User talk:Worldbruce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Worldbruce! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sminthopsis84 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

I see that you haven't done a lot of editing over the years, so a warm welcome seems appropriate at last. It's very gratifying to see you working on the Bangladesh upazila articles, which could use all the help they can get! I look forward to seeing you around. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

SM Sultan[edit]

It was done automatically by the software, rather than being a change that I intentionally applied. Looking over what happened, though, I believe the problem was that you were using the <ref name=german><!-- Gloss by itself --></ref> format in the article body. That doesn't work as intended, unfortunately — a gloss can't be split off from the reference content in that manner so that it's standing alone as the only content nested inside a particular invocation of the ref tags, but rather has to be directly next to the actual content of the reference it's glossing.

So in this particular case, if the gloss is necessary for one particular invocation of the reference but not applicable to others, it might be necessary to create a separate ref=german2 citation for the content that needs to be specifically glossed as "supports solo", citing the specific page number in the source that "supports solo" instead of the entire page range of ref=german, so that the gloss can be left in the references list alongside the content of that particular citation.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Up for a challenge? Yes![edit]

Hi Worldbruce,

Yes, I'd be interested in improving the article about the luthier Brian Lisus. I do need help getting hold of the sources. I've already searched and there isn't much. Please send me what you have. I'm not sure how to use sources that you have to subscribe to read. I avoided them when I wrote the Schenkman article.

My husband used to work for a violin maker and I'll ask him if he has any ideas for this project.

RoseSong — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSong (talkcontribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugwah, Bangladesh[edit]

This is an old post office location, found in P.D. Allen's list, at Countries/IndiaandStates.htm

Rajshahi division may have been superceded; on maps it appears to be almost due east of Rangpur. Latitude in decimal degrees : 25.716667 Longitude in decimal degrees : 89.716667

"The information regarding Bugwah in Bangladesh on this page is published from the data supplied by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a member of the Intelligence community of the United States of America, and a Department of Defense (DoD) Combat Support Agency."

They then print this disclaimer: "No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Bugwah information contained here."Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fconaway: Thanks! With that additional information I found that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency records "Bugwah" as a variant of "Bagua, Anantapur", which is a village in Hatia Union, Ulipur Upazila, Kurigram District, Rangpur Division, Bangladesh, very close to the coordinates in the article. Anantapur appears on the upazila maps, and appears on Google maps as Onantapur.
Bagua, Anantapur is quite small, so I'm not sure that it is the same as the early Indian post office using killer cancel 158. There are at least five other Baguas in what is now Bangladesh, some of which seem more likely candidates for a match. Our local philatelic library has a copy of Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations, so I'll check that as soon as I get a chance. Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Good progress! Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations may not have what you are looking for. The latest word on this is Denis R. Martin, Numbers in Early Indian Cancellations, 1855-1884. I would look it up, but my copy is in storage. I hope your library has it. Remember, it must be specifically the B/158 in the Bengal Octagon, or "Bengal spiderweb": that is Renouf's Type [7], which would also be Cooper's Type 7. Renouf, the pioneer, listed this as Bugwah.Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a scan of a letter cancelled B/158, dated 29 September 1869. It was back-stamped "Traveling P. O. Bengal"; it may have been carried by a river steamer. This appeared in a Feldman auction lot in Sept 2013.Fconaway (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fconaway: Intriguing. I don't actually see a scan ... am I missing a link?

SICPA submission[edit]

Hi Worldbruce. First let me thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my SICPA article. I am very aware of the conflict of interest issues and extremely keen not to fall foul of the rules. I'd just like to ask two favours from you.

The first is just a bit of clarification. You say that links to organisations that SICPA has a relationship with are not so good but I thought that close connections with organisations like the World Bank and Interpol - given the industry that SICPA is in - would be relevant. The problem is finding independnet references that aren't directly from those organisation's websites. Is it still best to simply remove this?

Secondly, would you be happy to review my next draft? And, if so, what is the best process to go about this?

