". Might as well keep that. (WT-en) Pashley 03:59, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Hotel
I moved this hotel data from Uzbekistan, but it seems to be already listed here. --(WT-en) Evan 10:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

''Hotel Amelia is located just near to the central part of Bukhara, Lyabi Hauz. It is a small family-run hotel which is a 19th century jewish merchant's house, but newly decorated. The hotel has only five rooms, which means it feels quite relaxed. Each room has air conditioning, TV, ensuite (very clean!) bathrooms, minibar, and traditional furnishings in Uzbek style. There is a lovely aivan (verandah) on which breakfast is served, and where you can sit and plan your day, or read, or just relax.  The staff speak fluent English and can arrange lots of things, if that's what you want, such as car, air tickets, tours, guided walks in Bukhara, visits to the desert etc. '' Hotel Amelia charges USD25 single or USD40 double, with concessions in the off season, and this includes a huge breakfast.

Sanskrit?
The current text has 'In Sanskrit the word Bukhara means "abbey".' Why Sanskrit?

My understanding is that Sanskrit was used mainly in India & Pakistan and the ancient language up Bukhara way when the city was named would have been Avestan language or maybe Old Persian. All these languages are related, though, and Sanskrit entered the subcontinent as the language of invaders so for all I know it came from here. Does anyone know more? Pashley (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Bukhara gives two possible origins, either Sanskrit vihara which it translates as Buddhist monastery or Sogdian language βuxārak. I'd prefer the latter since it is attributed to the very credible source Encyclopædia Iranica. Pashley (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bukhara


text:
Talk:Bukit Lawang

Why a separate article?
What is the rationale behind splitting this from Gunung Leuser National Park please?. Is Bukit Lawang not part of the park? Certainly much of the content at the remaining Gunung Leuser National Park article relates to Bukit Lawang. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:53, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Apologies, sloppy editing order. Might as well answer this here now. I've just finished reformatting Gunung Leuser NP which should make a lot more sense now as there are several places to go to within the Park, not just Bukit Lawang which is one of the most well-known and top-visited places in Sumatra. (WT-en) Rej8 12:46, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * I really think this should not be a separate article and that the redirect should not have been removed. Gunung Leuser National Park is the destination and Bukit Lawang is an organgutan sanctuary within the destination.  At the moment neither article makes sense and before the recent split, the park article definitely did.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:49, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

 * This is a live issue. The two articles are almost the same. I'm going to stick a merge tag on this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the Orangutan in the wild is one of the best experiences you will have in your life
This is pure hype. The Orangutan you see are not wild. Wild Orangutan would run a mile if they perceived a human near them. The guides seem to herd the animals so the visitors could see them. The charge for being taken into the park "so you don't get lost" is too high. I was charged 300,000. I do not think i or anyone else would get lost. The apparent reason for the guide and the charge was because a german couple got lost one day and it took the rangers several hours to find them. Big deal. People visit these places for adventure. Sure you need to be responsible but all is needed is a few signposts and a map together with some information about the animals you might meet. You could easily get in and out on your own safely. I have seen this in other rainforests in Malaysia. The forest when I visited in February was not heavy rain forest. The ground was dry and it was like walking in any forest in Europe except the trees and plants are different. A guide would certainly be a good idea for a long trek say over 2 days as the park is huge.

title: Talk:Bukit Lawang


text:
Talk:Bukit Peninsula

This is a ropey article to say the least. I will try to get some more meaningful information in here.

I would also propose that the article is renamed. I do not think anyone really thinks of the whole Bukit Peninsula as Uluwatu. It is "The Bukit" and Uluwatu is understood to be the relatively small part of the Bukit around Uluwatu temple.

Any comments or objections to that? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:13, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Hi Burmesedays, i think you don't need to rename the article, its just unclear written. Maybe you update the breadcrump navigation and bring in one more level (e.g. Bali then Bukit Peninsula then Uluwatu). If you want to do this, then you need to change Jimbaran and Nusa Dua as well. Maybe we start a discussion on the main Bali article how to sensible structure Bali. Thanks for the starter, (WT-en) jan 08:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT) P.S. I have seen that some users started to structure Bali with regions. I think that is a good point to bring in your knowledge of the island! (WT-en) jan 08:21, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Hi Jan. Thanks for that and you may well be right. To be honest I have until now stayed away from the Bali articles as there is a LOT that needs attention and concentrated instead on Nusa_Lembongan and Nusa_Penida. However, those are about done now.. so... Bali it is :) . --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:03, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't think we need an additional level for the peninsula alone. (We do need to split Bali itself, but that's another discussion best reserved for Talk:Bali.) Renaming this article as "Bukit Peninsula", briefly discussing the villages within and the use of the name "Uluwatu" for the whole thing, and keeping Nusa Dua separate is probably the best call. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:30, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I had missed that last comment From Jani. Definitely the right thing to do and it shall be done :) Cheers. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:44, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Beaches
The beaches here are now listed on the See section, but Project:Where you can stick it stipulates that beaches should be described in the Do section. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 03:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
 * Yet more See and Do confusion. How to do you "Do" a beach? :) Also of note is that Bali went to Star with beaches all listed under Landscape in the See section. I will bring it up at Project:Where you can stick it. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:09, 16 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Bukit Peninsula


text:
Talk:Bollenstreek

I think it is quite strange to call this region "Bulb region", because this region has is it's own official Dutch name, "Bollenstreek", which shouldn't be "translated". There's only one city in The Netherlands that has its own English name and that is "The Hague". Are we going to translate streetnames as well? Are there Wikivoyage-rules about this? --(WT-en) Whatsinaname 20:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * It's just a translation. Wikivoyage-rule is that the most common English name is used. It's a bit hard to qualify what "the most commonly used" English name is, but I think Bulb Region is fine. In the Wikipedia article Bollenstreek and Bulb Region are used interchangeably. They have the same meaning. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bollenstreek


text:
Talk:Bulgaria

Currency denotation
Many pages use "100 lev", the buy section uses "лв100" before the amount. However, what seems to be common in restaurant menues and picture is just "100 лв".

If no one objects, I will go ahead and change the standard to "100 лв".

Cheers Ceever (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Regions, again
The last time the regions were revised was almost ten years ago (see discussion), when one user single-handedly introduced the currently used division. There are several issues with it that haven't been fixed since then. The main issue is that the regions appear arbitrarily drawn and there's no clarity about how the borders were determined, so it's often hard to determine just from the map which places belong to a particular region and why. The author can't be asked for clarification, as they haven't been active on the project for many years. The map also misinforms - for example, on the map Dobrudja extends way, way outside of the historic borders of the actual Dobrudzha region; the Balkan mountains go more to the west than the map implies, etc. There's also not enough content for the Strandzha region - it can be reduced to a page about Strandzha National Park in some of the other regions. It looks like the author tried to make a "cultural map" of Bulgaria, but it doesn't quite match any map of the ethnographic regions of Bulgaria that I could find, and they wouldn't be a good guide to travel anyway. The map image itself needs work, e.g. because it seems to omit railway connections (or those shown are just the international lines?).

So, new regions are necessary. The options are:

A) Revert to the old regions map, which split the country into 5: Northwest Bulgaria, Southwest Bulgaria, Northern Thrace, Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, Norther Central Bulgaria. It was inherited from Wikitravel and it's still used there.

B) Use the physical-geographical regions used in Bulgarian geography (example map, I have a better one in my atlas but I can't upload an image for obvious reasons). Depending on which sub-regions we use, there can be between 5 and 14 regions. The main ones: Danubian Plain (can be split in 3, east to west), Balkan Mountains (can be split in 2 - lengthwise), Transitional Region (can be split in 2 to 5 subregions), Rila-Rhodopes (can be split in 4) and the Black Sea Coast. The main cons are that those regions are defined by terrain features, so the problem of easily determining what goes where will remain, and the way the regions are defined is often not very useful to travelers.

C) Use the NUTS 2 regions OR something based on it by shuffling some provinces around to better match geographic intuitions. They are 6: Northeastern, Northern Central, Northwestern, Southwestern, South Central, Southeastern. Pros: Most Bulgarians already think about Bulgaria approximately like this (though what belongs to which region will be different from NUTS); clear administrative boundaries means that objects can be put very easily into each region; it cuts Bulgaria in six approximately equal chunks. Cons: not necessarily useful to travelers, though more useful than B) option for travel planning due to the way the road network was developed - the Balkan Mountains split the country in two.

D) Last but not least: since 2015, Bulgaria has 9 officially defined tourist regions for the purpose of tourism marketing. See the map here and the official website of the Ministry of Tourism if you can read Bulgarian. We can use them, but not necessarily under the same names:
 * 1) Rila-Pirin region - includes both alpine-type mountains in Bulgaria, unlike the current Pirin Macedonia region, which seems to put Rila in Shopluka.
 * 2) Sofia region - what the current map calls Shopluka, but cut down to a more appropriate size.
 * 3) Rhodopes region - like the existing region covers the Rhodope Mountains.
 * 4) The Valley of Roses region - includes the Rose Valley (Bulgaria) and the other Podbalkan valleys; pieces of current regions: Balkan Mountains and Shopluka.
 * 5) Trakia region - approximately equivalent to the existing Upper Thracian Plain region.
 * 6) Stara Planina region - approximately equivalent to the existing Balkan Mountains region, but without the Podbalkan valleys, and it extends to the full length of the actual mountain range and includes adjacent cities like Veliko Tarnovo.
 * 7) Danube region - approximately equivalent to the existing North Bulgaria region, but extends further east and splits Dobrudja with...
 * 8) Northern Black Sea Coast region, centered on Varna, but it goes quite a lot inland, unlike the current Bulgarian Black Sea Coast region.
 * 9) Southern Black Sea Coast region, centered on Burgas, which also includes Strandzha and Sakar. As Varna and Burgas are the two major cities on the coast, most Bulgarians already consider the coast split in a similar manner (Severno and Yuzhno Chernomorie) and plan their vacations accordingly.

