Jump to content

Talk:Dhaka/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copyrighted pictures

The pictures Dac5.jpg and others showing a clear copyright tag from webbangladesh.com has been removed. Please do not add copyrighted pictures here. Thanks. --Ragib 03:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jahangir was not even born in Year 1000.For that matter Mughal empire was not present at that time. I think the year is wrongly mentioned


I don't get your point. Read the article again. It states -
Dhaka's history dates back to the year 1000, but the city achieved glory as the capital of Mughal Bengal. At that time, it was also known as Jahangir Nagar in honor of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir.
Where do you see the assertion that Jahangir/Mughal empire was there at the year 1000? Nowhere!!!!! Thanks. --Ragib 16:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Dhaka

Inclusion of this somewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dhaka_Flag.jpg VarunRajendran

This is the emblem of Dhaka City Corporation. This is NOT a flag of Dhaka city per se. The administrative units in Bangladesh do not have individual flags. Thanks. --Ragib 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe you could include something about the city being one of the largest on Earth and its plans to become 3rd largest city by 2015. Also something about gaining megacity standard and plans for sky-train could be added. You could also add something about the shopping- including Bashundhara City and under-construction Jamuna City.

Suggestion

Hi! May I suggest to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities? I mean the sections. While Dhaka is not an Indian city, the guidelines suggested there in the project page is quite good to follow, as several city articles following that guideline have been improved to Featured Article standard. Of course Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities can be followed. But that is more better for USA cities. A mixture of two projects ate quite welcome. For example, "education" from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities can be retained. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities also gives some hints on the content of each section besides laying out the sections. Please decide.

Also, inline citations and references are lacking. If Ragib and others are ok with the proposal, I can move to at least start the sectioning. Content addition won't be possible for me totally though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks !!

Thanks to whoever has expanded this article! Man, had I been waiting to see the article on the city I love so much to be expanded. I think you can remove all those comments about 'expanded needed' for the article has already been expanded and the expansion has been pretty well done, especially the 2 pics of the skyline were awesome! Now the articles on rest of Bangladesh need to be expaned.

Origin of Dhaka

So far it seems that the origin of Dhaka is not clear. I have found that there is a clan name Dhaka (clan) in Rajasthan state of India. There are number of Dhaka villages also in Rajasthan. A further research may help to find the origin of Dhaka. burdak 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt whether there is any link between Dhaka and the Rajasthani clans. These are too historically further apart to be related. Ballal Sena was a Brahmin King, but he or the Sena Dynasty didn't originate from Rajasthan. Of course, proper research is definitely needed. Prof. Muntasir Mamun of Dhaka University has written a book on Dhaka's history ("Kinbodontir Dhaka"), I'll try to get that or other books. --Ragib 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rgib, for your comments and your promptness in correcting me on Promod K Singh's basis of writing on Dhakeshwari temple. My thinking is that during Buddhist period in India many sants had gone to many countries for spread of Buddhism. May be some Dhaka (clan) Buddhist start this temple. You will find that people from Afghanistan in ancient periods used to establish habitation in a new place with same old name. This is one possibility. Further research may lead to some new facts. burdak 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related (slightly) topic, I see this sentence in the History section: "Dhaka and its surrounding area was identified as Bengalla around that period." As I recall from RC Majumdar's history of Bengal, Bangala (note the difference in spelling) was much larger than that, and not centered on Dhaka. PiCo 09:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Busted Links?

Why are there so many links to "Main Articles" that do not actually exist? SmartGuy 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because links are created to make way for storing details about each sections. We expect the sections in this article to be summaries. It doesn't hurt to take a top-down approach ... i.e. add those links and later go on creating the pages. --Ragib 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos

A picture of Dhaka

Have uploaded 2 new photos. How do you add it to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhakaiya (talk • contribs)

File:Modern Dhaka.jpg
Dhaka has been modernised very fast in the 21st century.

Thanks! Also will be editing Bangladesh and economy of Bangladesh. We do not want to stay behind India or Pakistan. I believe my country is one of the best in South Asia. God bless all patriots. -Dhakaiya

Please be careful in making edits to Bangladesh, a featured article. If you want to make drastic changes, please discuss them in the talk page. Also keep in mind that the article is supposed to be in summary form, with details going to particular articles. For example, rather than adding content to the economy section, it makes sense to add them to the Economy of Bangladesh article, and summarizing that in the economy section. Thanks for the photos, and please feel free to contact me with any questions. --Ragib 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is goog enough to be a featured article or at least a 'good article'. (Ahnaf 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Map??

Why did someone add the bangladesh map in Dhaka page? why whole of bangladesh? why not a map of Dhaka. doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.1.144.117 (talk • contribs)

It makes perfect sense as to show the location of the city in Bangladesh. --Ragib 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it will look better without the other Bangladesh City names on it. for example see Mumbai and Kolkata page.

Suggestion accepted. A revised map has been added.-Arman Aziz 10:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

comment from 84.9.46.153

Please provide specific references for the assertaions made. I am asking for citations. As far as I'm aware Dhaka does not decide the culture, language and politics for the rest of Bangladesh. Sylhet and Habigonj, for example, are distinct. In addition, Sylhet region generally is an economic powerhouse due to expat earnings and natural gas/coal and many sylhetis (esp. those with relatives abroad) enjoy a higher per capita income than the emerging Dhakaiya middleclasses (£1=138.50 taka). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.153 (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding fake cn tags when there are references right next to each of the sentences. Thank you. --Ragib 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no references next to the sentences that I can see. 'As the most populous city of the nation, life in Dhaka exemplifies Bangladeshi culture'.