Again, many thanks for your help. IainIainplunkett (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iainplunkett: Wikipedia doesn't prohibit the use of non-independent sources like the press releases from the World Bank and Interpol, but the bulk of any article has to come from independent sources. To get the draft into article space it must clear the hurdles of notability and neutrality. Press releases don't help because they can't prove notability and don't present an unbiased view. In practice, they can hurt; one reference a reviewer doesn't like can sour their view and result in a declined submission. I would keep such sources only if they support unique information vital to an understanding of the range of the company's operations.
The best references are books or journal articles written by academics and published by academic presses, for example [1]. Next best are journalistic sources from reputable newspapers or magazines, such as [2]. The latter is not an in-depth source, but contains some choice nuggets, like "The ink for more than 80 percent of the world's currency, including the dollar, comes from Sicpa S.A."
Take your time improving the draft. When it's as good as you can make it, resubmit it using the blue button in the big pink box on the draft. Odds are another volunteer will review it. They may give you different feedback, which can be frustrating, but they may have different strengths than I do. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

About editing International Turkish Hope School[edit]

Hi, I work in International Turkish Hope School as IT Manager. My management was disturbed with the information you posted on our school's page about one of alumni. We do not find logical and appropriate sharing an information about one of our ex-students' mistake on our page.In this sense, I have deleted the links you posted and started to arrange our page to be fully protected as per my management's request.Please be advised that International Turkish Hope School is one of the remarkable schools in Bangladesh which is known by its International Success in exams and project Olympiads. We do not like our school's name to be tarnished with such unfortunate actions done by a person left the school many years ago. REgards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatihmolla (talkcontribs) 06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Daisygrinders Page[edit]

Hi Worldbruce. I hope I am in the right forum to ask you a brief question. You reviewed my article on The Daisygrinders and advised that it did not meet the terms of notoriety. I amended that article and included web and text references as per the Wikipedia guidelines for citing notoriety. I thought that i had resubmitted the article for further consideration, but I am yet to receive any advice about whether it now meets the stringent requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Could you possibly spare me a moment to let me know whether I can resubmit my article based on the new information I have provided? Will it meet the criteria or is there something else I am missing to publish my article. Many thanks. Drew Drewzab (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drewzab: I won't review Draft:The Daisygrinders now for a couple reasons. First, there's a six-week backlog of drafts awaiting review at Articles for Creation, and asking at a reviewer's talk page isn't a shortcut around that. The only way to know for sure whether your revisions are sufficient is to resubmit it using the blue button in the big pink box at the top of it, and wait for a reviewer to get to it. Second, when I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths.
At a glance, I can see that the draft doesn't cite sources that are obviously reliable. Obviously reliable sources would be things like a book from Oxford University Press, or features in The New York Times and Rolling Stone. There are also some red flags. Discogs is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source. Blogs are usually self-published, so are not reliable sources. YouTube is often problematic either because the material does not constitute a reliable source or because it's a copyright violation of a reliable source.
Reviewers also will be vexed by the draft's formatting problems. They aren't supposed to turn a draft down for that reason alone, but why risk it? Dalton and one other reference are more-or-less correctly formatted within ref tags. One,, is a bare URL in the text. Eight more are partly formatted, and within ref tags, but instead of being placed immediately after the text they support, they're all down at the bottom of the editor. There are also bare Wikipedia URLs scattered throughout the text that need to be turned into internal links. The formatting of sections and of the discography list are incorrect.
What to do? I've left a belated welcome note on your talk page that contains many links you'll find useful if you want to edit Wikipedia. Some highly relevant to this specific draft are:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it isn't necessarily easy. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: Many thanks for the advice. Obviously I have a bit more homework to do. I will review your suggestions and then resubmit. Thanks again.

Drewzab (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi Worldbruce,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dead link on the VidAmerica page[edit]

Hi. This link on VidAmerica is dead for some reason. Can you re-upload it please? (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't re-upload it, because I no longer have access to It may, as the error message says, be a temporary condition. If not, you could get an account with them so that you could clip the article yourself. Or you could do nothing. It's only a convenience link to a resource that is also available on paper. It doesn't matter if the link is dead, there's no requirement that the source be available online. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
So, can you re-upload it on pr something? (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
No. As I said, I don't have access to Even if I did, uploading material copied from it would be a violation of copyright and of their terms of service. If you want access to, get your own access. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:26:36, 11 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rishi193[edit]

1. 'Devi' is a 'Tatsama' word derived from Sanskrit and later taken up in Bengali language. Proper pronunciation is Devi instead of Debi. I find this name correct as there are other pages in Wikipedia meaning the same.