Pros: the regions are defined on the level of municipalities (one level below oblasts/provinces), which avoids the clumsy major administrative boundaries and at the same time makes the "what goes where" problem very easy; as it was created by the Ministry of Tourism, some thought was put into making the regions useful for travel planning and transport. Cons: not necessarily as intuitive as the rough geographic intuitions mentioned in C); some regions might be too big and some borders are somewhat arbitrary (e.g. could have gone with another region in Northeastern Bulgaria). Daggerstab (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for this detailed analysis. Plan D seems like an excellent basis for a map. If there is an SVG version of the current or previous Wikivoyage travel-style map, the region borders can easily be adjusted to the new boundaries in Inkscape. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * My question would be: How many cities and other destinations would there be in each region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the D) option specifically?
 * Rila-Pirin - expands the current Pirin Macedonia, so: 1 province center, at least 6 other existing pages for mountain resorts etc, multiple nature reserves, the Rila Monastery (UNESCO site), the Seven Rila Lakes, etc.
 * Sofia - 1 capital of the country, 2 other province centers, 2 other towns that are redlinked now in Bulgarian Shopluk, 1 other existing site page. Potential for adding a separate page for Vitosha Mountain and a mineral water resort.
 * Rhodopes - 2 province centers and a number of smaller towns; the current Rhodope Mountains page is already quite full, because it also includes the parts that are in Greece, and parts of Pirin for some reason.
 * The Valley of Roses - 1 province center and at least 6 smaller towns, most of them famous for their preserved 19th century architecture, other cultural significance, and of course, the cultivation of roses.
 * Trakia (Thrace) - 5 province centers and a number of smaller towns, 1 UNESCO site; mostly a slightly smaller version of the existing Upper Thracian Plain.
 * Stara Planina (the Balkan Mountains) - 5 province capitals, at least 4 other notable smaller towns, at least 1 existing other site page, potential for more (e.g. lots of nature reserves). A possible problem is that some of those provinces extend north to the Danube...
 * Along the Danube - 7 province centers, a number of smaller towns, 3 UNESCO sites. If it grows too big, the Ministry's plan already includes provisions for splitting it into Eastern and Western sub-regions.
 * Northern sea coast - 3 province centers, a number of smaller towns and resorts, 1 UNESCO site.
 * Southern sea cost - 1 province center, a number of smaller towns and resorts - more than half of the content of the existing Bulgarian Black Sea Coast page, and the existing Strandzha page.
 * The main problems with D) is not that there won't be content for each region, but things like naming (it's easy for the Ministry to call it "X tourist region", but names here are supposed to be less formal and more succinct while at the same time accurate and intuitive - and 8 for example may end up as "Northern Bulgarian Black Sea Coast") and some transport issues (e.g. too many long and thin regions). Daggerstab (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, creating a map wouldn't be that trivial, as it will be necessary to careful parse which municipalities are included in each region, and the map of municipalities in Bulgaria looks like this. :) There's a reference image though, see page 53 of this PDF (but I need to make sure that that proposal has been accepted without modifications.
 * Of the listed options, the two under C) are the easiest to map, as there are relatively few provinces (see the NUTS image). Daggerstab (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm a bit confused. I'm happy to trust your judgment on this, but if you'd like me to have a real sense of how much content there will be in each region, here's what I'd like: For each region, I'd want at least an approximation of the total number of cities (including towns, villages) that will have their own articles (even if they're currently red-linked) and the number of "Other destinations", based on how they'd appear in the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections of each region article. I'm not asking for all the names, just a number in each category. Also note the subtle difference between "See" and "Other destinations." For example, a museum could be mentioned in the "See" section of a region article if it's important enough, but it's usually not considered a destination per se (unless it's on the order of the Louvre, maybe), but a big archeological zone like Pompeii that you can walk around all day and still not come close to seeing all of is definitely a destination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it's my turn to be confused. Did you see my previous reply? Daggerstab (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, and it's hard for me to add all that up. How many of those are cities, and how many are "Other destinations"? I'd like to see those numbers first, then brief descriptions of what you're considering to be an "Other destination." I noticed you created a redirect for a church. Even though it's a UNESCO site, it's still a small church, and that wouldn't get its own article, so why does it merit a redirect? If you think it does, the redirect should be to the "See" section of the article in question, but I wouldn't have created the redirect, and I'd consider it marginal as an "Other destination". Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek: Because some time have passed, a reminder about the Boyana Church redirect - the issue was resolved, the reason for the redirect was that I was unaware of the local redirect policies, not that I wanted to write an article about the church.
 * Here's the two-numbers-per-region list. Under "cities", the list also includes places that are currently listed as red links in the existing regions; province capitals are in bold. For the "other destinations", I mainly include major objects (things that have an existing separate page or there's the potential for one) - therefore the number is also a lower bound, because getting a fuller number would be equivalent to doing all the research for that region article in advance.
 * Rila-Pirin - 11 cities/towns/resorts (Bansko, Belitsa, Blagoevgrad, Borovets, Dupnitsa, Gotse Delchev, Melnik, Petrich, Samokov, Sandanski, Semkovo), at least 2 other destinations (Rila and Pirin National Parks)
 * Sofia - 5 cities/towns (Sofia, Botevgrad, Etropole, Kyustendil, Pernik), at least 2 other destinations (existing Dragoman marsh and potentially Vitosha Mountain as a separate article, as it contains a number of hiking destinations that would clutter Sofia's list. I'm not sure if I should put the Iskar Gorge here or in the Balkan Mountains)
 * Rhodopes - the current article lists 14 cities/towns/villages in both Bulgaria and Greece, as well as 34 other destinations... (though looking at the map, a couple of the latter should be in the Rila-Pirin region)
 * The Valley of Roses - at least 7 cities/towns (Karlovo, Koprivshtitsa, Panagyurishte, Sopot (Bulgaria), Hisarya, Kazanlak, Sliven)
 * Thrace - at least 7 cities/towns/resorts (Elhovo, Dimitrovgrad, Pazardzhik, Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Haskovo, Yambol)
 * Stara Planina (the Balkan Mountains) - at least 12 cities/towns/villages (Veliko Tarnovo + Arbanassi, Vratsa, Gabrovo, Kotel, Lovech, Montana, Sevlievo, Troyan, Tryavna, Chiprovtsi, Varshets), at least 2 other destinations (Nature Park Bulgarka, Central Balkan National Park)
 * Along the Danube - at least 10 cities/towns (Belogradchik, Vidin, Isperih, Pleven, Razgrad, Ruse, Svishtov, Silistra, Targovishte, Tutrakan)
 * Northern Sea Coast - 7 cities/towns (Balchik, Varna, Veliki Preslav, Dobrich, Kavarna, Shumen) and at least 6 other destinations (all of them seaside resorts, only Kamen Bryag has its own article so far)
 * Southern Sea Coast - 7 cities/towns (Aytos, Burgas, Malko Tarnovo, Nesebar, Pomorie, Primorsko, Sozopol) and at least 11 other destinations (former region of Strandzha repurposed as an article about the nature park, the rest are villages/resorts including Kiten, Varvara, Sarafovo, Sunny Beach, Rezovo) Daggerstab (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing, if we make a map of the tourist regions, we need to make sure that a freely licensed map can be found before tracing it as Commons won't accept derivative works of non-free works. This isn't a problem if we use the NUTS regions map though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * c:Category:NUTS maps of Bulgaria seems to show different regions. Before a map is made, which maps are correct? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SHB2000: As the D) tourist regions are based on municipal boundaries, that layer of the map can be based on the free File:Bulgaria_municipalities.svg map, with some careful parsing of the list which municipality belongs to which region. There's a map in the government PDF that can be used as a reference, as the information itself is not copyright-protected.
 * Anyway, first I need to find the time and will to do the breakdown Ikan Kekek asked me for in the discussion above.
 * As for NUTS 2 maps: that category contains one NUTS 1 map, the current NUTS 2 map (see here), a NUTS 3 map, and two proposed maps which are irrelevant. Anyway, I don't think that an unmodified NUTS 2 map would be suitable for Wikivoyage regions: the NUTS 2 regions were created as a statistical tool, they are not quite convenient for travelers and don't match exactly the way Bulgarians would divide their country into regions with the same names. Daggerstab (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The number of cities/other destinations looks fine, providing in some cases that red links will support articles per wiaa that you plan to start. Is that your intention? I realize this is a big job, and I can certainly help edit stuff, but Bulgaria is a country I haven't visited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlabelled tourism regions of Bulgaria borderless.svg
 * I've uploaded two unlabelled SVG maps of the proposed regions to Commons - the one on the right and another one with white borders and the subregions marked (which is not for Wikivoyage). Both are based on the free SVG municipalities map linked elsewhere in this thread. In the thumbnail, the municipal boundaries still show up, though they didn't in the full-size image. :( Anyway, anyone making a new map, when the time comes, can export a PNG version of this one and use it as a reference or a layer in the image. Daggerstab (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Issues with the current map not related to regions
There are several issues with the current map that are not related to the region discussion above. There's nothing that makes necessary immediate changes, but these issues need to be addressed when (or if...) a new region map is made (I did some work in that direction that I'll post later). Daggerstab (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The names of Veliko Tarnovo, Kazanlak and Haskovo are spelled in the wrong way (using old or variant ways of transliteration)
 * 2) What's the criteria for inclusion of railway lines? Are those only the international routes? The map is missing some significant pieces, such as half the Sofia-Varna railway in the north, the line that connects Ruse with the south through Veliko Tarnovo, and the Vidin-Mezdra line. There's a detailed railway map of Bulgaria in Wikimedia Commons (note that it uses German spelling for the place names), and a schematic map of the 9 main lines can be found here.
 * 3) The inclusion of Madara and Kamen Bryag. I get why the three national parks (Rila, Pirin, Central Balkan) were included, but while the Madara Horseman is a UNESCO site, it's not that large or spectacular, and Kamen Bryag is mostly a random village on the rocky part of the coast.

title: Talk:Bulgaria


text:
Talk:Bulgarian Black Sea Coast

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Article Naming Convention
Is Bulgaria Black Sea coast following the Article Naming Conventions? I would have thought that the title should at least have a capital letter for each word, such as Bulgaria Black Sea Coast, but then I also thought it might be better and more simply called the Black Sea Coast (or Black Sea Coast (Bulgaria) if another country had a region of the same name.) What is the best name? I would rather discuss this change first than simply Plunge Forward as there are a few destination pages that might be impacted if the name was changed, so it is going to be a bit of work to keep things tidy. - (WT-en) Huttite 16:17, 20 November 2009 (EST)

 * I agree that coast should be capitalized, as it is part of the proper name of the place. I think the name should be either Bulgarian Black Sea Coast or Black Sea Coast (Bulgaria) . My personal preference, from an aesthetic standpoint, is to avoid parenthetical disambiguations when possible, but I'm sure others feel the other way. Anyway, I trust your judgment ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:09, 20 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Bulgarian Black Sea Coast


text:
Talk:Bundaberg

A To-Do list. Anyone can feel free to make use of it.