No , it doesn't. Ppl in Dhaka speak Dhakaiya for a start! In Sylhet we have our own language, so this is not true. Bangladesh has varied and diverse cultures and Dhaka doesn't exemplify this.

Ragib, I'm glad that you have changed the economy section, which was making unfounded and grandiose statements about Dhaka's economy. Why didn't you notice this before? Are you from Dhaka? Yet you seem to immediately want to change posts on on the entries eg. Sylhet and Drishtifart, which I am interested in. I think it is time we had a Sylheti mod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.40.40 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making comments on other editors. See No personal attack policy. Thank you. --Ragib 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this article is biased, with many Dhakaiya posters making exaggerated claims. For instance, PLEASE POINT ME TO THE EXACT INTERNET SITE WHICH CLAIMS THAT DHAKAIYAS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER INCOME THAN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY OR THAT DHAKA IS CENTRAL TO BANGLADESHI CULTURE OR POLITICS????

If you can't prove something then don't include it in this article.

As for attacks, you are a Dhakaiya, so I'm not attacking you. Just as you can call me a Sylheti, without my feeling put down. That isn't a personal attack.

You are forgetting Sylhet, Chittagong, Khulna etc are just regional cities while Dhaka is the political, economic and cultural capital of our beloved Bangladesh. (I personally came from a small district of eastern Bengal, but I feel it great to attach my emotions and belongingness to Dhaka. Because it is the best city of our country.)
As every British love London, every American New York, every Indian Delhi,similerly, every Bangladeshi should be attached highly to the glory of Dhaka. Or else your patriotism may be questioned.
Please remember 90% of Dhaka dwellers are not indegeneous Dhakaias, they are from Comilla, Rangpur, Chittagong, Barisal, Jessore or Sylhet( like you).Thats the beauty of any Metropolitan City and Dhaka is the only metropolice in BD. I presume you understand this.Al-minar 06:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should over-emphasise Dhaka's importance. It is a cultural centre, true, but it has its limitations. Also, Bangladeshi is not a culture. Bengali is linked to a culture and in that aspect, Kolkata also influences the culture significantly. So, one shouldn't say Dhaka portrays Bangladeshi culture, because the same statement holds true for every small village in Bengal. They all portray the culture in a collective fashion. It is, however, fair to say, "Dhaka offers a very good sample of the regional cultures due to its cosmopolitan population composition." Those are my two cents and please stop arguing on regional grounds. We cannot specifically have exactly 64 mods. We need to learn to think with our heads and not our hearts :). 64.194.250.99 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhaka District?

Dhaka is a district. Why does the first line say Dhaka is the capital of Dhaka District. Dhaka is not a thana. It's a district. Dhaka district article should be removed and linked to this page. Anyone agrees?

64.194.250.99 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, "Dhaka" IS a city in the Dhaka District, in the Dhaka Division. There is separate articles for each of those entities. But *this* article is about the city. For other such examples, see Kolkata, London etc. Thanks. --Ragib 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Dhaka District IS Dhaka City. There is no conception of a Greater Dhaka District like there is for Greater London. OK, just to be clear, what part of Dhaka District is NOT in Dhaka City? Are you referring to the non-metropolitan area? Also, even if you are referring to Dhaka Metropolitan area as Dhaka City, this is NOT the capital of Dhaka District like the first line implies. 64.194.250.99 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to get your facts right and look into a map of the Dhaka District. A large part of the district is NOT under the city. For example, Dhamrai upazila, Dohar upazila, Keraniganj upazila, Nawabganj upazila and Savar upazila are in the Dhaka district, but not part of the Dhaka city. Those are not considered "thana"s like "Dhanmondi Thana". For the first sentence, it did look ambiguous, so I reworded it as "capital of Bangladesh and main city of the Dhaka District". Other than that, your other points do not apply as the district is much larger, and also has more areas that are not part of any city. Thanks. --Ragib 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the first sentence. OK, so you were referring to Dhaka Metropolitan Area or Dhaka Municipal Zone (under the City Corporation) as Dhaka City. I still think that it's ambiguous to create an impression that Dhaka District has a bunch of cities and Dhaka city is one of them, because similar scenario does not apply in general to all other districts. The upazilas never materialised into anything concrete. So, for now it seems the administrative divisions works like Division > District > Thana. Some district headquarters have evolved into metropolitan areas or city corporations, but I'm not sure how far this impacts administrative management. If we are making a distinction, shouldn't the same consistently be applied to Chittagong, Khulna and Rajshahi? 64.194.250.99 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Organizationally, geographically, and officially,(i.e. for all conceivable purposes), the city and the district are completely separate entities. Yes, the impression you mentioned is correct. Dhaka district does have some cities (official municipal areas), of which Dhaka is one. The same does apply to all other districts ... i.e. we have separate articles for distinct entities (city vs. administrative district). Upazilas have materialized, though whenever a govt change happens, they get renamed. The Thana-outside-metropolitan-areas are actually upazilas (during Ershad and Hasina govts), and are only called Thanas (during BNP rule). Still, the administration of a city/municipal area is completely different from that of a district/thana/upazila (the latter has administrative officers, diff. administration/jurisdiction). Finally, we ARE being quite consistent here with all other cities/districts (see Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna). Thank you. --Ragib 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanas of Dhaka

The list of thanas on the article seem to be quite dated. I already have left a note to Usingha's talk page to that end (check it out) when he was trying to come up with a labelled map for Dhaka thanas. May this part needs a bit updating, citations and cleaning up. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerated economic power of Dhakaiyas

'Dhaka is the commercial heart of Bangladesh. The purchasing power of Dhaka's fast-growing middle class population is significantly higher than the rest of the country, increasing the market for modern consumer and luxury goods'.