2. I don't understand how the genre can be sourced if not declared by the author himself. The word 'psychological' is my guess, but how can I supply source? I find many other Wikipedia pages describing same without source.

3. 'traces in Ali's next novel' means 'Nisithini' is the second part of 'Devi', although not officially declared by the author. Rishi193 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Rishi193 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) It may be surprising, but Wikipedia doesn't consider a word's origin or pronunciation when choosing an article title. Instead, policy is to use the name that is most commonly used, "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Debi is used most commonly for the novel.
The fact that Wikipedia transliterates the Bengali word দেবী as Devi (1960 film) carries some weight, but note that it is Debi within Humayun Ahmed. I think the consensus of experienced editors would be that the article should be titled Debi (novel), with a redirect from the less common alternative spelling Devi (novel), so that whichever name readers search by, they end up at the article.
(2) Identifying reliable sources is the guideline to follow. In the case of genre, if a scholarly source is not available (for example a book from a university press or article in an academic journal, by a professor of literature), then the next best source would be an article in a reputable newspaper or magazine, written by someone with some credibility on the matter, such as the paper's book critic, theater critic, movie critic, or perhaps a respected author of fiction. Citing one source is sufficient so long as it is representative of the rest. The key is to show that the information comes from a reliable source, and is not just a wikipedian's opinion.
(3) "Considered the second part of" is much clearer than "has its traces in". The word "traces" is vague, it could mean the author explores the same themes, or sets the story in the same locale, or uses a similar meter in his dialog, or just about anything. Traces of Debi are presumably found in every other Misir Ali novel, if only because they contain a character by the same name.
"Considered the second part of" raises some questions, though. Does that mean Debi is incomplete, that it doesn't stand on its own without part two? If you mean that each is a work complete in itself, but that Nishithini continues the narrative of Debi, then use the word "sequel". More important is the question "considered by whom?" If it's obvious to anyone reading both - because they contain the same characters, the second picks up the action where the first left off, the second refers back to events that happened in the first, etc. - then drop the qualification "considered" and perhaps state what it is that makes it obvious that it is a sequel. Otherwise cite a reliable source.
Stepping back a bit, think about whether Nishithini should be mentioned in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important facts about the topic, points discussed at greater length in the body of the article. The fact that Debi is the debut novel of the character Misir Ali is important because he's one of the two characters that Humayun Ahmed is best known for, but is Nishithini that important to Debi? It isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Contrast the draft with The Mysterious Affair at Styles (not the best example, as that article is of only middling quality, but it's the first one that came to mind - browse through featured articles for better examples). It's lead mentions that it introduced the character Hercule Poirot, but it makes no mention of the second Poirot book, The Murder on the Links. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for more explanation. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello, again. Thought I'd continue this on your page. After further research, I was able to find some maps showing the defined municipal limits of the north and south Dhaka city corporations:

Map 1

Map 2

These probably don't include the recent incorporation of more land and suburbs into the city corporations, but they at least show the thanas and upazilas. I guess my final question is how the Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area (seen in the second map) is defined? Are the building blocks for this upazilas/thanas or something else? If it's upazilas/thans, exactly which ones outside the city corporation are included in this statistical metropolitan area? It seems that the Greater Dhaka page includes this Dhaka Metropolitan Area and then many, many other upazilas/thanas and municipal corporations. I know see that the term "Dhaka City" actually refers to the "Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area" as opposed to the incorporated city, which is how we'd define "city" here in the United States. I'd like us to nail down the area and most recent census population numbers for: Dhaka City Corporation (north and south) and Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area, and then on the city's page to be clear throughout the article what we're talking about when we mention "Dhaka" or "city." I might even look into "Greater Dhaka," but that doesn't seem to be an officially defined area, and we'd have to figure out which upazilas (and which parts when the it's only part of them) are included. For that, we'd have to delve down into a level even below upazilas, which I guess are union parishads.

