Talk:Dhaka

Infobox

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)

GDP of Dhaka

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)

Banglapedia

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)

Note: A formal request at the reliable sources noticeboard has been made regarding this. --Majora (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

(edit conflict) :@Majora: 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)

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)

Wrong Density 46,997/km2 (121,720/sq mi)

Yanbugay (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)I looked at the density and can say that it is wrong at 46,997/km2 (121,720/sq mi)

Please see the table below for the suggestion.

Description	Population	Area (sq.km.)	Density
Dhaka City	8,906,039	306.38	29,068.60
Greater Dhaka Area	17,151,925	2,161.00	7,937.03

Maps in infobox

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)

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)

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

Featured article review needed

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)

Removal of sourced content

User Danloud keeps reverting sourced content in the introduction to this article even after warning. He even removes the warning in his talk page. Dhakathecity (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about the highlighted portion of the lead's final paragraph:

Dhaka is the financial, commercial and the entertainment capital of Bangladesh, and accounts for up to 35% of Bangladesh's economy. Since its establishment as a modern capital city the population, area, social and economic diversity of Dhaka have grown tremendously. The city is now one of the most densely industrialized regions in Bangladesh. Dhaka is a major beta-global city, as it hosts the headquarters of several international corporations. By the 21st century, it emerged as a megacity. The Dhaka Stock Exchange (25% stake owned by Chinese consortium) has over 750 listed companies. The city hosts over 50 diplomatic missions and the headquarters of BIMSTEC. The city's culture is known for its cycle-rickshaws, cuisine, art festivals and religious diversity. The old city is home to around 2000 buildings from the Mughal and British periods, including notable structures such as the Bara Katra and Choto Katra caravansaries, as well as some Persian style archaelogical remains.

Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs where you put it. The lead should summarize the most important facts in the body of the article. Does the body say anything about who owns the Dhaka Stock Exchange? No, that is extra information that is not included elsewhere in the article, so it doesn't belong in the lead. The logical place to explain the ownership of the DSE would be the article Dhaka Stock Exchange. It is unrelated or insufficiently related to the topic Dhaka. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References