The two BBC articles cited clear do not mention the Dhakaiya middle class in isolation but generally the middle class in Bangladesh. Both articles about Bashundara City and Fantasy Kingdom also contrast the real life of misery ie. a rickshaw driver on 3 dollars wage that is the real life of ppl in Dhaka. Can we please not have expat Dhakaiyas exaggerating Dhakas importance plz.

Please quote exactly where it mentions only the Dhakaiya middle class in these articles. You are talking generally about the class throughout Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.47.71 (talk • contribs)

How about providing a link to Google map for Dhaka. When people will click it will take them to maps.google.com Also, a kml can also be provided to use with Google Earth.

imtiaz 16:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No need, because the same purpose can easily be achieved by clicking the existing coordiantes link at the top right and then selecting the preferred viewing tool. This is why specifying the correct coordinate is so important!-Arman Aziz 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article disputed

This article is being edited by a bunch of 17 year-old first generation expat Dhakaiyas whimsical about the 'old days'. They seek to overplay Dhaka's role within Bangladesh. There is no semblence of objectivity here. 'Dhaka is the commercial heart of Bangladesh. The purchasing power of Dhaka's fast-growing middle class population is significantly higher than the rest of the country, increasing the market for modern consumer and luxury goods'.

Please provide exact links to the above assertions as the two BBC articles are not Dhaka-specific but talk about the general growth of the Bangladeshi middle classes.

Star feature article this is not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.41.133 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making derogatory comments against people from any particular regions. Thank you. --Ragib 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, those issues are not neutrality concerns, rather you might ask for citations. Which I have provided for the first sentence, and will do for the second one. --Ragib 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved your {{cn}} tag to the second sentence in question. Reference for the first one have been provided. --Ragib 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And now, I've reworded the 2nd sentence and added a reference. Thank you. --Ragib 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation required

'Most of Bangladesh's skilled workers are employed in the businesses and industries located in the Dhaka metropolitan area'.

Please provide a citation for this particular assertion. Also how do you define 'skilled' workers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.7 (talk • contribs)

Skilled worker is a widely used term. Thanks. --Ragib 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for the assertion that skilled workers are mostly to be found in metropolitan Dhaka. The article you rely on should specifically mention this.

Enamul Haque Jr

This cricketer hails from Sylhet and plays for Sylhet Division as per Crickinfo and Wiki article. He therefore cannot have hailed from Dhaka. Please don't make things up. It attacks the credibility of this article.

Mortazaq Mashrafe

The player is also Non-Dhakaiya as he hails from Jessore...the 'Narail express'.

Animation added

I have added one NASA generated animation showing the urban growth of Dhaka city from 1970s to 2000. I've added it in the demographics section. Can someone please help add some supporting text / data with it?-Arman Aziz 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized the section a bit, and now believe the animation comes with an appropriate context. Additional text / data should not be required but may be added.-Arman Aziz 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Skyline Image and Flags

The skyline image recently added to this article does not look like a city skyline image at all. If we really need an image there Image:Dhaka-Bangladesh.jpg will do a much better job. Please give me your comments on this.

Also, I don't think the use of Dhaka City Corporation flag in the infobox is appropriate - as Ragib bhai explained earlier individual cities of Bangladesh DO NOT have any flag.. I'd like to remove the flag image as well.-Arman Aziz 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well someone has changed the skyline image with a much better one (Image:Dhaka-skyline-aymash.jpg). This looks good now. I'm removing the City Corporation flag.-Arman Aziz 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference that can be added

U.N. agency says Bangladesh capital growing fast. This is from the latest UNFPA report. --Ragib 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Weather Table units

The weather/temperature table in the article has the units listed in Fahrenheit. However, almost all countries of the world (including Bangladesh) use Celsius ... I suggest changing the values to Celsius. Thanks. --Ragib 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dhaka

Why is there no information at all on the elevation of Dhaka in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.184.161 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant image of Dhaka

The new image looks faboulus dont u think, just look at the light effect in this pic, the best image yet I think. Moshin 16:20, 10 December 2007 (GMT)

Agree that the image is brilliant and eye-catching, but because of the light and lense effect it seems "edited" and artificial. Not sure whether it is very encyclopedic. Arman (Talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is good looking from artistic perspective.The artificiality innate in the picture definitely makes it inappropriate for encyclopedic purpose. Dhaka is a FA Class featured article in wikipedia, so before deleting the accepted picture one must think twice.So Mr. Mohsin, I am again adding the previous picture. To insist your subjecive opinion that the night picture is better, let us discuss it in lenghth in the talk page.( I would solicit opinion from Ragib/Aditya/Nahid and others) If majority of experienced Bangladeshi wikipedians agree to your opinion, I shall not oppose your inclusion. But before that let us maintain status quo . OK?Murad67 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd opt for the previous "non-edited" image ... the night photo may be eye-catching, but we cannot use an edited, special-effects photo. This being an encyclopedia, we'd rather stick to real depictions no matter how bland they are.