History: sugar canes, Kanakas, Geography: Burnett River Events: Show in May? Cinemas: Moncrieff and the other one whose names currently escapes me.

Library?

See: Schmeider's Cooperage and Craft Centre

Sleep: camping Nielson Park, Bagara

Finemore Tourist Caravan Park Quay St Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4151 3663

Turtle Sands Caravan Park Mon Repos Beach Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4159 2340

Gateway Tourist Hotel 61 Targo St Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4152 4691

Bert Hinkler Motor Inn Cnr Takalvan & Warren Sts Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4152 6400

Eat: Mexican Border Restaurant 27 Elliott Heads Rd Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4152 1675

Oriental Pearl Chinese Restaurant 69 Takalvan St Bundaberg QLD 4670 Telephone: (07) 4152 8655 (Chinese)

-- (WT-en) Brendio 17:58, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Uh, hey Beavis...
Did you know "bunda" means "ass" in Portuguese? uh-huh-huh-huh-huh... (WT-en) Texugo 00:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)

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) 21:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Australian State Route 3.svg

title: Talk:Bundaberg


text:
Talk:Bundi

Removed these two images from eat and sleep section.

Image:IshwariNiwas.jpg Image:IshwariNiwas-Restaurant.jpg

Never been here, but basic research would indicate that these are not attractions in their own right, and therefore contrary to policy Project:Accommodation listings. If anybody can speak for their notability as attractions in their own right, by all means revert/re-add. --(WT-en) inas 21:48, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click baori->baroi? (swap) context: Step wells, or baori baori in Hindi, were the only

title: Talk:Bundi


text:
Talk:Bunker hill

vfd discussion

 * Delete. Apparently an attraction in Boston. Not an article. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:08, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:45, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Boston or the correct district. (Do we have a policy for redirecting sites or attractions?) --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:00, 31 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Bunker hill


text:
Talk:Burgenland

If you have any suggestions, please mail me: philip@linuxteam.at - this is still work in progress. I will add at least the theaters, go out and understand --(WT-en) PhilipP 11:55, 6 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Banner change proposal
I suggest the banner be changed from the current one to this more colourful one.

Thanks. Soggy Pandas (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * The proposed replacement is nicer. Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto – thank you, Soggy Pandas! SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I like the new banner. Ground Zero (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burgenland


text:
Talk:Buriram

TAT Listings
I placed many listings from TAT from the province page at Talk:Buriram/Listings for future reference. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:55, 13 February 2010 (EST)

Phanomrungpuri Boutique Hotel
Does not appear to be in Buriram but Nang Rong, even though directions state it is only 1km from bus station. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Buriram


text:
Talk:Buriram/Listings

Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram
Lower Northeastern Cultural Centre (ศูนย์วัฒนธรรมอีสานใต้): Situated in Buriram Rajabhat University on Chira Road. The Centre collects and exhibits artefacts and precious historical objects, folk arts, and archaeological evidence. It is also the resource centre for conducting research. There are various subjects of exhibition including ones on elephants, local folk, traditional textiles, mural paintings, ceramics, ancient kilns, traditional way of life of the Northeastern people, geography, and ancient communities in Buri Ram. The Centre is open everyday, except public holidays from 8:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. For more details, call Tel. 0 4461 1221 ext. 159.

The Monument of King Rama I (พระบรมราชานุสาวรีย์พระบาทสมเด็จพระพุทธยอดฟ้าจุฬาโลก): Located in the city on the way to Amphoe Prakhon Chai. The monument was built in 1996 to honour King Rama I who founded Buri Ram while he was serving as Somdet Phraya Maha Kasatsuek. The monument, made from bronze, is a half larger than life-size figure and features the king in a traditional warrior outfit riding on an elephant. According to Volume 7 of the Chronicles, it states that in 1778, King Taksin commanded Somdet Phraya Maha Kasatsuek to defeat Phraya Nang Rong who conspired with Chao O and Chao In of Champasak. While they were moving the army, they found a deserted city with a strategic location on the basin of Huai Chorakhe Mak, but malaria kept the Khmer people away from the city. Those people only settled down around that area, so they gathered the people to set up Mueang Pae and appointed the son of Phutthaisaman as the ruler and promoted him to be Phraya Nakhon Phakdi. The city was later renamed ‘Buri Ram’. Khao Kradong Forest Park (วนอุทยานเขากระโดง): It is now a relaxation spot which was once an ancient volcano. The evidence of the volcano’s existence can still be seen until today. The crater is now a deep basin with water all year round. The top is 265 metres above sea level and it houses ‘Phra Suphattharabophit’ — a large Buddha image that is the symbol of Buri Ram. There is also an ancient Prang Ku in which is located a duplicate Buddha footprint. The forest park has a lot of interesting indigenous plants. Getting to Khao Kradong can be done in two ways: on foot or drive up to the mountaintop. On the way, one can see Buddha images in different postures along the route. To get there, take Highway No. 219 on the Buri Ram – Prakhon Chai route for about 6 km.

Kradong Reservoir (อ่างเก็บน้ำกระโดง): Located in front of Khao Kradong. From the entrance to Khao Kradong, there is a junction on the left side to ‘Bunyanusat’ boy scout camp and a zoo. The area around the reservoir is a pleasant spot for relaxation. From here, one can see the Phra Suphattharabophit Buddha image on the mountaintop.

Huai Talat Reservoir and Buri Ram Bird Park (อ่างเก็บน้ำห้วยตลาดและสวนนกบุรีรัมย์): Located in Tambon Sakae Sam, it was proclaimed a non-hunting area in 1992. The survey found out that there are more than 100 kinds of birds living in this area, especially in the dry season from November to April. There will be large flocks of birds living here, some are rare species and nearly become extinct such as knob-billed duck, white-winged wood duck, and painted stork. Mr. Sawat Khotchaseni has turned his house into a bird park and a spot for relaxation. The place is perfect for watching birds. Everyday in the evening from 5.00 – 6.00 p.m. there will be thousands of egrets flying back home, forming an impressive sight. There is also a touring service to see around the area. For information, call Tel. 0 4460 5169.

To get there: take Highway No. 219 from Buri Ram (Buri Ram – Prakhon Chai route) for 12 km.

Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat
Phanom Rung Historical Park (อุทยานประวัติศาสตร์พนมรุ้ง): It is situated at Ban Ta Pek, Tambon Ta Pek. The important historical site – Prasat Hin Phanom Rung is situated on the top of an extinct volcano at a height of about 200 metres. (Phanom Rung or ‘vnam rung’ in Khmer language means ‘huge mountain’). Prasat Hin Phanom Rung is a Hindu shrine dedicated to the God Siva. The sanctuary had been built and renovated several times during the 10th – 12th century. Then, in the 13th century, King Jayavarman VII of the ancient Khmer Empire turned to follow Mahayana Buddhism. The sanctuary faces East and comprises several buildings and structures that lay from the foothill upto the main prang, which symbolizes the abode of God Siva. The first part of the stairway has three landings leading through the first pavilion, and then it would be a processional walkway with pillars on both sides. The walkway leads to a Naga bridge, which symbolizes the connection between earth and heaven. On the northern side of the processional walkway is located a laterite pavilion called ‘Elephant Stable’. At the end of the Naga bridge is the upper stairway which has five landings. At the end of the stairway is a large platform, with a Naga bridge leading to the Gopura, the main entrance to the inner enclosure. From here, there is another Naga bridge before reaching the main prang.

The main prang is situated in the centre of the inner enclosure which is in a cruciform shape with indented corners, with a rectangular antechamber known as a Mondop in the front. All parts of the principal tower which comprises colonnettes, pilasters, lintels, pediments, false windows and various roof stages, as well as antefixes were beautifully carved into various designs: floral and foliage motifs, hermits, and directional deities. The dancing Siva on the front pediment of the principal tower, as well as other details and carved designs indicate that the principal tower, stairway, and Naga bridges were built during the 12th century. Inside the inner enclosure on the southwestern direction is situated a small prang, without a roof. From artistic evidence seen on the carved lintels and pediments, it is assumed that the prang was built before the principal prang and dates around the 11th century. Apart from that, there is another prang’s base made from brick dating back even older or around the 10th century. It is located to the northeast of the principal tower. At the northeastern and southeastern corners, there are rectangular laterite buildings which date back to the 13th century, the same age as the laterite pavilion near the processional walkway that was called the ‘Elephant Stable’. The Fine Arts Department has renovated Prasat Hin Phanom Rung using the Anastylosis technique – by disintegrating the stone blocks and putting a code on each of them. Then, they reinforced the base and put the disintegrated, together with scattered, pieces back in their original places using a modern technique. On the occasion of the Thai Heritage Conservation Day in 1988, Phanom Rung Historical Park was officially opened by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn on May 21, 1988. Phanom Rung Historical Park is open everyday from 6.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m. Admission is 40 baht. For more details, contact the Phanom Rung Historical Park Office at Tel. 0 4463 1746.

To Get to Phanom Rung Historical Park By Car: From Buri Ram, there are two routes to get to Phanom Rung: By Bus: From the Buri Ram Bus Terminal, take the Buri Ram – Chanthaburi bus and get off at Ban Tako. Catch a local Song Thaeo or motorcycle to Phanom Rung. Rates should be agreed in advance.
 * 1) Buri Ram – Nang Rong Route (Highway No. 218) for 50 km. Turn left into Highway No. 24 and drive for 14 km. to Ban Tako, turn into Ban Ta Pek, Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat and drive for 12 km. to Phanom Rung.
 * 2) Buri Ram – Prakhon Chai Route or Highway No. 219 for 44 km. From Amphoe Prakhon Chai, there is a junction to Phanom Rung for 21 km. (This route also passes Prasat Mueang Tam).

