Talk:Dhaka

message: Again, the information for the population and land areas in the infobox doesn't seem to correspond to the city (the two city corporations) of Dhaka, rather to a wider area.  Why is this proving so difficult to keep steady?  The two city corporations are fairly well defined areas with area and population figures given in various censuses.  Dhaka has obviously grown in population and area since the most recent census, but like any estimate or set of estimates, that's a passing fact which can be left somewhere in the article.  The infobox is most consistently left for things like official population and area figures.  Someone please clean this up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: According to a source from the Lloyd's, Dhaka's GDP is stated as $37 billion in PPP terms. But how reliable is this figure? Considering Bangladesh's total GDP (PPP) is close to $700 billion, I believe this figure of Dhaka's GDP is highly underestimated and thus unreliable. I have also checked the website of the Lloyd's and it looks like they don't even have an office in Bangladesh which makes their estimates for Dhaka's GDP even more questionable. In this view, I have reinstated a figure from PwC, which even though is from 2007, looks more reliable than Lloyd's.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.204.80.238 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP of Dhaka 

message: Per http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Special:ListGroupRights it is a mediawiki powered wiki whose users can edit pages. This is NOT a reliable source by any means. --Majora (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: A formal request at the reliable sources noticeboard has been made regarding this. --Majora (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very much a reliable source. Banglapedia is published as books and an online version. The website is built on mediawiki which does not mean it is user generated. Every single article is written by an expert or experts. We have had this discussion already in RFC and WikiProject Bangladesh. Try to see if you can edit Banglapedia or any other anonymous editor can edit it? Here is a link to a discussion on Banglapedia.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no decision at that previous RSN thread. No consensus on whether it is a reliable source. Using that shows that you don't really care and you'll use anything to try to push your point of view. And a RfC on WikiProject Bangladesh about this seems incredibly ill advised. Sounds like an echo chamber to me. The focused RSN discussion should actually decide whether or not this is a reliable source.. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) : Website en.banglapedia.org is the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh's web version of their ten volume print encyclopedia, Banglapedia. After trying other content management systems over the years, they've settled on MediaWiki. Unlike Wikipedia and many other wikis, however, their content is not user-generated (you may have noted that their wiki has one user, one administrator, and one bureaucrat - you and I can't join and edit). Banglapedia follows the old-fashioned encyclopedia model of the chief editor (Sirajul Islam) inviting a subject matter expert to write each article. Authors of important topics are often preeminent in their fields and have written multiple books on the subject - Anupam Hayat for many cinema topics and Harun-or-Rashid for politics come to mind. See http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Editors. The bottom line is that Banglapedia is a highly reliable source, though it suffers somewhat from being updated infrequently, and is a tertiary source rather than a secondary one. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully capable of admitting if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize. I'm just not fully convinced of that fact. Yet. The lack of any sources on the majority of article is concerning. Britannica tends to include references to other sources in their articles. I would expect other tertiary sources to have references to secondary sources. Banglapedia doesn't appear to do that. Which, again, is concerning. I will say as much at RSN where this should probably continue as to not split the discussion. --Majora (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banglapedia 

message: Yanbugay (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Density 46,997/km2 (121,720/sq mi)  

message: The jump from location in Bangladesh to location in Asia is to large a jump perhaps. Is there an intermediate regional map available? —¿philoserf? (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The intermediate region would be South Asia but I'm not sure if we should include all these maps in infobox. May be Dhaka, Dhaka Division and Bangladesh are enough. --Zayeem  (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

text: EDIT: After looking at other city articles, maps of Asia and Earth seem reasonable to include. --Zayeem  (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps in infobox  

message: This 2006 WP:FA promotion was last reviewed in 2009 and has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standard.  Unless these issues can be addressed, the article should be submitted for a Featured article review:
* MOS:SANDWICHing and poor image layout is extreme.
* MOS:CAPTIONS no punctuation on sentence fragments.
* WP:OVERLINKing everywhere, sample automobil.
* Considerable to extreme amounts of uncited text.
* Dated text or text with no date context, eg, Dhaka hosts 54 resident embassies and high commissions and numerous international organizations. 
* Extremely dated Economy sections, some citations to the year 2000.
* MOS:DTAB
* Unreliable sources flagged by Headbomb's script.
It does not appear that the article has been maintained since its 2009 FAR; a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed to maintain FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Dhaka's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "rayB":
From Bengalis: 
From Industrial Revolution: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Dhaka]] 

message: May I remove some of the images in the article to clean up the poor image layout? Fascinating Fastasy (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied image layout style from the Tokyo article. Also, copied some text from the History of Dhaka article. Hope it's not wrong to copy other article? I also made a image smalller, hope you don't mind. Fascinating Fastasy (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion regarding images 