Given the vast expanse of Dhaka, and the emerging skyscrapers, it won't be difficult to get a good panorama of Dhaka skyline ... --Ragib (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The current image of Dhaka, isn't really a good quality image, and I slightly agree now that the special-effects photo isnt really appropriate for Wikipedia pages but still stands out, it's a hard dicision to make... if any of you's live in Dhaka, do you think you can take a new good shot of the skyline of Dhaka? -- crop half of the sky of the pic & check if its better: (Image:Dhaka_city.jpg) -- A picture that is more eye-catching in the page will make the viewers read and view it more often, and change the way they see Bangladesh probably, I still think that the image is much better for the article, please respond. Moshin 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi mohsin, I am afraid that I'll also go for the existing non-edited version in line with Murad, Ragib, Arman and others. It is much better than the night skyline one. Untill we get a better un-edited picture, we must keep the current one. Thanks!Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The older image is not the best we can have, but at least it features a couple of familiar landmarks of Dhaka: the Bangladesh Bank building and the Janata Bank Bhaban. I would like to reiterate my preference for this image as the skyline until we get a better image. Arman (Talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The same effects are also noticed on the London picture, I cant see why a brilliant image cant fit for Dhaka, I mean the image is much better than the London page (?)

Firstly the London Tower bridge image does not have same "edited" lense effects; secondly it features London Bridge - one of the most prominent landmarks of London, while the Dhaka image features an unrecognizable ordinary residential area (which could easily be mistaken for any place in Chittagong or Calcutta); and thirdly London is not a featured article, but Dhaka is - so no reason for us to benchmark against London article. Arman (Talk) 01:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many images

The article started to get flooded with too many images, so I took out three: Westin, Sheraton and Standard Chartard bank. If there is no discussion about them in the article, I don't see the point of adding so many images. Hopefully when Template:Slideshow will be available for use, we'll be able to accomodate these images in the article. Arman (Talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhaka, Bangladesh

This should be renamed "Dhaka, Bangladesh" and not just "Dhaka." It just seems more proper have the city & the state, or in this case, the city and the country; rather than just the city, even though it is the capitol city. Thats my suggestion.--Morahman7vn (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the convention for such cities. Dhaka, Bangladesh can be a redirect to this article. --Ragib (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't 'Dacca' a historical name for the city? As in 'Ceylon' was a historical name for Sri Lanka... 'Peking' was a historical name for Beijing... 'Formosa' was a historical name for Taiwan...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Name in IPA

FYI, I based my transcription of the word "Dhaka" in IPA on this chart. -- Rashed (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

can someone fix citation number 19

The link is not embeddded. I spend about two hours trying to embed link into the title but it is not working. My guess is wikipedia doesn't recognize .jp domain as a real domain. Here is the citation

"Improved System for Disaster Mitigation and Environmental Management in Bangladesh" (pdf). Regional United Nations Centre for Regional Development. Retrieved 2009-03-17. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 44 (help) Tarikur (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why don't you guyz add some photos of Novotheatre ?

Novotheatre has become a landmark icon for Dhaka..adding a beautiful photo of this fantastic architecture would definitely help non-bangladeshis know dhaka well..i would have, but can't find the way how to upload it..why don't u also add a logo of the dhaka city corporation ?? --117.18.231.21 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Arko

If you took the picture yourself, then I can upload the picture to Wikipedia for you. Just email me the picture. My email address is tarikur1@yahoo.com Tarikur (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Area mass of Dhaka compared to London

Dhaka has approximately the same area mass of London Borough of Bromley see map. This should give you good idea how big Dhaka is.

Area Map of Dhaka

http://www.dhakacity.org/Page/About_us/About/Category/2/About_us_info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.120.101 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dhaka Metropolitan City is over 1500 sq.km.'s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.120.101 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dhaka City Expanded - Plan passes in Jatiya Sangsad Boundary of Dhaka city has been extended to Shitalakhya river, a part of Sonargaon thana, Meghna river in the east, Bongshi river in the west, Dhaleshwari rivers both in the west and south, and north boundary of Gazipur municipality. As per the plan, municipalities of Narayanganj, Tongi, Gazipur, Savar, Kadamrasul, Siddhirganj and Tarabo has been incorporated into Dhaka City Corporation covering 1530 square kilometres. http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=122769 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.120.101 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Telephone access

"Although cellular phones are gaining popularity, less than 10% of households have telephone access": The source for this information was published in 2001, before cell phones gained widespread popularity. Some modernization of the land phone network has also occurred since. I am certain that the extent of telephone access is now significantly higher. The statement should be removed or replaced with up-to-date information.Avman89 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Etc

Currently this article makes heavy use of Etc and leaves off the dot. Adding dots would make the sentences unclear. Leaving a note here for anyone wanting to improve the article in this respect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

population

A figure of 15 million living in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area is mentioned in the text but not backed up by the reference provided (http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/pby/pk_book_08.pdf) and a different figure is given to the side.

I think I have seen the 15 million figure elsewhere but a reference would be good!

It also might help to distinguish between...