Wat Khao Angkhan (วัดเขาอังคาร): Located on Khao Angkhan which is an extinct volcano and about 20 km. from Prasat Hin Phanom Rung. From Buri Ram, take the Buri Ram – Nang Rong – Ban Tako – Ban Ta Pek route (the same route to Phanom Rung). When arriving at Ban Ta Pek, turn right and follow the route to Lahan Sai for about 13 km., then one will reach a junction, turn right on the way to Wat Khao Angkhan and drive for 7 km. Inside the temple’s compound, there are ruins of ancient monuments and sandstone boundary markers of the Dvaravati period. At present, it is one of the most beautiful and significant temples in Buri Ram. The Ubosot, Sala (pavilion) and other buildings present various architectural styles. There are also mural paintings depicting the Jataka stories in English inside the Ubosot.

Amphoe Nang Rong
Thung Laem Reservoir (อ่างเก็บน้ำทุ่งแหลม): Located on Highway No. 24, about 4 km. from Amphoe Nang Rong on the route to Prasat Hin Phanom Rung. It is a small reservoir which has been renovated into a recreational area with shelters to rest and relax. In the dry season, there are a lot of waterfowls inhabiting this reservoir.

Amphoe Prakhon Chai
Prasat Hin Mueang Tam (ปราสาทหินเมืองต่ำ): Situated in Tambon Chorakhe Mak, it is one of the Khmer sanctuaries with the most outstanding architecture in Buri Ram. There is no clear evidence when the sanctuary was built or who created it. The architecture features the Baphuon style of Khmer art which dates between 1007 – 1082 and mixed with the Kleang style which dates between 965 – 1012. Most of the bas-reliefs depict Hindu gods, so it is assumed that the sanctuary might have been built around the 10th – 12th century and used as a religious shrine in Hinduism. The building comprises five brick prangs built on the same laterite base. All of them were built in two rows: three prangs in the front and two at the back. The principal tower in the middle of the front row is the biggest one. At present, only the base remains. Remains of the other 4 towers are not in good condition. Each prang has only one entrance at the eastern direction, with false doors at the other 3 directions. The principal tower also has a front portico. Excavation at the site found a lintel of the portico carved into a god holding a water lily sitting on Kala’s face and surrounded by male and female figures believed to depict the wedding of the God Siva and his consort Parvati, and pediment carved into God Indra riding on his Airavata or Erawan elephant. Meanwhile, the lintel of the prang itself was carved into a god kneeling above Kala’s face. They also found fragments of stucco relief decorating the base, indicating that this main prang was once beautifully decorated with stucco. The other four smaller prang towers still have two lintels attached above the entry doorways: one at the northern tower in the front row, and the other at the southern tower of the back row. The lintels were carved into God Siva holding Uma (Parvati) on his lap and sitting on his bull Nandin, and God Varuna riding the swan, respectively. The excavation also found the prang’s top made from sandstone and carved into a lotus shape, falling in pieces around the prang’s base. In front of the prang complex, there are two wihans or viharas which were made from brick and face the two side prangs in the front rows. All buildings are surrounded by two walls. The inner square wall is formed by a long, narrow sandstone gallery. The outer wall is made from laterite. There are entrance pavilions or Gopuras in four directions at the same positions of both walls. All of the Gopuras, except for the inner one in the western direction were made from sandstone, delicately carved into various designs such as pediments, lintels, pilasters, etc. They depict the story about the Hindu religion and foliage and floral designs. Between the inner and outer walls is a large platform made from laterite. There are L – shaped moats or barays at the four corners. The moats were lined with laterite and made into steps down to the bottom. The top edge of the moats was made from sandstone, featuring a Naga body with its neck stretching at the baray’s corners. They are five-headed Nagas, all bald-headed without any ornaments. Prasat Hin Mueang Tam is open everyday from 6.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m. Admission is 30 baht. For more details, call Tel. 0 4463 1746. To get there: From Buri Ram, take Highway No. 219 and go into Highway No. 24, turn left into Highway No. 2117 until reaching Mueang Tam Sanctuary (about 8 km. from Prasat Hin Phanom Rung).

Ang Kep Nam Sanam Bin Non-hunting Area (เขตห้ามล่าสัตว์ป่าอ่างเก็บน้ำสนามบิน): It is about 41 km. from Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram on the way to Amphoe Prakhon Chai. The office of the non-hunting area is located on the left side of the road. The site is perfect for bird-watching, especially from November to April.

Amphoe Ban Kruat
Stone Quarry (แหล่งหินตัด): It is situated in Ban Sai Tri 3 and Ban Sai Tri 4 near the Thai – Cambodian border, approximately 7 km. from Amphoe Ban Kruat. Take the Ban Kruat – Ta Phraya route and take the asphalt road that branches off for about 3 km. The quarry is where sandstone was cut by ancient Khmer people for use as a construction material to build sanctuaries in the lower northeastern region, covering an area of over 4,600 rai near Khao Kloi and Khao Krachiao. Some stones were made into a row of holes, some were chiselled into slabs, and there are also blocks of stones which were cut into rectangular shapes. Ancient Kiln Sites (แหล่งเตาโบราณ): Archaeologists found ancient kilns and ceramics from surveys. The kilns date from around the 9th – 10th century and served as a production centre for Khmer ceramics to supply to other cities. The Fine Arts Department excavated and renovated ancient kilns at two sites: Sawai Kiln and Nai Jian Kiln which are 5 and 10 km., respectively from Amphoe Ban Kruat. The excavated ceramics are exhibited at the Lower Northeastern Cultural Centre inside Rajabhat Buriram University and at Phimai National Museum in Nakhon Ratchasima. To get there: From Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram, take Highway No. 2075 for 66 km.

Amphoe Pakham
Prasat Wat Khok Ngio (ปราสาทวัดโคกงิ้ว): Situated on the Nang Rong – Pakham route (Highway No. 348), about 3 km before you reach Amphoe Pakham. It is a Khmer stone sanctuary located behind Wat Khok Ngio, which once served as an ‘Arogayasala’ or a hospital. It was built according to the initiative of King Jayavarman VII during the 13th century, following Mahayana Buddhism.

Amphoe Non Din Daeng
Rao Su Monument (อนุสาวรีย์เราสู้): Situated on the Lahan Sai – Ta Phraya route (Highway No. 148). It was built in 1979 to commemorate the brave undertakings of civilians, police officers, and soldiers who lost their lives during the battle with the communists who obstructed the construction of this strategic route. Lam Nang Rong Dam (เขื่อนลำนางรอง): It is about 200 metres from Rao Su Monument. It is the area under a Royal Project for security development. Lam Nang Rong Dam is an earthen dam with an asphalt road along the crest where one can see the view. There are also restaurants situated around the dam. The dam is used for agriculture and is a good spot for relaxation. There is accommodation, a meeting room and camping ground for those who want to stay overnight. Contact the Lam Nang Rong Operation and Maintenance Project Office during office hours. Tel. 0 4460 6336 ext. 159. There is also a royal manufacturing plant for instant food (Doi Kham brand) which produces canned fruits and vegetables like baby corns, bamboo shoots and tomato juice. Prasat Nong Hong (ปราสาทหนองหงส์): Situated at Ban Non Din Daeng, it is a small archaeological site comprising three prangs made from brick on a single laterite base, facing East. Each prang has only one front entrance, with false doors on the other three sides. The three prangs has a square-shaped plan with 12 indented corners. The central prang is bigger than the side prangs. Originally, it must have had many beautiful lintels, among them is the one of the northern prang carved into God Vishnu riding on Garuda above Kala’s face whose hands hold a garland. The other two prangs in the middle and the south also has similar lintels, though with a different centrepiece. The one at the central prang was carved into God Indra riding on Erawan elephant, and the one at the southern prang depicts the God Siva riding on his bull. In front of the middle prang is a walkway, with staircases in front and on both sides. There is also a library, made from laterite, facing the southern prang. All the buildings are surrounded by a laterite wall, with a Gopura at the front and back, and a U-shaped moat. The age of the prasat can be judged from its architectural structure and style of art, which is similar to the Baphuon style of Khmer art that dates from around the 11th century. To get there: From Prakhon Chai Intersection, take Highway No. 2075 until reaching the Ban Kruat Estate, turn into Highway No. 2121 until reaching Amphoe Lahan Sai. Then, turn into Highway No. 3068 passing Pakham Intersection; keep going until arriving at Ban Non Din Daeng. Turn left into Lam Nang Rong Dam. The sanctuary is on the left side along the edge of the dam.

Amphoe Satuek
Big Buddha Image (พระพุทธรูปใหญ่) or Phra Phuttharup Patima Santayaphirom Satuek Udom Ratsadon Nimitmanin is a big standing Buddha image on the bank of the Mun River, opposite the Satuek District Office. The Buddha image is highly revered by local people in Amphoe Satuek and nearby provinces. During the long-boat races festival when a lot of people come to Satuek, they would go to pay respect to the big Buddha image.

Amphoe Phutthaisong
Phrachao Yai Wat Hong (พระเจ้าใหญ่วัดหงษ์): It is an old Laotian-style Buddha image in the posture of subduing Mara, which was built during the late Ayutthaya period, or around the 18th century. The lap is 1.6 metres wide and the height is 2 metres. It was made from laterite and features local folk arts. The Buddha image is located at Wat Hong or Wat Sisa Raet. People pay high respect to the Buddha image and call it ‘Phrachao Yai’ which in the northeastern dialect, it does not mean big size but means the great sacred power, especially when one makes a wish or vow. It has been said that those who fail to fulfil their promise would have an accident or face a bad event. A lot of people go there and promise that they would stop drinking and ask that the Buddha image always prevent them from having bad luck. Also, there was the discovery of “mixed posture” amulets made from bronze as well as Buddha images carved from rhino’s horn underneath the base of Phrachao Yai. On the 14th day of the waxing moon or 1st day of the waning moon of the 3rd lunar month every year, there is a big celebration for this Buddha image. A lot of people from Amphoe Phutthaisong and other provinces come to pay respect to the Buddha image. To get there: From Phutthaisong Market, turn right at the intersection. Take the route that goes to Phayakkhaphum Phisai for one kilometre. There is a junction to go to the temple which is 2 km away.