message: In the montage, the picture of Baitul Mukarram is outdated. The facade shown in the montage looks like this now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baitul_mukarram_front.jpg
The old facade was in front of a garden. The garden was replaced by a major expansion to the mosque which was completed in 2010.
Strangely, Wikipedia does not reflect these changes. Even the page of the mosque itself contains the same outdated image. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baitul Mukarram image  

message: is edit warring and imposing his montage for the city. He claims its an "authentic" view of the city. His montage is not an improvement. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Solomon The Magnifico  is edit warring and imposing his montage for the city as well. He tries to nitpick for nothing and demands irradiational edits. His montage shows only skylines and not the heritage of Dhaka city. His montage has image gaps between them which is making the motage look unprofessional. Imamul H. Ifaz (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good reasons to believe you are a sockpuppet of . You are involved in vandalizing Bangladesh-related articles. This edit was totally unsourced and fabricated. Dhaka is a densely populated city and the montage reflects that. Your montage only includes places in Dhaka South City Corporation, which are extensively covered in the article with pictures. You are completely leaving out Dhaka North City Corporation.  This is not the 1980s. The city's business centers have moved towards the north like in areas of Gulshan and Uttara, while areas in the south like Motijheel are also important. You are imposing only a view of South Dhaka. An accurate and authentic view should show both North Dhaka and South Dhaka.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New montage  

message: @Azadmun and @Imamul H. Ifaz should be blocked from editing this page. They keep changing images and content out of the blue. Imamul H. Ifaz is likely a troll of the Jamaat-e-Islami. Azadmun could also be a pro-Jamaat troll and sockpuppet of Imamul. They are repeatedly destabilizing this article. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hideous claims without any fact based evidence. Most pictures used in the article are old photos with poor image quality. There are better pictures of Gulshan or Dhaka's modern architecture and skyline. Don't think replacing them with better quality images is destabilising the article. Also, there are no pictures of important historical structures such as the jatiyo smriti soudho or the magnificent museums we have. If uploading those pictures makes @Solomon The Magnifico assume I am probably a pro jamaat troll, says a lot about this person. Surely the Jatiyo Smriti Soudho and National Museum Dhaka are pieces of architecture we should be immensely proud of instead of ABC tower. Extremely old pictures of Khan Mohammad Mridha Mosque and other structures are in this article too. National monuments are left out in favour of structures that give no meaning to Dhaka's history or status. Uploaded pictures of the recently inaugurated metro rail and thats been taken down too. Seems like this person just wants to paint Dhaka as a city that is backwards and highlights certain old parts of the city more so than others and is selective when it comes to what he wants the world to see when it comes to this magnificent city of history and culture. Azadmun (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stability of this article  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I mean there’s some information that are wrong about Dhaka 2A02:6B65:2154:0:3C89:7D2F:BED2:66C1 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Liu1126 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023 

message: I noticed that this article says hardly anything about the issues with slums and poverty in Dhaka, including lack of water supply and sanitation in those slum areas, problems with flooding and alike. Unless someone objects, I plan to add some content about these topics from this paper: Costs and benefits of improving water and sanitation in slums and non-slum neighborhoods in Dhaka, a fast-growing mega-city. The article is already at 60 kB so I don't want to add any bloat to it (is there some content that could be condensed?). But I think some of these problem areas of Dhaka ought to be addressed. EMsmile (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed there is also not a single photo in the article showing a slum area in Dhaka. This is odd, given that about 30% of Dhaka's population is reported to live in slums (as of 2016, see in this publication). So I think it would be fair to add a couple of such photos at least. They should be easy to find in Wikimedia Commons. EMsmile (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  In general, I see here lots of fancy buildings from the CBD but not many images on how the average person lives in Dhaka, let alone urban poverty images. Is that on purpose? I find it a bit misleading. I think a better mixture would be good. EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content regarding poverty, slums, water infrastructure 

message: I wonder if the article needs to be condensed a bit (see also my comment above). I noticed that in the featured article review in 2021, User:RetiredDuke pointed out "The Culture section is full of unsourced trivia". This could be a starting point? EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential for condensing

message: I've created an infrastructure section and move the "transport" section into that. Also started a section on "water supply and sanitation". Looking at other city articles, I see that some have transport as a main level heading and some have it under infrastructure. I think it's better for the Dhaka article to have it in "infrastructure" and also list other types of infrastructure. Compare e.g. with Nairobi, Brisbane. Paris. EMsmile (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on infrastructure 

message: The redirect DhK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:DhK]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Dhk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Dhk]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect DHk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:DHk]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]