  • Dhaka City Corporation
  • Dhaka Metropolitan Area, which I believe is different from
  • Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area, which actually extends beyond
  • Dhaka District, not to mention
  • Dhaka Division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.135.141 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this is very necessary. Also the numbers are from 2008 and vastly different from the 2011 ones mentioned for example in Greater_Dhaka for Dhaka Municipal Corporation which has a smaller size (300km²), but had a higher population in 2001 already, even more so in 2011. Pandhii (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sports Section =

Someone please fix the 'sports' section about the Cricket World Cup 2011 Information. There is outdated information still on page. Bauani (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

you can do it! » nafSadh did say 05:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:BustlingDhaka montage - Wikipedia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BustlingDhaka montage - Wikipedia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DhakaMontage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DhakaMontage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Buses in Dhaka.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Buses in Dhaka.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sister cities/Town Twinning

There are no sources given for the list of sister cities mentioned. The Wikipedia pages of the cities mentioned do not list Dhaka as a twinned city. The unsourced list has been removed.Avman89 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bangabandhu national stadium.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bangabandhu national stadium.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dhaka Landmarks.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dhaka Landmarks.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This reads like pure boosterism

I have a hard time believing that all is so great and so pretty looking in the most densely populated urban areas in the world. The closest this article comes to showing what I assume is a difficult life of struggle for most people is a photo of happy, smiling rickshaw drivers, or runners, or pilots, or whatever. Where are the pictures of normal, dense street life and normal living conditions? All I see are photos of the beautiful buildings. I'm not interested in slamming the area, I just want balance, not a travel brochure. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.231.245 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dhake Ki Malmal

I am amazed that an article on Dhaka does not mention the famous Dhaka muslin! Somebody knowledgeable please add a few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toofani tarzan (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Civic Administration Section

The civic Administration section reads like it was written as propaganda by a Dhaka City Corporation employee with a so-so grasp of English. It needs some serious review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.139.253 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Quality

In last few months, I'm afraid that, the quality of this article has been degraded majorly. It seems to be overwhelmed with images and the structure is kind of sloppy now. Major reconstruction of this article is desirable. I'm sorry that, I might not be able to contribute with writing, I'm willing to keep an eye for editorial improvements. Someone first should instigate. » nafSadh did say 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can volunteer to improve it - restoring the featured version, and solving the issues raised since it earned that status, especially the issues raised in the FAR. But, I'll have to wait till the end of Christmas vacation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Huge list of Distances to Dhaka from places

Recently an IP user has contributed to this page with a huge list piled with distances to Dhaka from places. I did not find any reasonable justification behind this inclusion and has temporally commented out (with <!-- -->) that part from this article. But, I rather recommend removal of this content. » nafSadh did say 10:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do per WP:NOTDIR. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bangabandhu national stadium.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bangabandhu national stadium.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bangabandhu national stadium.jpeg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

ok fine mour all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.2 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

new additions

Can experienced editors please review the new additions to the introduction? I think we should stick to the version before these major changes were made --ArmanJ (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Language Movement

The picture of Dhaka University students in the history section was taken during the Bengali Language Movement, and the picture must specify that. Moreover, the people of Bangladesh believe in secular Bangladeshi nationalism, so stop promoting Bengali nationalism.--180.234.27.222 (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as is made clear on the Bengali nationalism page, that question concerns Bengal as one entity, not Bangladesh, and the many reversions about that point that have been made on this page are an edit war that could have been averted if some of the editors had done a little research. As with many other pages concerning Bangladesh, we have a problem here that some people are very energetically editing the pages who don't know enough to be able to achieve anything much except disruption. It may be time to consider a topic ban for certain editors, particularly those from Pakistan who are insensitive to issues that concern Bangladesh. These people may be acting in good faith, but statements along the lines of "Pakistan will prevail" are hurtful to people from Bangladesh because of the history that those editors appear to be ignorant about. This needs to stop soon, before we lose any more of the good editors who actually know something about the topic. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To be technically correct, constitutionally Bangladesh is built on Secular Bengali Nationalism. --» nafSadh did say 04:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sister Cities

I do not see any reference in the sister cities section. can anyone inform me how it was calculated? based on distance,culture?

--Nibir2011 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's negotiated. See List of twin towns and sister cities in Asia and Twin towns and sister cities, but I wasn't able to access the "searchable, interactive list is to be posted by Sister Cities International"; it seems to be broken. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Words to watch

There is the image, , captioned, “Panta Ilish – a delicious and amazing traditional platter of Panta bhat, with fried ilish slice....” No offense to Bangladeshi people, cuisine, culture etc., but I think the words “delicious” and “amazing” border on puffery. Also, they are highly subjective; I for instance, don't like onions, mushrooms, or (more relevantly) certain kinds of fish, but some people do. Should “delicious” and “amazing” be simply removed?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Image Over-load

I am afraid, it is true for many Bangladesh related articles, but over past few year a lot of articles are pampered with much too many imagery. Can someone care to review images in this article and reduce the bulk? I'd also try. --» nafSadh did say 04:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Images should be on Priority Basis

