This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Bangladesh, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
I haven't seen an addition of "Environment" section and details of fauna and flora. I think an addition would be nice, so readers would know more about how wildlife in Bangladesh is. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it up. I started the section today. Would be great if anyone would add to it, especially on issues like conservation and research.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please provide latest GDP (nominal), GDP (PPP) etc. because here the provided data is backdated Raf1061 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested specific changes.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015
The history section is an absolute mess. Too many pictures and sections. But surprisingly, not even a single image of Bangladesh's archaeological sites. I think it would be better to divide the text into two parts- Early history and 20th & 21st century. It should include pictures of the country's two world heritage sites in archaeology, and perhaps a template on Bangladeshi history, giving access to pages of successive historical periods and kingdoms. The text eventually needs to be improved. But I think we should first bring it a more organized look in order to keep sync with the rest of the article. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The history section was an absolute mess. It was turned into present better position with much care from several members of the community. If you feel there are improvements to make, feel free to do it. The section already has 5 subsections. Once it was just divided into two section (as you suggested), that did not work very well. Keep the five sections. I am not sure if we can fit some photos of archaeological sites, but at least one should be somewhere in the article. – nafSadhdidsay 17:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Every history section in a country article includes pictures of archaeology. And I haven't seen a single country with such little subsections, and that again with convulted See also lists. It is a complete mess and others have said so as well. Another Bangladeshi editor also mentioned that images should have the country's background. The text also needs to be changed. The five sections will go.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have a suggested rewrite, post it here :) – nafSadhdidsay 00:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll have it in my sandbox when I do it. You need to quit your attitude and learn to engage. You don't know who I am.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to see that. BTW, I may have to learn a lot of thing, but you are probably the one who also need to learn a lot more things. I do not need to know your identity. I reveal mine, and you have your right to hide. I do and will watch the pages I have interest in. – nafSadhdidsay 06:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't need any lessons from you. I was nice to you for a long time. But you have an awful vendetta against me for. Sometimes I made foolish edits. But that does not give you the right to stalk me and block my every turn. You don't respect me, I won't respect you. Simple as that.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
As you noted in your comment that you removedand later thankfully re-added, "I don't need any lessons from you. I was nice to you for a long time. But you have an awful vendetta against me for. Sometimes I made foolish edits. But that does not give you the right to stalk me and block my every turn. You don't respect me, I won't respect you. Simple as that." I do not have vendetta; probably you have. And on following edit, you blanked the entire discussion, which is not polite, furthermore a violation of Wikipedia community policy. Every time, when I appreciate your efforts, and try to put my feedback you take those feedback as barriers. Did I ever tell you to not edit? In any talk people would put forward their opinions. From that a consensus might come. That is how other editors collaborate. – nafSadhdidsay 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You manipulative user. I removed the entire section per Wikipedia:Civility which allows personal attacks to be erased. Interestingly when you reverted me, you left out my last comment. And about "Did I ever tell you not to edit?" You just threantened to block me. You're a hater. For Dhaka#History, where my edits were legitimate, you unnecessarily harangued me. Stop hiding behind the veil of consensus. You have to contest something in order to have a consensus.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Rainmaker has triple reverted (diff, diffdiff) an edit by Ctg4Rahat, which was double restored by me Nafsadh and LibStar indicating Rainmaker23 is warring against consensus. Rainmakers23 is strongly requested to present his reason about why not to include the paragraph about Bangladesh-Israel relation. I am undoing last revert of Rainmaker23 to restore Ctg4Rahat's paragraph. Removal of the very paragraph without any consensus made through this discussion may be a violation of community's norm. – nafSadhdidsay 05:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nafsadh this is not fair. You need to stop this. I don't think I've broken any rule by reducing a paragraph into one sentence.