Thanks! --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A noble quest, Criticalthinker. I have more than a gigabyte of 2011 census data from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Give me a few days to poke through their reports and see what answers I can come up with. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I have one additional question that I thought you might have the answer to. In the city and municipal corporations, are wards a subdivision of the upazilas/thanas whithin those corporations, or of the city corporations, themselves? I guess what I'm wondering is if, as optional divisions, if wards cross upazila/thana borders in cities, or if they are fully contained within their upazilas/thanas? This is just a personal curiosity, not much relating to my interest in redoing the civic administration on Dhaka's page, as I imagine it'd be hard enough to find a total list of thana/upazilas in Dhaka, let alone exactly how many wards it has. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Wards follow city/municipal corporation boundaries, but don't always align with thana boundaries. I'm not aware of any that cross three thana borders, but plenty include portions of two thanas. In contrast, union parishads, the administrative unit below upazilas, are always wholly contained within their upazila. Dhaka's councillors are elected by ward, so when there are municipal elections someone knows exactly how many wards there are, what their boundaries are, what their populations are, who ran for election, and who won. They don't necessarily share the details though, or keep any information that is publicly accessible up to date. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what I figured and wanted to be sure of, and it's pretty similar to most other countries. Wards are an electoral division of cities/municipalities as opposed to being in the system of administrative divisions. Since I got that out of the way, this gives me another question: When cities or municipalities want to expand into surrounding areas and they don't annex entire upazilas/thanas, are they required to annex entire union parishads/municipalities/cities (administrative divisions) or can they simply annex specific wards (electoral divisons) of those union parishads/municipalities/cities. To put it more simply, do you know of any cities/municipalities which have jurisdiction over only parts of territory adjacent union parishads or other cities/municipalities? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Criticalthinker: I've never before had occasion to dig into these questions in depth. What I found upends some of my assumptions. Read on. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

2011 Census[edit]

The key source for Dhaka census data is: "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.  It gives the following historical background:

The Dhaka Municipality was established in 1864 ... The municipal committee was reconstituted as paurashava in 1972 ... In 1983 it was replaced as Dhaka Municipal Corporation and finally in 1991 it got the status of a city corporation.[1]

When the report refers to the city (usually as Dhaka City, but also Dhaka Metropotitan [sic] City or Dhaka Metropolitan Area) it means an area larger than that covered by Dhaka City Corporation (DCC). A third entity, Dhaka Mega City, larger than Dhaka City, is mentioned briefly.

Dhaka City[edit]

The report describes the city as follows:

[The city] consists of 42 thanas including Dhaka City Corporation with 92 wards, 2 restricted areas, and 837 mahallas and its adjoining 17 unions as other urban area. The thanas are Adabar, Badda, Bangshal, Bimanbandar, Cantonment, Chakbazar, Darusalam, Demra, Dakshin Khan, Dhanmondi, Gendaria, Ghulshan, Hazaribagh, Jatrabari, Kadamtali, Kafrul, Kalabagan, Kamrangir Char, Khilgaon, Khilkhet, Kotwali, Lalbagh, Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Motijheel, Newmarket, Palton, Pallabi, Ramna, Rampura, Sabujbagh, Shah Ali, Shahbagh, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Shyampur, Sutrapur, Tejgaon, Tejgaon Industrial area, Tongi, Uttara, Uttar Khan and Wari.[1]

Their phrasing is difficult to parse without studying their tables, and I hope you can come up with a clearer explanation. Breaking it down, Dhaka City consists of the 42 listed thanas. Another way to put it is that Dhaka City consists of DCC plus 2 restricted areas and 17 union parishads. Those 17 unions are parts of 12 of the thanas, specifically the portions of those thanas that extend outside DCC. (Four of those unions are split among thanas, something I didn't know could happen).

Badda Beraid Bhatara Dakshingaon Dakshinkhan Demra Dhania Dumni Harirampur Manda Matuail Nasirabad Saralia Satarkul Shyampur Sultanganj Uttar Khan
Thana Badda
Biman Bandar part
Dakshinkhan part
Demra part
Jatrabari part part
Kadamtali part part
Khilgaon part
Khilkhet part
Sabujbag part

The city is divided into 92 wards, but one doesn't need to know that to understand the census area and population. The number of mahallas is also a red herring.