I understand this page has too many images but the active and experienced users should keep and remove them on priority basis. I mean, several distorted photos of the city roads and some usual buildings seems needless rather than the iconic sculptures, monuments or buildings those represents positive Dhaka should be included. I am amazed that not a single photo of sculptures or architectures that represents the Liberation War is absent and after my inclusion of a photo of Aparajeyo Bangla is removed mentioning "Its not needed here". A bit awkward is what I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan-Tanvir 07:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Only way a photo can be related to an article is that, the subject of the photo is discussed in the article. AFAIK, that do not simply mean whatever is mentioned textually in article shall also have a photo of it. It is true, that there is no liberation war related photos in Dhaka, while it could be; but we need to add some meat(text) before we add the sauce(photo). Anyway, a better iconic photo of Oparejeyo Bangla is already there in Dhaka University. Please try to find a way to incorporate liberation war into this article; I guess we need some of it somewhere. – nafSadh did say 08:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
So, at last someone has come to understand that Oporajeyo Bangla is not the icon of just a university! This article is no doubt of high standard but that doesn't necessarily imply it's perfect and has no chance of improvement. As I am new in this wiki arena, I just could not find the page related to this sculpture and uploaded a new image. I agree about meat thing and yes there should be no image without related text. I am not a pro but I just think this article should have at least one photo of any iconic sculpture related to the liberation war; it might be the light tower of Suhrawardy Udyan, Aparajeyo Bangla or the Martyred Intellectuals Memorial (of course with sufficient meat).~~Khan-Tanvir (talk)

Mild Edit war over article lead

In last couple of days, recently active Rainmaker23 had been pushing his edits to supersede contents that had been curated over time by many editors. Despite being objected by more than one editors, Rainmaker23 reverts edits to enforce his phrasing over others. It would have been worthy, if these dispute were over content rather than grammar and style. While his edits are subject to improvement, he would not tolerate improvements over it. Moreover remarks made on Edit summaries are often far from friendly. This is wasting valued time of editors, while such time can be rather spent on improving other aspect of this article and other articles. --– nafSadh did say 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a metropolis sounds very much like a town these days. And Dhaka is officially termed as a metropolitan city (with two branches of local government, nafsadh). Regarding other edits, I attempted to shorten the lead to make it more readable, before being reverted wholesale by you and kmzayeem without any explanation. I conceded to you on that, the lead does need a very good revision. But to keep bickering over metropolis vs metropolitan city is so unnecessary. We both have the best of interests here, so for god's sake let them prevail.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The use of Metropolis to mean what it mean is relatively new; it means (quote:) "a metropolitan area, a set of adjacent and interconnected cities clustered around a major urban center". – nafSadh did say 01:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Culture

I can't pay much time now, but I must say it.

  • The culture section has been turned into a list over pas couple of days, during the complete overhaul done by Rainmaker23 and 203.112.78.3. Please note that, this is a article, which means it shall be a prose and NOT a list.
  • Note that, the main article linked there is not about Dhaka but about overall Bangladesh. If editors feels like having a short section about culture in Dhaka article, than please create an article about Culture of Dhaka and put a summary here.
  • There are so many images put in culture section. Please take care to not turn Wikipedia into a gallery.

Happy editing. – nafSadh did say 01:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I just checked Frankfurt and it has a list. And why on earth should the culture section be about Bangladesh as a whole?! What are you saying? It's bad enough you people do not fix this article, it's unacceptable that you will block anyone who tries to improve it. I want to see this back to FA status, but that can't happen with your ridiculous pathetic stalking of my every turn.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And the list is certainly better than the horrid prose in place there before. How can you allow language like this, "a richest heritage with marked differences from neighbouring regions lesser developed civilisations", "whole swag of famous high culture festivals"..wtf? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Cool down man! I saw you are doing changes, and thus I added my two cents. If you always get furious when any other editor tells anything, then it is not a good thing. This article is still on FA, Bangladesh lost FA status - but Dhaka still has it. I am afraid it might not hold to it much longer.
Frankfurt is not even a good article, so that is not a good example here. I agree the prose there in Culture was not good enough. That does not mean we shall turn it into a list. It is good idea to turn the list you made into some short sweet paragraphs.
I did not say the section should be about overall Bangladesh; read carefully. In culture section the link is to See also: Culture of Bangladesh -- this means we are referring the reader to an article which is not about Dhaka; hence we have to (1) cover culture of Dhaka to a good extent in this section, or (2) create another article for Culture of Dhaka and put a summary on this (Dhaka) article.
Did I tell to revert to previous prose? No my dear Rainmaker23. But, we have to keep in mind, article shall be in prose. New articles have lists. Then, people add muscles to it, i.e. turns them into prose. So, what I am saying is, do not keep the section as a list and go elsewhere, rather gradually turn it into a prose.
I still think, it is a good idea to have a full article for Culture of Dhaka. – nafSadh did say 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is on the verge of losing the FA status. I would second Nafsadh that the culture section must be in prose. Lists are only put to begin a expansion of a stub. It has been already a week since Rainmaker23 replaced the prose with the current list but as no expansion has taken place so far, I would request to revert to the previous version. Rainmaker23 has made some fine contributions to several Bangladesh related article but such drastic changes without any discussion in a featured article is quite inconvenient. Concerns related to the language could be fixed with a copyedit. --Zayeem (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you restore it to an earlier good version? There were some good version in early 2013 or late 2012 I guess. – nafSadh did say 16:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Once you do restore an earlier and proper prose, then please incorporate the list of academies, museums, art galleries and heritage quarters into the paragraphs.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Rainmaker have made some study about these. Can you dump them either on Culture of Dhaka article or the page? – nafSadh did say 05:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted it (the culture section only) to an earlier version. Hope it's fine. --Zayeem (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
See this is why I refrain from any discussions. Your community is nothing but a bunch of the absolute useless.--203.112.78.3 (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is better than the list, but the prose has some really shitty wording. We need to improve it soon. I'm sure Rainmaker can help. – nafSadh did say 20:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