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ctg4Rahat inserted a paragraph on Bangladesh-Israel relations, which I removed at first, considering these sections usually include the most crucial bilateral relationships. Bangladesh does not have any formal relations with Israel. Nafsadh reverted me, saying its an important part of foreign policy. Since the Palestinian issue was already mentioned in the section, I reverted Nafsadh again since an entire paragraph seemed to give undue weight to the topic. It's also factually inaccurate. Bangladesh is not the only country in the world which bans trade with Israel, as claimed by a particular newspaper (well known for its theatrics). A dozen more countries maintain a boycott. LibStar then reverted me asking me to discuss on the talk page. I didn't revert him exactly, I reduced the paragraph to one sentence. What POV push can you possibly make here? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the reduced version of the sentence is ok for the article. We can also add the info about Bangladeshi passport and the prohibition of entry to Israel by Bangladesh goverment. - Rahat (Message) 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not the pursuant Nafsadh. Your friend began reverting me. I asked Samudrakula several times to discuss, including on his talk page. Instead he's making personal attacks.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Samudrakula is not my friend. We have much differences. – nafSadhdidsay 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
see Previous Discussions. I am not against any picture, but those pictures are not so relevant here, it is appears rather crowded. Tell me how a terracotta wall, Peacock Barge and Mohammad bogra ARE SO IMPORTENT FOR THE history of bangladesh or what did they do for bangladesh! we may find thousands of pictures, should we push and pull all of those in the history section?-so don't waste your time and mine---Samudrakula (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
all of above-mentioned articles are well organised and not crowded with pictures.---Samudrakula (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now, Bangladesh is not crowded either. Peru also has twelve images in its history section. That discussion was about the article as a whole. The history section is one which deserves more pictures. All of them have historical significance.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This talk should be on Talk:Bangladesh. Samudrakula's versions are slimmer and looks nice. See WP:NOTGALLERY. Though, I think after his versions, we may have place to add one or two other photos, There are many things to take in consideration while talking about images: (1) not a gallery (2) undue weight (3) represent. So we have to balance. There was a point when for this article, we reached to point of mutual understanding that we won't add any more images to this article. But that broke when some editors started to rapidly change the article. – nafSadhdidsay 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
An understanding that anyone cannot add images to an article pretty much seems like WP:OWN. While Wikipedia is definitely not a gallery, it is an encyclopedia. Each of these images have historical relevance. All your three factors were taken into consideration in adding them.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Text to image ratio is an important thing. And no one is owning this article (or possibly you?). Photos do have historical relevance. Bangladesh is a top level article, we can add those photos in sub articles (viz History of Bangladesh) where we have room for more text and photos. I concur with Samudrakula's edit and I posit we can reduce a few photos form some sections while we need photos in some sections. – nafSadhdidsay 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The images in the history section are even more relevant because its a top level article.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
my main concern is better summarization. and of course better representation. if we can summarize our 4 Millennial glorious history in less than 40 lines, then why are you not able to choose 6-8 images for this section? FOR PERU N CO- We don't have to blindly follow anyone!→Samudrakula (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not following Peru or Germany, I pointed them out because you said "one picture for one section". I do think these 12 images represent the history section's text very fairly.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course they represent. But we can be more succinct. We need to reduce the number of photos. – nafSadhdidsay 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted one map from the history section. I think the images in antiquity and Islamic Bengal should be kept. User:Samudrakula obviously has a very poor view of history and most other things. He should refrain from personal attacks, like when he first did while reverting me. He dosen't know who I am so he dosen't need to reach conclusions.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You have no idea about me and not allowed to comment like this way! we all have to go through references and Wikipedia:Consensus. Stop Playing the Blame Game-Samudrakula (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the bride photo by Joy prokash roy is not a very good photo and shall not be here. Though it is added as a bride photo, it is not really a bridal setup. – nafSadhdidsay 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So feel free to change, but please don't add the old (folded saree ) one. That was really boring—Samudrakula (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That was. I am looking for something better. – nafSadhdidsay 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)