Amphoe Na Pho
Silk Weaving Village of Amphoe Na Pho (หมู่บ้านทอผ้าไหมอำเภอนาโพธิ์): Situated at 119 Mu 1, Tambon Na Pho, it is a silk weaving village, especially ‘Mudmi’ silk, which has received support for the development of skills, standard of production, and pattern and colour from the Royal Folk Arts and Craft Centre under the royal patronage of HM Queen Sirikit. For more information, contact the Silk Handicraft Centre at Na Pho Intersection, Tel. 0 4468 6157, 0 4468 6044. To get there: Take the Buri Ram – Phutthaisong route on Highway No. 2074 which converges into Highway No. 202 at Km 21. There is a junction to get to Amphoe Na Pho, drive for 10 km. to reach there.

Amphoe Ban Mai Chaiyaphot
Ku Suan Taeng (กู่สวนแตง): Located at Ban Don Wai, Tambon Don Wai, opposite Ku Suan Taeng Witthayakhom School. Ku Suan Taeng is also a Khmer architectural site, comprising three brick prangs lying from north to south, on the same laterite base. All the buildings face East, with only one front entrance. The other three sides are false doors. The central prang is large and quite in perfect condition, with a square shape and a front porch. The pediments above the three false doors are projecting, each supported by a sandstone slab. The other two prangs are smaller and situated on a square-shaped base with one entrance at the front, while the other three walls are made into false doors. On the ground in front, there are scattered fragments of the sanctuary such as the lotus–shaped finial base, and antefixes featuring a 6-headed naga. Ku Suan Taeng can be traced back from the lintels of the prang which are currently being kept at Phra Nakhon and Phimai National Museums. It is assumed to date from around the 12th century as the lintels show the same artistic features as those of the Angkor Wat style of Khmer art. For example, the lintels that were carved into Vishnu Trivikrama (a scene from Vamanavatara depicting the God Vishnu taking three steps: onto the underworld, earth, and heaven), dancing Siva, Churning of the Ocean of Milk, Vishnu Anantasayin (Reclining Vishnu), etc. Each piece presents interesting and beautiful work of art.

To get there: Take the Buri Ram – Phayakkhaphum Phisai route on Highway No. 219 for 70 km, turn left into Highway No. 202 on the way to Amphoe Prathai for 40 km. There, one can see a junction to go to Ku Suan Taeng on the left-hand side, follow that route for 1.5 km. Or from Buri Ram, take Highway No. 2074 passing Amphoe Khu Mueang on the route to Amphoe Phutthaisong, turn left into Highway No. 202 and drive for 20 km, turn left and drive another 1.5 km. to Ku Suan Taeng.

Festival
Aside from important religious days, Songkran Day, and New Year’s Day, Buri Ram also has other local festivals such as festival of the 5th lunar month when the locals would make merit, bathe Buddha images and senior people, perform traditional sports such as Saba, tug of war, etc. In some areas like Amphoe Phutthaisong, there is the Bang Fai traditional rocket dance, Khao Phansa (the Beginning of Buddhist Lent), and Loi Krathong in the 12th lunar month. Some of the local festivals include: Phrachao Yai Wat Hong Homage–paying Fair (งานนมัสการพระเจ้าใหญ่วัดหงษ์): Held in Amphoe Phutthaisong during the 14th day of the waxing moon to the 1st day of the waning moon in the 3rd lunar month of every year. It is a fair to pay homage and put the gold leaves on the Phrachao Yai – a highly revered Buddha image of Buri Ram people. The event lasts for 3 days with numerous merit-making ceremonies and fun-filled activities. Buddha’s Footprint Homage–paying Fair (งานนมัสการรอยพระพุทธบาทจำลอง): The event takes place at Khao Kradong, Amphoe Mueang, on the full moon day of the 3rd lunar month. A large number of local people would go to pay homage to the replica of the Buddha’s footprint and Phra Suphattharabophit image and enjoy the big celebration. Phanom Rung Fair (งานประเพณีขึ้นเขาพนมรุ้ง): Phanom Rung Sanctuary was once a sacred Hindu shrine which was later changed into a religious site for Buddhism. During the time it was deserted, a replica of the Buddha’s footprint was taken to be enshrined at Prang Noi. It has become a tradition for local people to ascend to the mountaintop to pay respect to the Buddha’s footprint and put gold leaf on it. Every year, on the full moon day of the 5th lunar month, there is an annual festival to pay respect to the site. Because Phanom Rung is a beautiful and important historical site, the province also organizes an annual festival on the first weekends of April when there will be a colourful parade following ancient royal Khmer tradition, as well as a light-and-sound show at Phanom Rung Sanctuary. Buri Ram Long Boat Races (ประเพณีแข่งเรือยาวจังหวัดบุรีรัมย์): It is organized annually on the first weekend of November when the Mun River is high. Oarsmen from Buri Ram and other nearby provinces would gather to join the boat racing which is held in front of Amphoe Satuek’s District Office. Each year, there are about 40 - 50 boats joining the competition. There is also a parade of fancy decorated boats during the event. Boat racing was once a traditional festival celebrated among friends and relatives so to pay homage to Chaopho Wang Krut, a spirit named after a whirlpool in the Mun River. Since 1986, it has become a festival of the province. Isan Kite Festival (งานมหกรรมว่าวอีสานบุรีรัมย์): Held annually at the sports stadium in Amphoe Huai Rat on the first weekend of December, or during the harvest season when the cold northeastern wind blows. At this time of the year, local people would make ‘aek’ kite – a traditional kite of the northeastern people. Buri Ram province organized the first Isan Kite Festival in 1986 so to conserve and publicize the local tradition of the Lower Northeast. There is also a kite competition among the locals who come from every district and village around there. A kite to enter the competition must be more than 2.5 metres wide and would be judged by its beautiful design, sound of ‘aek’ – a sound–making device attached to the kite, and the way it floats in the sky. There are also colourful kite parades, folk performances, shows, and booth display of local products during the event.

Local Products and Souvenirs
Buri Ram has several local products and souvenirs such as silk, cotton from Amphoe Na Pho, sandstone carving, basketry, and tasty processed fish of Amphoe Prakhon Chai, delicious pork leg of Amphoe Nang Rong, Chinese pork sausage and grilled chicken of Amphoe Lam Plai Mat, preserved radish of Amphoe Krasang, tasty shrimp of Amphoe Satuek, and krayasat of Amphoe Prakhon Chai. They are available at shops in town and at general tourist attractions such as Phanom Rung Sanctuary and Mueang Tam Sanctuary.

Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram

 * Lai Mai (ร้านลายไหม) Rom Buri Rd., Tel. 0 4461 2597 (cotton and silk fabric, postcard, souvenir).
 * Liang Huat (ร้านเลี่ยงฮวด), 2/10 Si Phet Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1552 (Chinese pork sausage, shredded pork, crispy pork, and preserved radish).

Amphoe Prakhon Chai

 * Mae Phano (ร้านแม่พนอ) 22/3 Amnuai Kit Rd., Tel. 0 4467 1464 (salted prawn, Krayasat – sweet meat made of nuts, sesame seeds, and cereals).

Itinerary
Example of Tour Programme
 * 8.00 a.m. Depart Buri Ram.
 * 9.30 a.m. Visit Phanom Ruang Historical Park, Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat.
 * 10.30 a.m. Visit Prasat Hin Mueang Tam.
 * 12.00 a.m. Lunch in Amphoe Nang Rong.
 * 1.00 p.m. Leave Amphoe Nang Rong.
 * 3.00 p.m. Visit a stone quarry in Amphoe Ban Kruat.
 * 4.30 p.m. Admire the scenery around an extinct volcano and pay respect to the Phra Suphattharabophit image at Khao Kradong Forest Park.
 * 5.30 p.m. Watch waterfowls returning home at the Bird Park near Huai Talat Reservoir.
 * 6.30 p.m. Dinner and overnight in Buri Ram or return to Bangkok.

Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram

 * Grand Hotel (แกรนด์โฮเต็ล), 137 Niwat Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1098, 0 4461 1179, Fax. 0 4461 2358, 90 rooms, 210 – 350 baht.
 * Chai Charoen (ชัยเจริญ), 114 – 116 Niwat Rd., 0 4461 1559, Fax. 0 4461 1205, 20 rooms, 120 baht.
 * Thepnakhon Hotel (เทพนคร), 139 Chira Rd., Tel. 0 4461 3400 – 2, 0 4462 1082, Fax. 0 4461 3400, www.thepnakhonhotel.com, 165 rooms, 400 – 2,700 baht.
 * Thai Hotel (ไทยโฮเต็ล), 38/1 Rom Buri Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1112, 0 4461 1132, Fax. 0 4461 2461, 89 rooms, 180 – 400 baht.
 * Niwat (นิวาศ), 89/10 – 12 Niwat Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1640, 10 rooms, 70 – 90 baht.
 * Buri Ram Sirarom (บุรีรัมย์สิรารมย์), 148 Niwat Rd., Tel. 0 4461 2504, 0 4461 1740, Fax. 0 4461 2504, 75 rooms, 450 – 1,200 baht.
 * Phanom Phiman (พนมพิมาน), inside Buriram Rajabhat University, Chira Rd., Tel. 0 4462 1205 – 7, Fax. 0 4462 1205, 40 rooms, 400 baht.
 * Wongthong (วงษ์ทอง), 512/1 Chira Rd., Tel. 0 4462 0860 – 2, Fax. 0 4462 0859, 71 rooms, 500 – 1,200 baht.
 * Siam (สยาม), 29/12 In Chan Narong Rd., Tel. 0 4462 5519, Fax. 0 4462 5519 press 8, 22 rooms, 400 baht.
 * Fueang Fa Palace Mansion (เฟื่องฟ้า พาเลซแมนชั่น) 240/9 Chira Road, Tel. 0 4461 7112, 0 4462 1265, Fax. 0 4462 1265, 38 rooms, 350-400 baht.
 * Diamond Grand Hotel (ไดมอนด์ แกรนด์ โฮเต็ล) 254 Soi 2 Chira Road, Tel. 0 4462 5894-5, Fax. 0 4460 2222, 64 rooms, 450-850 baht.
 * Mai Son Resort (ไม้สน รีสอร์ท) Buriram-Nang Rong, Tel. 0 4461 7114, 30 rooms, 300-380 baht.