According to the 2011 Bangladesh census, Dhaka City had an area of 315.98 sq km, and a population of 8,906,039.[2] According to the 2001 census, it had an area of 1371 sq km, and a population of 9,672,763.[3] There is a discussion, that I will leave to you to read, of how the census bureau abandoned the concept of Statistical Metropolitan Areas (SMAs) after the 2001 census and how that makes comparisons between the censuses difficult.[4]


Historical population
Year Pop. (000) ±%
1981 2,476 —    
1991 3,613 +45.9%
2001 5,327 +47.4%
2011 6,970 +30.8%
2011 population excludes the restricted areas of Biman Bandar and Cantonment
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics[5]

According to the 2011 Bangladesh census, DCC had an area of 126.34 sq km, and a population of 6,970,105.[2] The 2011 census excluded from DCC the two restricted areas, Biman Bandar and Cantonment, which previously had been included in the DCC line item. I believe this accounts for the decrease in the area of DCC from 153.84 sq km in 2001. The exclusion of the restricted areas also decreased population somewhat, but that was more than offset by population growth.

Dhaka Mega City[edit]

The report doesn't say much about Dhaka Mega City, but it is evident that they define it as Dhaka City plus five paruashavas (municipal corporations), and six upazilas. The paruashavas are: Gazipur, Tongi, Savar, Narayanganj, and Kadam Rasul. The upazilas are: Keraniganj, Bandar, Narayanganj Sadar, Gazipur Sadar, and Savar Upazila. According to the 2011 Bangladesh census, Dhaka Mega City had a population of 14,171,567.[6]

Subsequent events[edit]

After the 2011 census, DCC was split into DNCC and DSCC.

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).[7][8]

Basic arithmetic is not original research, so we should be able to compute the population, as of 2011, of the area now within the bounds of DNCC and DSCC. This post is getting long, so I'll leave that for another day. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 55. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  2. ^ a b "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 58. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  3. ^ "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 24. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  4. ^ "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 9. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  5. ^ "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 102. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  6. ^ "Population & Housing Census 2011: National Report Volume-3: Urban Area Report" (PDF). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. p. 11. Retrieved 3 March 2017. 
  7. ^ Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee; Mahbubur Rahman Khan (7 May 2016). "Govt to double size of Dhaka city area". The Daily Star. 
  8. ^ "Dhaka City expands by more than double after inclusion of 16 union councils". 9 May 2016. 

Thanks. This is a lot to take in but it answer basically all of my questions. To sum everything up:

- Like in most places I've studied, municipal and administrative divisions are two different layers. As an example, we've learned that city/municipal/union councils can exist in multiple thanas/upazilas. These municipalities are overlaid atop the administrative divisions.

- Apparently, when Dhaka's two city corporations annex land from surrounding municipalities, they annex entire council areas and not just parts of the council areas.

- Dhaka City Corporation (now split between DNCC and DSCC) is what we'd call a "city proper" and this is what the page should be centered around as it relates to the population and area listed in the infobox and throughout. So, at the most recent census (2011) we had a city proper with a population of 6,970,105 at 127.63 sq km in size. While we won't have an official population until the next census (though, there are certainly estimates), what we do know is that the city proper with the addition of 16 union councils has now added an additional 178.75 sq km to the existing 127.63 square miles for a total area of 306.38 sq km.

- Dhaka "City" is a statistical area/definition that adds in close-by suburbs. To better differentiate it from the city proper, I'd most likely almost always refer to it by it's official name to avoid confusion: Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area. What I'm far less clear of is the whole 42 thanas thing, so it'd need to be specified which of these thanas are totally within the two city corporations, which whole thanas exist outside of the two city corporations, and then finally which parts (union councils) of the remaining thanas are included. I'm not sure if the 42 number is just the thanas in the city corporations or if the 42 number is whole thanas and parts of others.

Anyway, thanks, again. If you ever need me for any advice if you ever try to clarify the page, always feel free to ask. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about this the more I want a list so we know which complete thanas/upazilas and which parts of others (the unions) make up the two municipal corporations. I want to be able to clearly define this. Also, do you happen to know the translation of the texts on this map in the map's key? Because that might help with this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your faith merits you an indulgence.[edit]

Thank you for supporting my candidacy to run NPP. I found your support for me against of field of well-qualified Wikipedians meaningful. Although I did not win the consensus of the aggregate I hope you find that your faith in me was not misplaced. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much for your help at Resource Request--you and all your colleagues. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Thank you very much sir.I will follow your instructions Rafinbinmomin (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions requested[edit]

Hi Sir (Worldbruce) Thank you for the suggestions on the page I was creating. Please, when you find time can you give me more suggestions on my page Dr Suresh David. I am trying to learn. Sorry for the trouble. Thank You Regards Yourgirl (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Maritz, LLC article[edit]

Hello! On behalf of Maritz, LLC, I am trying to update the company's article. I have added an edit request here and posted requests for help at WikiProject Companies, the Articles for Creation help desk, WikiProject United States, and the talk pages of a few individual editors, but so far no one has responded to the edit request to add a corporate overview section and information about Maritz's current and former subsidiaries.

