Talk:Upazila

message: Dear Wikipedians, I just created a new page called Upazilas of Bangladesh. I have a plan to create all Upazila articles. Please suggest me or advice. I have done all Upazila articles for Bishnupriya Manipuri at: Upazila. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usingha~enwiki (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: We may use a bot (like Bishnupriya Manipuri wiki) or do one by one to create upazila articles.
Thanks
Regards
Usingha 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: If you want to link with any Upazila article, please use "Upazila" word after the name of the upazila. Some upazila has duplicate name in diffrent district, so use the district name after the Upazila with a coma. Example: Nawabganj Upazila and Nawabganj Upazila, Dinajpur. Usingha 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to an Upazila article 

message: How accurate is the Banglapedia entry on Tangail? There are plenty of other third-party sources which appear to confirm that Dhanbari is an Upazila (, ,  and many more if you do a Google Search). This appears to question the reliability of Banglapedia as a reliable source. → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You right. Banglapedia has lots of mistake, for example Bishnupriya Manipuri is a ethnic society, culture and a language in Bangladesh, but Banglapedia completely erased this ethnic from Bangladesh, even Bishnupriya Manipuri people requested Banglapedia so many times. I am a Bishnupriya Manipuri from Bangladesh, and I do not know what to do?Usingha 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhanbari Upazila, Tangail 

message: This article should be moved to "Subdistricts of Bangladesh". This will keep in following the same conventions for the other administrative divisions. The article for the zilas is under "Districts of Bangladesh", not "Zilas of Bangladesh". ? Rarelibra 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest putting the proposal in the project discussion page for a wider audience. I don't see a problem with the move. → AA (talk • contribs) — 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it again, it would be a bigger task since all the individual Upazila articles would have to be renamed also. Furthermore, "District" is used in normal conversation in preference to "Zila" (in my experience) so it makes sense to use District. But "sub-district" is not a term that is used generally, "Upazila" (or before that "thana") is used. But it would need wider acceptance from the project participants in order to make the change. → AA (talk • contribs) — 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Should the name be capitalised and or in italics? It is in italics in one place in the article. If upazila is part of the English language then it does not need to be in italics. There is a case for arguing that upazila is part of the (Bangladeshi or international) English language. But I see no reason why upazila or thana should be capitalized, except when part of a proper name such as Akkelpur Upazila.--Timtak (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is international style not to capitalize words unless in proper name, and upazila seems to have been adopted as part of the English language. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalised or italicised?

message: Check out the . I think your map gives a better demarcation of the upazilas. Would be worth liasing with Usingha to see if this one can be converted for use with the infobox. → AA (talk • contribs) — 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a website with the nice map breakdowns by District and upazila. Will take a few days to update a few minor changes. I will see about creating locator maps with the actual upazila shape as opposed to the point-locator. I'll see what Usingha thinks. :) Rarelibra 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is possible then it will be a brilliant "enhancement"! Look forward to it. → AA (talk • contribs) — 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Map

message: This page is too long to scroll. Can we rearrange it in a way to present all info in smaller space? I suggest a table like below:
District  	Upazilas in District                                                    	Division
District 1	Upazilla 1.1, Upazilla 1.2, Upazilla 1.3, Upazilla 1.4,...              	Division X
District 2	Upazilla 2.1, Upazilla 2.2, Upazilla 2.3                                	Division Y
District 3	Upazilla 3.1, Upazilla 3.2, Upazilla 3.3, Upazilla 3.4, Upazilla 3.5,...	Division X
...       	...                                                                     	...
Default sort order may be:
* Alphabetic sort order
* Leveled alphabetic sort (1st by division and then by district names)
* Date of administrative inception of district (rather tough to sort)
* Area or District
* Population size of District
Table will be sortable in alphabetic name of district and division so default sort order can be something different --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize 

message: added images of maps in the table listing upazilas. While I think it conveys some information, to my eyes it is appears rather crowded. Generally we do not always add photos in tables. And these maps show district level outline, rather than upazilas. I am not an UX expert, and it is just my opinion that, the table is fine without them. – nafSadh did say 22:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division maps in Table