Amphoe Nang Rong
9 rooms, 150 – 350 baht.
 * Nang Rong hotel(โรงแรมนางรอง), 243 Pradit Pana Rd.,nangrong dristrict, Nangrong Buriram 31110 Tel. 0 4463 1014, 0 4463 1465, http://www.nangronghotel.com, email: info@nangronghotel.com, 28 rooms, 300 – 1100 baht.
 * Ban So Resort (บ้านเสาะรีสอร์ท), 34 Nang Rong – Buri Ram Rd., Tel. 08 1660 2223, 13 houses, 400 – 1,500 baht.
 * P. California Inter Hostel (พี แคลิฟอร์เนีย), 59/9 Sangkhakrit Rd., Tambon Nang Rong, Tel. 0 4462 2214, 08 9947 5449, www.geocities.com/california8gh, 14 rooms, 250 – 1,500 baht.
 * Ruean Nang Rong Resort (เรือนนางรอง รีสอร์ท), diagonally opposite the Waterworks Office, Si Kanlaya Rd., Tel. 0 4462 2385, Fax. 0 4462 2745, www.ruannangrong.com, 40 rooms, 350 – 400 baht.
 * Community Based Integrated Rural Development – Nang Rong or CBIRD – Nang Rong (ศูนย์พัฒนาชนบทผสมผสานนางรอง หรือศูนย์ซีเบิร์ดนางรอง), 81 Mu 6 Chok Chai – Det Udom Rd., Tambon Nong Bot, Tel. 0 4465 7145 – 7, Fax. 0 4465 7084, www.pda.or.th/nangrong, 44 rooms, 250 – 560 baht, with meeting and seminar rooms and restaurant.
 * Honey Inn (ฮันนี่อินน์), 8/1 Soi Si Kun, Ban Nong Ri, Tel. 0 4462 2825,

Amphoe Non Din Daeng

 * Lam Nang Rong Dam’s Guesthouse (บ้านพักเขื่อนลำนางรอง), contact Lam Nang Rong Operation and Maintenance Project Office, Tel. 0 4460 6336, during office hours, 7 houses, 100 baht per person.

Amphoe Prakhon Chai

 * Prakhon Chai Resort (ประโคนชัยรีสอร์ท), 150 Mu 6 Chok Chai – Det Udom Rd., Tel. 0 4467 1228, 08 1955 9089, 30 rooms, 250 – 500 baht.

Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat

 * Ban Din Mueang Hin Resort (บ้านดิน เมืองหิน รีสอร์ท), 1 Mu 11 Ban Don Mafai, Tambon Ta Pek, Tel. 0 4462 8019, 10 rooms, 350 – 500 baht.

Amphoe Lam Plai Mat

 * Community Based Integrated Rural Development – Lam Plai Mat or CBIRD – Lam Plai Mat (ศูนย์พัฒนาชนบทผสมผสานลำปลายมาศ หรือศูนย์ซีเบิร์ดลำปลายมาศ), 130 Mu 13 Tambon Khok Klang, Tel. 0 4463 2004, 0 4478 2417, Fax. 0 4463 2004, 11 rooms, 100 – 800 baht.

Amphoe Mueang Buri Ram

 * Chok Likhit (โชคลิขิต), 246/14 Niwat Rd., Tel. 0 4461 2665 (Isan food).
 * Pa Yai (ป้าใหญ่), Palat Mueang Rd., Tel. 0 4462 5514.
 * Maitrichit (ไมตรีจิต), 169/2-3 Sunthon Thep Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1538 (Thai food – bakery - breakfast).
 * Rung Rueang Restaurant (รุ่งเรืองภัตตาคาร), 34 Niwat Rd., Tel. 0 4461 1778, 0 4461 1375 (Thai – Chinese food).
 * Wang Hansa (วังหรรษา), 194 Mu 1 Buri Ram – Satuek Rd., Tel. 0 4461 4394 (Thai food).
 * Isan (อีสาน) Palat Mueang Road, Tel. 0 4462 1832 (Isan food).

Amphoe Nang Rong

 * Laksana Kha Mu (ลักษณาขาหมู), 375 Chok Chai – Det Udom Rd., Tel. 0 4463 1158, 0 4463 1774 (Thai – Chinese food).
 * Ban Kap Tonmai (บ้านกับต้นไม้), 222/15 Chok Chai – Det Udom Rd., Tel. 0 4463 1635 (Thai – Chinese food).
 * Phop Suk (พบสุข), 725 Chok Chai – Det Udom Rd., Tel. 0 4463 1619 (Thai – Chinese food).
 * Ying Ngam (ยิ่งงำ), Tel. 0 4463 1473.
 * Suan Ahan Ban So (สวนอาหารบ้านเสาะ), 34 Nang Rong – Buri Ram Rd., Tel. 08 1660 2223 (Thai- Chinese food).

Amphoe Lam Plai Mat

 * Phoem Phun Kha Mu (เพิ่มพูนขาหมู/ เฮียอั้งม้อ), 963 – 964 Saha Nopphamat Road, Tambon Lam Plai Mat, Tel. 0 4466 0202.

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:57, 13 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Buriram/Listings


text:
Talk:Burkina Faso

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Burkina Faso/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:54, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Credits
Much of the information on the city pages was originally compiled by Angela Carpenter, a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer from Burkina, and is now updated by current Burkina PCVs.

 * I'm guessing Angela was 24.154.21.6? If so, my hat's off to her for the great, lively writing! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:20, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Get In vs Get Around
It appears to me that the "Get In / By Car" section should rather be put in the "Get Around / By Car" section. Also, the "Get Around" section seems to relate more to "Get Out" than to "Get Around".

Since I really have no idea what to write here, I won't even start messing around, and will leave that to more competent people. But I would very much like for someone to write a "Get In / By Car" section. Since that's what I need.

Is a Carnet de Passage needed?
Could someone confirm (and include in the article under "Get In / By Car" section) whether you need a Carnet de Passage in order to bring your car into Burkina Faso? Wikipedia says it is helpful, but not required. ANd also, what do you need (to do) if you do not have a carnet? I do feel that it is a rather important information to have if you're planning on entering Burkina Faso by car.

Regions
Given its size and population, I think Burkina Faso should have about 4–5 regions. Going by this map, I'll propose:

 * Southwest Burkina Faso or Black Volta region — the lushest and most culturally diverse region (Cascades, Hauts-Bassins, Sud-Ouest, Boucle du Mouhoun)
 * Central Burkina Faso or Volta Delta — home to the mostly Christian Mossi and the capital (Centre-Ouest, Centre, Centre-Sud, Plateau Central)
 * Northern Burkina Faso or Sahelian Burkina Faso — mostly muslim, Sahel, home to the Fulani and Tuareg populations of the country (Nord, Centre-Nord, Sahel)
 * East Burkina Faso — like the north, arid, mostly Muslim (Est, Centre-Est)

I'm basing these divisions mostly on the following maps: ,,,, as well as numerous Wikipedia articles. Admitting my very limited knowledge of the country, if I were to divide further, it would probably be to subdivide either the Southwestern region or Central region I have defined above (or a combination of the two).

Do these look good? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:00, 12 February 2010 (EST)

 * Looks like no comments await, so I have plunged. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:02, 21 February 2010 (EST)

 * The colors are wrong on the map. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Or perhaps wrong in the regionlist table? I have changed the regionlist colours to match to the map.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:56, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I didn't even think of that :P. Thanks. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:25, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Place des cineastes Ouaga.jpg

title: Talk:Burkina Faso


text:
Talk:Burlington (Vermont)

Other Wikis
I've moved this link to the talk page per Project:External links:

WikiBurlington

-- (WT-en) Ryan 01:17, 14 February 2007 (EST)

I removed the Festivals entry for the Green Mountain Chew Chew - this annual event is no longer, the last occurance of it was held this past month. I also added a quick note that crossing the border now requires a passport or other enhanced identification, as travellers from non-border states in the US may very well be unaware of this recent change.

-joshua

Learn
I removed the (mis-named) Learn section. Please justify what these offer for the short-term traveller. (WT-en) Texugo 22:15, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * The University of Vermont
 * Burlington College
 * Champlain College
 * Saint Michael's College

title: Talk:Burlington (Vermont)


text:
Talk:Burma

In 1989 the government officially changed the name of the country to "Myanmar", which is also the offical name used by and within the UN. I think that accordingly the country should be listed as Myanmar or Myanmar (Burma).

 * We use the most common English name for a country, not its official name. "Burma" is still more common than "Myanmar". --(WT-en) Evan 02:32, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * I disagree. "Myanmar" is the name of the country. "Burma" is the old name and for many has colonial associations. We do not refer to Sri Lanka as "Ceylon", for example. Is it fair to call a country by the wrong name because some people think that the name Burma is more commonly used? More commonly used amongst whom? (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

 * The name "Burma" is more commonly used amongst Burmese who wish to convey a political statement. They don't often do this publicly, as it can have negative consequences such as imprisonment.  But I believe Burma is preferable to Myanmar for several reasons; 1- this is an english language encyclopedia, and no english language country recognizes the name of "myanmar" as such.  2-the name was not changed as a result of decolonization according to the wishes of a newly "freed" populace, but on the personal whim of a dictator, Ne Win, and does not enjoy general support of the populace; at least not when the government is out of earshot. (WT-en) Justiceiro (Jan 2006)

 * Consensus was reached on this naming over a year ago. Myanmar was chosen over Burma as the primary article because the changed name appeared more common from the results of recent Google searches. It doesn't matter that political entities do not recognise that Myanmar is the name of the country. Project:Article naming conventions dictate that the most common English name is used. We are merely reflecting common English usage If you can show, scientifically, that Burma is more commonly used publically then we will switch it back. However, if the Burmese do not wish to publically make a political statement aqbout their own country and do not wish to promote the use of Burma then we have to use Myanmar, however distastefully politically correct that may seem to you.

 * I don't have any strong opinion about this. But I would note that, living in California in the US, I no longer hear newscasters use the term "Burma."  Secondly, several countries have had their names changed in this fashion (Ceylon, Rhodesia, Formosa, etc) and it seems to me in each case that English speakers quickly began to use the newly chosen name.  I can't think of any case where English speakers didn't switch to the new name. --(WT-en) Colin 13:36, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * So, there's two things to disagree with, here. One is that we use the most common English name for a place; if you disagree with that, please take the discussion to Project:article naming conventions.