History revert

I restored an FA version of the history section today with several corrections and an expansion. User:Noq says there was a single source! But that is just not the case. There are several sources and I myself added these two- http://www.bbc.com/travel/feature/20110815-saving-dhakas-heritage and http://www.caravanmagazine.in/letters/dhaka-saving-old-dhaka’s-landmarks.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding further sources. If there is any issue, you can add a citation tag. It's still work in progress.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Which version did you revert to? An unspecific FA version does not enlighten anyone - the article is still flagged as FA without your reversion. Your edit did not explain why you made the change only that you had reverted to something. What was wrong with the version you changed that it needed such a drastic edit with no explanation? Please discuss per WP:BRD rather than just reverting again. noq (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Right its still an FA. The version I removed wasn't certainly deserving of a featured article. Neither was the older version perfect. Both had inaccuracies and non-notable info, ie the Kamarupa kingdom did not rule Dhaka nor was there an OIC summit, and Bangladesh is not the most populous Muslim country. There was little mention of the Mughal and early British periods. Nor was there much mention of the 1960s era, a crucial period in Dhaka's history, and central to how Bangladesh emerged. I've rewritten most of it.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, what version did you put it back to? Why that version? Missing content does not require a re-write of vast portions and the removal of others contributions. You have claimed that the artice as was did not merit FA status - you may be right - but you are not addressing my concerns about how you are going about it. noq (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I pulled a version from 2009 which had been broken into sections, the version which was there till yesterday, and which in my opinion, was of terrible quality. So I went back to the original prose from the early years and began my efforts at improving it.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So you arbitrarily chucked out 5 years of edits without getting any consensus for it? Thats not how wikipedia works. Instead of throwing all that work away because you don't like it, try identifying the actual problems and addressing them. Discussing here BEFORE making wholesale changes of that order would be a better way to proceed. noq (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia also preaches us to be be bold at times when needed. Try reading someone's edits and sources before reverting them on false charges.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia tells us to be BOLD, but consensus precedes. – nafSadh did say 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually you first have to be bold, and then get a consensus if anything is in dispute. Otherwise it just ruins the whole point of being bold.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
When someone's bold edits are contested by several editors, that means the bold edit is against consensus. – nafSadh did say 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Also it is a good idea to discuss on Talk before you do massive change. Because such changes scare the hell out of most editors, and often we can't verify such huge changes. This causes contention between new and long-standing editors. From last one years experience, you have noticed that, often your good edits got contested by long-standing editors for similar reasons. As you have enough experience by now, you should try to be more collaborative. And when you plan to rewrite a section or paragraph, if you talk enough, it will result in much much better write-ups. Best! – nafSadh did say 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dude I'm always open to discussing my edits, and have reviews and copy edits. If you have anything to contest, then please raise them, or better enough, go make the changes yourself. If only you guys were more active in monitoring important articles. In the last two days, someone already began changing the history section with irrelevant stuff. "British colonial capital of Calcutta" was changed to "Calcutta headquarters of British East India Company" (which is incorrect). Instead you're targeting me. Way to go for priorities.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure you are that open - you made a bold edit - fair enough, it was reverted and you were informed about {{WP:BRD]] - you then reverted and then discussed - rather than getting consensus first which is not fair enough. I still have not seen any discussion about why 5 years of edits should be discarded out of hand. noq (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like being addressed as dude by anyone :-( neither as bro by someone who is not by brother :( D-:
Yepp, I know I have a huge backlog in my watch-list. – nafSadh did say 02:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Noq My openness is just fine. You again prove yourself to be dishonest. I initiated this discussion before reverting, and I clearly asked you to express any issues. You made false charges to begin with, on which there was nothing to seek consensus. Where on earth did you get a suspended website? Why did you say there was a single source? Have you even read the different versions? Can you even raise a specific point of contention? Do you know anything about this topic?
Five years of essential information remains, albeit with a different prose, but considerably expanded with new information. I removed several inaccuracies and unsourced irrelevant content. Compare the three versions- before my edits 2009 and now. I have the right to be unilateral in pushing legitimate edits, you never raised anything concrete. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Nafsadh, stop stalking me. stick to your line of interest and expertise. atleast don't bother me when I'm trying to bring improvements to my area of interest.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Where am I dishonest? Where in WP:BRD does it say BRRD - its Bold, revert, discuss, not Bold, revert, say something and revert again before any consensus is agreed? The onus is on you to justify your bold change which I questioned - not me to justify questioning it. And why was it necessary to revert back 5 whole years before making any changes? The suspended website was the references to various pages at [1] which were the only references that I saw added in the first half of the edit - at that point it was not clear that you had actually reverted over 1500 edits and it seemed reasonable to me that it was an unconstructive edit. noq (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You informed me about WP:BRD five hours after I reverted you. I reverted you because I found your claims of a suspended website and single source invalid, since I myself added references to the websites of the BBC, Caravan magazine and The Daily Star. What is the difference between 2009 and 2015 prior to my edits? I see hardly any difference in content, save for the few irrelevant and inaccurate. Probably 90% of the last five years of changes (1500 edits you claim, not sure how) were devoted to pictures and sectioning. I added considerable new info on notable events. I'd still be willing to revert all my changes and get a consensus with those who have an informed sense of the topic.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Wjile I might not have explicitly pointed you to WP:BRD immediately, I did request that "Please do not put them back without gaining consensus for the changes on the articles talk page" you get consensus FIRST - not after reverting again. And there are still many dead links that have been restored by your drastic revert. I think you would be better improving the version from 2015 not an arbitrary 5 year old version. You have still not explained why that particular version was the best basis for your changes. A look at the history of the article easily shows the rough number of eits that have occured between Thea then current version and the version you reverted to. Apart from the Dhakacity.org refs I previously noted, there are also banglapedia.org refs that are dead. This is from just looking at the first page of the [2] from your 2009 version and the current version. noq (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed all these Dhaka City and Banglapedia references and replaced them with better sources. There is hardly any difference in content between 2009 and the earlier 2015 version. But around 2009/2010, the history section was more precise. It later degraded.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Try to be a bit more specific.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Dhaka