I've proposed text for the article here. I realize this request is a proposed article expansion, and not an Articles for Creation submission, but this major addition to the article is similar to an Articles for Creation review, so I am reaching out to a few Articles for Creation participants, such as yourself, to see if someone can review the proposed addition for accuracy and neutrality. Is this something you'd willing to help with? If you are not interested, that's alright, I am just not sure where else to ask for help for the edit request I submitted over a month ago. Thanks for considering. MadisonfromStanding (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestions sir[edit]

Thank you once again for the help sir, waiting for your suggestions sir on the page I am creating. Yourgirl (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

heads-up: I mentioned you[edit]

I mentioned you hereLingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New deletion/redirect discussion of Washiqur Rahman created[edit]

New discussion of Washiqur Rahman created. I had to revert your edit so i could add the afd template, you can add to the discussion. Please don't redirect until discussion is over.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of page[edit]

Dear sr. wikipedian, I have improved the page of Chand Mia with due references. He was awarded as Bir Protik for the contribution of Bangladesh freedom struggle. The link also connected with the page of Bir Protik in Wikipedia. It is my earnest request to reconsider the deletion proposal. thank you. Pinakpani (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pinakpani: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. The specific criteria for soldiers says they are notable if they were awarded their nation's highest award for valour (such as the Bir Sreshtho) or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Bir Uttom) multiple times. Being awarded the Bir Protik is not enough to make someone notable, although such a person may be notable for another reason, such as becoming a highly respected academic or going into national politics after their military service.
Chand Mia should be remembered for his brave service, but not in Wikipedia, which is not a memorial site. If you wish to write about him, I suggest you do so at an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria, such as FamilySearch or WikiTree.
A final note on sources: The Daffodil International University forums are not a reliable source because they are user-generated. Liberation War ( is self-published, so it is not a reliable source either. Neither should be used as a reference on Wikipedia. Amardesh Online and Prothom Alo are good sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, We are continiously trying to supply good references for the article. thank you. Pinakpani (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Blanking sourced content in Directorate General of Forces Intelligence article[edit]

A few weeks ago another anonymous editor blanked out part of the section titled 'Controversies' regarding a Bangladeshi who had worked for RAW saying that the section included incorrect information. I reverted the change explaining appropriate policy. The section was again removed. Not wanting to get into an edit war, I backed off and asked for help. I must have put my request in the wrong place because I did not get any responses. Should I be bold and re-enter the fray by reverting the blanking? I found multiple sources for this incident including the newspaper article that was used originally. Thank you for your thoughts on this.Bobdog54 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bobdog54: I noticed the repeated blanking of the Malik section, and the weak justification given. I didn't do anything about it for several reasons. The section was originally inserted by a sockpuppet, the cited source does't say Malik was a DGFI agent so there's no clear reason for covering it in the DGFI article, and the whole story seemed a bit sensationalistic and speculative. In contrast, the section I restored is supported by an article by David Bergman (journalist), who one might term the Seymour Hersh of reporting on Bangladesh.
If the other sources you've found make the Malik story more coherent, credible, and most importantly, relevant to the DGFI article, then you would be within bounds to restore the Malik section. Add citations to the other sources, put a note on the talk page justifying the inclusion of the content, and link to that in your edit summary to demonstrate that you tried to initiate a discussion with ShahadatBD. Whatever you decide, it's nice to have another person copy editing, source checking, and watching Bangladesh-related articles! --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy reply. I will do some research and see what I find. I will admit to taking the news articles at face value, not being in a position to be able to see other interpretations.

It is my pleasure to edit articles from Southeast Asia. I enjoy it and I feel strongly about making sure that the articles are as "clean and tidy" as possible. Bobdog54 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)