 * If you disagree that "Burma" is more commonly used than "Myanmar", please give some cites. (WT-en) Akubra did a quick analysis and found about 4-5 times as many citations for "Burma" as for "Myanmar". It's on talk pages somewhere... I'll try to track it down and copy it here. --(WT-en) Evan 14:03, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Well, as for a cite, Google has 6,240,000 hits for "Myanmar" as opposed to 3,470,000 for "Burma". And even in the example below, the English speaking publications have 1963 mentions of "Myanmar" to 1888 for "Burma". I don't see how Burma is the more commonly used word. -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

 * Whichever way you look at that result somewhere between a third and a half of the articles on the web know the country as Burma rather than Myanmar. Seems to me that both names should be used in the article. However, countries in south-east asia that are under revolutionary government have a habit of changing their names with a change of government. (Does Kampuchea still exist?) I also understand that those who are not currently in power may still call the country Burma. Burma may be the older name but I also cannot see a Burmese cat being called a Myanmarese cat any time soon.  Burma has too many other associations in English for it to disappear and not be associated with the country.  I plug for Burma as being the article title because that is where it is now, have a redirect from Myanmar and explain the two names. Remember that the traveller comes first and political correctness is a poor second - sorry dictators this is how democractic anarchy works. -- (WT-en) Huttite 20:08, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Okay, I understand now. Democratic anarchy is the principle by where a country is referred to by its old name if a famous breed of cat comes from there. So we better change Thailand to Siam and Ethiopia back to Abyssinia pretty quickly so as to not confuse the Siamese and Abyssinian cats. We don't really want to upset the Persian cats either, so we should change Iran back to Persia pretty sharpish.

 * Sorry to be sarcastic, but it would appear that in face of evidence that Myanmar is the most commonly used word as outlined in the Project:article naming conventions, the argument is slapped down with an illogical argument about "democratic anarchy" and "political correctness". To an outsider who is just getting into wikivoyage (like me), it appears that decisions that were made in the past about even the most trivial points are binding upon all future users. If anyone who voices a dissenting opinion is just going to have their democratic anarchical principles disrespected, it's not going to motivate people to plunge forward and write articles. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

 * 100% absolutely definitely not. Every single policy and guideline on Wikivoyage is up for discussion and renegotiation. As time goes by, major changes get harder to make, and so they need to factored into any decision to change a policy, but I think we should always remain open. If there's a better way to do it, and it gets us closer to our goals, and it's worth the effort to change things, we should change them.

 * I think us "old hands", after having answered the same questions a few times, tend to get a little flip about them. "The answer is here" is shorthand for, "We have a policy on this, and here's what it is and the explanation for why it is." It may sound a bit like "We already figured this out and your input doesn't matter." If what I said before sounded like that, I'm sorry.

 * To specifics: we use the most common English name for a place for a few reasons. One is that that's what travellers are going to be looking for. Another is that that's what contributors are going to be looking for. Another (which we haven't stated here) is that we want "accidental linking" to work. When I am writing about Greece the link should go to the right page. We want to minimize having to write Ellyna (Mediterranean European country). (We should also make reasonable redirects for less-used names for the same reason.)

 * The big problem with the "most common English name" policy is that it's so dang subjective. Most of the time this just seems so obvious we don't even think about it. We hardly ever have a problem with using Germany versus using Deutschland or Japan versus Nihon. But there are some places where the choice isn't 100% crystal clear. Often this is because there is an official name that hasn't been entirely accepted.

 * We don't have an official policy on how to call the shots in these cases (and I think there's just a handful that have come up: cities in India and Burma). I think the Google test and the media test are good ones (although contradictory in the example of Burma); it might also be useful to compare against other guidebooks and travel resources.

 * Anyways, I gotta say: thanks for your input. Analyzing and critiquing the "rules" of Wikivoyage is a great way to help other contributors and thus also help travellers. --(WT-en) Evan 21:25, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Okay, I've done it now! - While this discussion was going on, I have defactbooked the original aricle, (slightly), and put a template in as well as a stub message. Feel free to spend some energy adjusting my work so that it looks respectable, rather than just arguing over the name. The Wikipedia link to Burma goes to Myanmar as a redirect while wikivoyage does the reverse.  Please also be aware that there are a lot more Wikivoyage pages that talk about Burma than Myanmar.  Feel free to change or put the alternative name along side those as well.  One final word, it is quite acceptable for a countru to have two names Burma is the British name while Myanmar is the name that the country wants to be known by, and is also being adopted into English but is not fully there yet as it has not displaced Burma. I still think both names need to point to the same article - they do and it is currently called Burma - but that can be changed like anything else on the wiki. -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:35, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

This is the discussion. (for newcomers: I was Dhum Dhum before changing to Akubra) (WT-en) Akubra 16:02, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Elided to just Burma stuff by (WT-en) Evan

 * 1) How do we decide what exactly is the most common English name? The article naming conventions give a few examples, one of which says we prefer Burma over Myanmar. A quick search on Google (English sites only) give 3,300,000 hits for Myanmar and 1,630,000 for Burma. The May 1997 National Geographic map South Asia already shows the country as Myanmar (Burma). I can give other examples, but I think my point is clear enough. (BTW, while reading this article for the first time I thought: Oh boy, are they still using Burma? This site must be really out of date. ;-)

(...) Percentages below added by User:(WT-en) Evan

Evan, I took your contention that the Western press mostly referred to "Myanmar" as "Burma", and did some research on it. I was pretty sure that I would find that "Myanmar" would come out on top. These are the results: (45% - 55%)
 * The New York Times (USA, since 1996): 728 hits for Burma / 864 hits for Myanmar
 * Time (USA, past 30 days): 5-Burma / 1-Myanmar (83% - 7%)
 * The Times (UK, unspecified period): 22-Burma / 3-Myanmar (88% - 12%)
 * BBC (UK, unspecified period): 237-Burma / 802-Myanmar (23% - 77%)
 * The Economist (UK, unspecified period): 38-Burma / 180-Myanmar (17% - 83%)
 * The Australian (Australia, unspecified period): Burma-858 / Myanmar-113 (88% - 12%)
 * Le Monde (France, past year): Birmanie-64 / Myanmar-0 (100% - 0%)
 * Der Spiegel (Germany, past year): 19-Burma / Myanmar-9 (67% - 33%)
 * El Pais (Spain, past 5 years): 174-Birmania / 67-Myanmar (72% - 18%)

As you can see (and to my horror), only in the New York Times, the BBC and The Economist did "Myanmar" come out on top.

I did the same tests for Madras vs. Chennai and Bombay vs. Mumbai. Both Madras and Bombay are still much more used than Chennai and Mumbai (except in The Economist).

Well, uhm, I guess you're right... You know, this is funny and interesting at the same time, because it shows that the way we see the world is rooted in our environment. I was convinced that "Myanmar" was used more then "Burma" nowadays because many sources I have access to use the name "Myanmar".

I propose to do the following: the main articles come under Burma, Madras and Bombay, with redirects from Myanmar, Chennai and Mumbai (at least until I do another test in 2008 or so ;-) Agreed? (WT-en) DhDh 14:51, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

(...)

More searches on Google News as of 10-4-2004. (A former leader died recently, so there's probably more hits than usual.)

I searched on "Burma -shave" and "Myanmar" for all countries then for each of these locations:

Note that the fact that Google is a US company probably skews the results. They probably have more deals with US media outlets than with non-US ones.

I'm starting to lean towards Myanmar. --(WT-en) Evan 22:29, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I think Akubra's method of looking at actual statistics is the way to go with this discussion. Before I go out and gather stats though, I think there are some pitfals that one needs to avoid.

First, in the stats already gathered

 * The stats include Le Monde and El Pais. Doesn't France have strict language laws?  Is it possible that Le Monde is merely forbidden by law to use a new name until the Academy accepts the new name? Aren't there similar rules (but without the legal aspects) in Spanish? (Hi, I'm an ignorant American and really don't know for sure any of this)
 * Also, I thought the rule was to use American English. So are the stats from British English websites relevant?  (Or does this apply only to spellings?)
 * I think one has to be careful to use recent data since one would expect the usage of Myanmar to be increasing with time.

I looked at the New York Times a bit. I found that articles containing the word Burma could be categorized as follows
 * Articles containing the word Myanmar too.
 * History articles refering to pre-renaming times
 * Biographies (particularly obituaries) refering to pre-renaming times
 * Burma Shave (DOH!)
 * Some articles about Burma. Dwarfed by the number of articles that are about Myanmar in the modern context which do not include the word Burma.  But definitely non-zero.

 * ''Here's some raw data from the Times. I used the search term -died -dies to try to weed out obituaries and -"Burma Shave" too.  I also searched only articles since 2000 because I'm trying to find the trend.

 * In the Internation Section of the NY Times, there is an 8:1 preference for Myanmar.
 * 173 articles with both Myanmar and Burma
 * 97 articles with only Myanmar
 * 12 articles with only Burma
 * In the Travel Section, there is a 1:0 preference for Myanmar
 * 26 articles with both Myanmar and Burma
 * 15 articles with only Myanmar
 * 6 articles with only Burma of which:
 * 1 is the name of a person
 * 1 is the name of a band
 * 1 is a historical reference
 * 1 is an act in a circus
 * 1 is a direct quote from a traveler
 * 1 is a road name

 * A broader search of the Times since 2000, filtering only for "Burma Shave" gets you:
 * 583 articles with both Myanmar and Burma
 * 268 articles with just Myanmar
 * 171 articles with just Burma (this is the search that taught me that historical/obits articles use Burma a lot)

I also looked at Yahoo! news a bit, which gets news from tons of different sources. From this, I can also tell you
 * British English news sources (BBC, ABC, Sydney News, NZ) use Burma.
 * Reuters clearly has a no-Burma policy.

But before I really get into this, I have some fears that I may be biasing the data! --(WT-en) Colin 22:40, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)
 * My searches so far are either very broad (Yahoo) or are relatively liberal news sources (CNN, NYTimes). Does anyone have any suggestions for a US Conservative source that I can check?  (Foxnews has very few articles about Myanmar/Burma).
 * Maybe using the search terms -dies -died to avoid obituaries is biasing my search against human rights articles which might include more anti-governement (and pro-Burma) views.
 * Is this even the right track?