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mukti terrorists

Mukti Bahini was a terrorist organization who helped hindus during Bangladesh Liberation War. Muslims must join the discussion at talk pages of Mukti Bahini and Bangladesh Liberation War[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangali pigs (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://takbeeremusalsal.blogspot.de/2012/03/indian-mukti-bahani-terrorism-massacres.html


Recent changes

Ask anyone from Dhaka if the montage is correctly labelled. The pictures are different. The population rank has changed. I tried to make the lede more simple. Added the ISESO capital part as well, since many city articles in Wikipedia mentioned their year of cultural capital status in the lede. --202.191.123.125 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason to make the lede more simple and Dhaka is one of two featured article from Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Real estate and housing

The Real estate and housing section has no citation. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

I'm a bit confused about how Bangladesh is divided when dealing with a city corporation. The first subdivision is called a division, then you have districts, and then you have subdistricts. At which level do the city corporations exist? If I read Dhaka District page correctly, it would seem the city corporation is at the same administrative level as a subdistrict (upazilla). That is to say that the city corporations do no exist within any subdistrict, but are essentially subdistricts, themselves. Also, what is the square mileage of the two city corporations? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In May 2016, DNCC was expanded from 82.63 sq km to 114.58 square kilometres (44.24 sq mi), and DSCC was expanded from 45 sq km to 64.17 square kilometres (24.78 sq mi).[1][2]
It is correct that city corporations are not within upazilas (subdistricts). The graphic in Administrative geography of Bangladesh shows them at the same administrative level as upazilas, and in some contexts it may be useful to think of them that way, but I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The term upazila is comparatively new. They used to be called thanas. A city is still divided into thanas, and many documents (such as census reports) treat upazilas and thanas the same, the former simply being outside cities and the latter inside cities. In that sense a city corporation is a higher-level administrative grouping than upazila. Someone else may be able to provide a more definitive answer, with sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. It would seem, then, that city corporations are a parallel political/municipal division as opposed to being in the same system as administrative divisions. In this case, it would mean that the thanas subdivisions in the city corporations are on an equal administrative level to the upazilas subdivisions outside the city. That would mean that the city corporations would like be on a level halfway in between district (since they are still a part of the district in which they reside) and thana/upazila.
BTW, since we seem to be combining DNCC and DSCC when we're talking aboout the "city" of Dhaka, perhaps it'd be more accurate to use the number of 178.75 sq km in the infobox and correct the population density accordingly. I believe the current area I found was in the most recent census for the area, but I'm not exactly sure what the number covered. It seems now that it must have covered an area larger than Dhaka proper (the two city corporations).
I guess in closing it'd just be very helpful within the article that we stay consistent with the word "city" to mean the combined city corporation area, because there seems to be three different numbers given for the land area of Dhaka without differentiating what is being refered to. And, the same with the population. It should always be clarified that we're talking about the city proper and use the last official census numbers for this measurement. If there are other more recent measurements for the city proper or even the Greater Dhaka metropolitan area, they can be added, but not as the primary population numbers. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee; Mahbubur Rahman Khan (7 May 2016). "Govt to double size of Dhaka city area". The Daily Star.
  2. ^ "Dhaka City expands by more than double after inclusion of 16 union councils". bdnews24.com. 9 May 2016.

Faith-sensitive language

Hi there.

In the History section of the article, the verb "christened" is used to explain how Dhaka was named/renamed/labeled/titled "Jahangir Nagar" (City of Jahangir): 

>> Khan christened it as "Jahangir Nagar" (City of Jahangir) in honour of the Emperor Jahangir.

I would recommend that an alternative verb be used here to ensure that readers of non-christian faith be not offended. In the case of a predominantly Muslim population, the idea that their capital city has been 'christened' might not help bring peoples closer, the chief aim of a platform like Wikipedia.

Thanks for your great article.

Marie Well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlewell (talk • contribs) 05:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. It is often used in a non-religious context in Britain (and probably elsewhere), but it is inappropriate here. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2018

Disambiguate: cinema→film, capitol→[disambiguation needed], foreign investment→[disambiguation needed] MT TrainDiscuss 11:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. Cinema > film  Done
  2. Capitol - doesn't need a wikilink, it's a word, none of the targets on the dab page at capitol would suit anyway, so I've just unlinked it.  Done
  3. Foreign investment - piped redirect to foreign direct investment.  Done

Cheers, Fish+Karate 15:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

Please change "Mutiny of 1857" to "Indian Rebellion of 1857" Bucky2019 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--B dash (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

106.222.172.148 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Dhaka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Dhaka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhaka/Archive_1&oldid=1146357048"