 * I think that simply looking at the news articles does not tell you how people think of the country. The fact that there are so many article with both name being used indicates that neither name has a clear predominance at present.  The use of one name over another may also be affected by political influence, with Reuters, for example, perhaps wanting to be able to report in the country meaning they are only using the official name. This may completely bias any assessment of which word is more popular.  I suggest we wait a few years and see how many time people try and change the name of the article.  After all it sat around for 6 months before I edited the factbook import.  I think people can use their time better than dredging up obscure reason to justify using one name over another, especially when anyone can come along and change it. How about letting the article have the title Burma, but explain the current official name is Myanmar and see what happens. -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:58, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * I like your criticisms of this and your suggestion too! After doing this research, I had an uncontrollable urge to go and edit the Eastern Sierra article to make sure that I'm being useful :-) (WT-en) Colin 23:27, 10 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Wikipedia almost had an edit war over this naming. Their discussion about using Myanmar makes interesting reading. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:14, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Both (moot point)
I think the main point of having a wikivoyage article for Myanmar/Burma should be to point out that one should not go there unless invited. Period.

Of course I will encourage folks I know who have been to Myanmar/Burma to write some stuff, but mainly what they told me is "Don't go unless the gov. invites you. Don't bother to try to get invited, because unless you want real trouble you will be pretty much under hotel-arrest.". This from people who have hung out in Iraq within the last year.

Thus, my vote in this debate is to have both names somehow get to the country page, as well as adding a travel topic page Places to Avoid, and linking one or the other (or both) names from there. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:17, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Be careful with this. I'd even say: be extremely careful.

 * 1) I have never been to Myanmar/Burma. But from what I've read about it, and from a cultural point of view, it must be a very interesting country to visit. Of course, this is said without taking the political situation there into account.
 * 2) Places to avoid? I think that, for a considerable number of people (including me), the USA will be part of such a list. Why? Because, among other things, they view the USA not as the archetypical democracy it so much likes to be viewed as. I, for one, do not want to let my fingerprints or a mugshot be taken like an ordinary criminal when entering the country. I speak from (WT-en) experience when I say that the only time immigration hassled me during my trips when entering a country was when I entered the USA.
 * 3) Against what criterion are you going to say that such or such a country should not be visited? The level of democracy? In the world of today democracy is generally worshipped as the only way to govern a country. I am convinced that democracy as we know it will work for some, but not for others. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that torturing and killing regime opponents is the way to go. I am utterly against it. But chances are high that there are other (and maybe better) ways to govern a country. So, what criterion?
 * 4) In a certain way, a travel guide should "educate" travellers. Again from experience, I have seen people (I do not want to call them travellers) act as ignorant pigs towards the culture in which they were guests. And yes, I have made my share of mistakes too. We all do. Travelling is something you have to learn. So, if your goal is to state in the most objective way possible what is happening in Myanmar/Burma, I am all for it. But I think travellers should have enough responsibility to make up their own minds if they want to go there or not.
 * (WT-en) Akubra 10:09, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * For what it's worth, I also avoid going to the US, unless I absolutely have to. I agree that the fingerprinting is stupid and a big hassel, and that travelers should be warned about it.  My point though was that the government of Burma/Myanmar wants you to stay away.  You ask "Against what criterion are you going to say that such or such a country should not be visited?", well, that's the criteria.  If the gov. of that country says "do not come here" that's pretty much it.

 * Actually I think Myanmar/Burma would be a great place to visit, if we were welcome there. We are not.  My criteria for calling it a place not to visit is that the government there does not want us to come.  One must have a visa to visit Myanmar, and these are only granted to those whom that very government has invited.  The government invited a couple of thousand foreign citizens last year including a couple from the organization for which I work.  I know one of them, who was there mainly to work on a vacination survey.  She does describe a lovely country, what she was allowed to see of it, which wasn't very much.  I intend to ask her if she'd be willing to write something up for Wikivoyage, but really I don't expect it to amount to much since one "get's in" according to the itinerary they give you, "Does" whatever the invitation specifies, "Eats" and "Sleeps" where they tell you to, and "Gets out" again as soon as the specific work is done, or as soon as the government gets tired of the work you are doing.

 * The only other way to go to Myanmar is to try to sneak in, which will get the traveler either jailed or killed outright. This is mentioned in the article, but I'm thinking about moving it to the top of the page.

 * Sorry if I've offended you by pointing this out, but travellers are do not have the responsibility to make up their own minds about whether or not to go to Myanmar. The Myanmar governement reserves that right.  -- (WT-en) Mark 15:32, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * So, kind of a side point, but this is one type of destination that I think Wikivoyage could totally shine. Commercial guidebooks don't cover Burma (uh... I mean...), based on the tourism ban and direct requests by the government there.

 * But 'traveller' != 'tourist'. Some people do have to go to Burma; for example, aid workers from international and non-governmental organizations. My understanding is that the travel information on Burma is extremely sparse; I heard somewhere that there's like a 1973 Lonely Planet guide that's the most current source of info.

 * I have no idea what information is available to aid workers or other invited visitors, but I would bet that having some additional free information from Wikivoyage would be useful. --(WT-en) Evan 16:02, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Mark, in no way you have offended me with what you say :-) I do not dispute the facts you mention. After reading your last edit it seems to me that the only differences in opinion we have is how to present them in Wikivoyage and where the responsibility lies. If I would enter Myanmar illegally and I get jailed or killed, well... I'd find it hard to maintain that at least part of the responsibility wouldn't be mine (if I still could, that is...). The same as if I'd take drugs into Malaysia and get hanged, or walk into the minefields of Cambodia or Mozambique and lose my legs.

 * Evan, I completely agree with you that having an article on Myanmar would distinguish us from the classic guidebooks and give us added value. There is a Lonely Planet Myanmar guidebook, but I think it is much more recent than 1973. I found this, so it must be 1990 or later. BTW, they say something different about the possibilities to visit the country, but I have no idea if this reflects the truth or not. -- (WT-en) Akubra 17:02, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Can I respectfully suggest that it is virtually impossible to truly understand the situation in a country if you've never been there. I won't say that I understand completely, but having been to Myanmar in November (as a "tourist" - what tourist ban? Aung San Suu Kyi is just one woman - not everyone in her party supports this idea of a tourist ban), I can safely say that I now take everything written about the country with a grain of salt. Although I was on a "tour" (not an official government tour company, by the way, but a private company - we did make sure of that), I was able to talk to a wide range of people, including members of the NLD. I should also point out that you do not need to be invited and I got a visa quite easily from the Consulate in London. They did need me to submit an itinerary, but did not ask where I was staying every night and I was quite free to travel independantly. The military was not obviously in attendance anywhere and in fact the only soldiers I saw were in the Embassy areas of Yangon. I felt very safe, very welcome and never threatened in any way, shape or form.

Without getting into the details of the political situation, it is a beautiful country well-worth visiting and you will not find a nicer, more welcoming people anywhere in the world. (WT-en) Yolise 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (GMT)

Name change
I'd like to start summing up.

From my personal point of view, I find the idea of complying with the official "Myanmar" to be loathesome. The military dictatorship in Burma has slaughtered thousands, crushed democracy, and are eschewed by governments and organizations that normally don't scruple to deal with really bad folks. Representatives of the democratically elected government there continue to use "Burma". Using "Myanmar" feels like siding with evil.

But Wikivoyage isn't about my personal point of view. Following the above stats, it's starting to become clear that although it's not a 100% definite thing, at least from comparing media citations available online "Myanmar" seems to be the most common English name. Even in places where the military government isn't recognized, like the USA, Myanmar seems to come up more often.

For this reason, I propose that we move this article to Myanmar and make Burma a redirect. I'll do this tomorrow unless we get some overwhelming objections. --(WT-en) Evan 16:53, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * I object. Though it is more of a pragmatic one. If there is regime change in the country formerly known as Burma it is highly likely that the name will change back. As I see it, Burma is the geographical region that the country of Myanmar politically sits in. Our hierachy is geographical, thus Burma should be the article name, even if we have Myanmar prominantly in the title.  Also Wikivoyager have better things to do than to pander to political correctness. If the Myanmar government wants to change the name let them do it - they can come here like everyone else - we shouldn't waste our time on such trivial things, there are better things to do. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:28, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * And I would like to say one more time in case this was lost in the wrangling above that it just simply doesn't matter. There is little need for a travel guide to Burma, since the govenerment of Myanmar will not let you go or do anything which is outside of the script which your organization will have aggreed with them on before you are invited.  -- (WT-en) Mark 18:44, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

A few things to clear up. The most recent guidebook to Myanmar certainly isn't from 1973. The most recent Lonely Planet guide to Myanmar was published in 2002, and I myself have a copy of the 1996 edition. On the subject of the name (Myanmar v. Burma) it has this to say; "'Myanmar' has been the official name [of the country] since the time of Marco Polo's 13-th century writings... In Burmese literary contexts, 'Myanmar' is used to the refer to the entire country, 'Bamar' (from whence the English got 'Burma') to refer to the Burman ethnicity or the Burman language." Amnesty International and wikipedia call the place Myanmar. The people of the country (generally) call it Myanmar.

Secondly, Myanmar is not a closed country like North Korea. The democratic leader of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi (under house arrest), has called for a boycott on tourism to the country. However independent travel is possible, either with a Foreign Independent Travel (FIT) visa, which lasts 28 days extendable to 42, or 1-3 day permits available at the Thai/Myanmar border. There is very much a need for a wikivoyage guide to Myanmar. The idea that trying to enter the country without a package holiday will get you killed is quite frankly nonsense. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

 * (WT-en) Professorbiscuit has now redirected Burma to Myanmar and added to the new text there. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:35, 12 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Oh wow. I'm completely wrong... shows what I get by going on hear-say, and not doing my fact-checking.  I would like to formally apologise for my mistake to all present, and both the democratically elected government of Myanmar and the Military Junta. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:51, 12 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Restored the old Burma page
There seems to have been a bit of a coup by Professorbiscuit in redirecting the Burma page to Myanmar. Although travel information is appropriate for Wikipedia, a proper encyclopedic entry for Burma (Myanmar) should contain a lot more information about the country's history, politics, and geography.

 * I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:53, 15 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * I suppose we could always reopen the discussion about what name to use for this country... but I've reverted the change since, no matter what we name it, there should only be one article for this country. If a discussion obtains consensus to move this back to Burma, we should move the article and make Myanmar a redirect. -- (WT-en) Colin 10:29, 15 Nov 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Burma