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

Orphaned references in Dhaka

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: Indrajit Ray (2011). Bengal Industries and the British Industrial Revolution (1757-1857). Routledge. pp. 7–10. ISBN 978-1-136-82552-1.
• From Industrial Revolution: Ray, Indrajit (2011). Bengal Industries and the British Industrial Revolution (1757-1857). Routledge. pp. 7–10. ISBN 978-1-136-82552-1.

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)

Opinion regarding images

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)

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)

Baitul Mukarram image

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)

New montage

@Imamul H. Ifaz: 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)

@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)

There are good reasons to believe you are a sockpuppet of @Mahmudur Rahman Mahi:. 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)

The stability of this article

@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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Metro train.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Undue content in the lead

LucrativeOffer, Solomon The Magnifico could you guys please look at the recent additions of undue POV content in the lead [1]? A.Musketeer (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The historical Muslim-majority of Dhaka is well-documented. That said, between 1872 and 1941 the population increased from approx. 69,000 to 293,000. Hindus formed an important community, including as doctors, lawyers and teachers. In the early 20th century, the Muslim Nawab of Dhaka was the most influential resident of the city, followed by Europeans, Anglo-Indians, Armenians, and Hindus. In fact, many Hindus in Dhaka were Marwari. The pre-1947 population was very diverse, with lots of non-Bengalis. The narrative being pushed by one editor is incredibly fringe, Hindu nationalist and WP:UNDUE. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless you believe Ian Talbot (Emeritus Professor in History of Modern South Asia at the University of Southampton), Gurharpal Singh (Emeritus Professor of Sikh and Punjab Studies and former Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at SOAS), Gyanesh Kudaisya (Associate Professor in the South Asian Studies Programme at NUS), Tan Tai Yong (President of Singapore University of Social Sciences) or Sharif Uddin Ahmed (Chairman of the Department History and Philosophy of North South University) are fringe historians and Hindu nationalists, your charge is meaningless and very serious WP:ASPERSIONS. On the other hand, your stubborn insistence on removing history cited to scholarly sources is dangerously in the domain of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

None of these esteemed scholars will support the narrative in which you framed the topic. You have framed it as if there was a state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of Hindus on 15 August 1947. Are you accusing the British Empire of ethnic cleansing? Are there no other ethnic communities which suffered in Dhaka? Why is your content limited to only Hindus?

Truth be told, the history section already mentioned the plurality of Hindus in the city before partition and their exodus and seizure of property under the Vested Property Act. This is a footnote in Dhaka's history. Certainly, not a defining aspect. Hence, it is WP:UNDUE in the lede. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read the scholars, like I have, and attempt to summarise the cited works in the manner that I have. Everything I have added has been added with supporting quotes from the sources. Who said anything about ethnic cleansing? I haven’t mentioned the word or implied it in any way. Your point about the placing may be of value, since the exodus happened after British rule had ended.

As for WP:DUE-ness, both Talbot & Singh (2009) and Tan & Kudaisya (2002) mention the exodus prominently. Talbot & Singh allocates about half of all that they write about Dhaka to the exodus (they focus only on aspects relevant to partition) while Tan & Kudaisya (2002) allocate one page to the exodus in the roughly six pages that they write in which they trace Dhaka’s history from Mughal times to the present. That both warrants a brief sentence in the lede and a paragraph in the body. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurharpal Singh is a Professor of Sikh and Punjab Studies, not an expert on Bengal and Bangladesh Studies. This page is clearly not his area of expertise. Ian Talbot of the University of Southampton is also not an expert in this particular field of South Asian Studies. The partition story in Bengal is different from Punjab, as this reliable source points out.

But above all, this is a footnote in Dhaka's history and does not deserve to be in the lede. It was adequately covered in the history section before you began to WP:EDITWAR. The appropriate page for your excessive content would be Partition of Bengal (1947). Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCETYPES, which states “when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” Not only have you not produced any sources that support your assertions, you have removed three scholarly histories from the sources thrice now. You have also violated WP:3RR, I suggest you self-revert. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Vested Property Act article is actually the perfect place to insert your content. Readers can come to know in detail about the partition-era Hindu emigration, since both the Vested Property Act and your sources concern the Hindu community in particular. You would be doing readers of the Vested Property Act a favor if you elaborate content based on these sources there, trust me. The page on the 1947 Partition of Bengal is also relevant. But what we have here regarding this topic is already sufficient.

3RR was not breached by any of us. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re suggesting that very prominent scholarly work about Dhaka’s history doesn’t belong on the Dhaka page. This is clearly veering into a competency issue now. Perhaps we need an RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Also my sources do not concern the Hindu community in particular. They are foremost works on partition, and among the few that deal with partition’s effect on particular cities. Tan & Kudaisya actually includes a full summary of Dhaka’s history, and contextualises the partition within that history. You clearly have no idea what these sources are. This is a brick wall. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Dhaka's population had a Muslim majority when it was replaced by Hindus after the permanent settlement act by the British. The Hindus were then replaced by Muslims after 1947. But we don't indulge into this religion-based historical description of cities in Wikipedia or in any part of the civilized world. As suggested by Solomon The Magnifico, take your content to other relevant articles but don't push your POV here. A.Musketeer (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@A.Musketeer: “But we don’t … civilized world.” Please familiarise yourself with the pillars of wikipedia. Wikipedia is guided by reliable sources, of which scholarly sources are the most preferred, and not by the whims of the Solomons and Musketeers of the world who cannot produce even one source close to the quality of those that I have. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As the author of the daily star article, the only source added by Solomon, aptly puts it, “a lack of sensitivity about Partition among Bangalee Muslims and a certain degree of silence may be the reason why we don't talk much about it.” That’s precisely why this article is eerily silent about the partition and the accompanying exodus which scholars have written about. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I cited Richard M. Eaton whose work on the Muslim history of Bengal is widely regarded as the most authoritative source on the topic. I pointed to his chapter on Islamic Dhaka during Mughal rule. I cited the Banglapedia reference to the Marwari community in Dhaka. Lastly, I referred to The Daily Star piece regarding Hindus.

No point beating around the bush. You are citing Punjab experts and people not known to be Bangladesh experts. Eaton, for example, has written an entire book on Islamic Bengal. The people you cited have devoted only a few pages. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You are citing the chapter “The Religious Gentry in Bakarganj and Dhaka, 1650–1760” from Eaton’s “The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760” for the Partition of India, which happened in 1947? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This daily star article is also perfectly in line with my sources. On the exodus it begins thus:

The composition of demography began to alter. Middle-class Hindus – people with what Joya Chatterji called "mobility capital" – money, education, and connections – started migrating to West Bengal. A bleak future in a state carved out for Muslims made them make such decisions. When Mizanur Rahman came to Dhaka from Calcutta right after Partition, he found that Wari, the main Hindu middle-class neighbourhood of the city, was almost desolated. Those who left were torn between the decision of whether to migrate or stay.

Then continues:

Communal disturbances and harassment, and most notably hostile government policies, accelerated the outgoing migration of educated and affluent Hindus. The ruthless requisition of Hindu houses to accommodate the new government forced many Hindus to leave Dhaka. In addition to the urgency of the situation, there was a retaliatory aspect to the way these houses were requisitioned.

It then details this initial phase of the exodus and further states:

The riot of January-February 1950, one of the most violent riots in East Bengal, forced many Hindus to flee and further demoralised and dispossessed those who stayed back. Hindus were at the receiving end of carnage conducted by Muslims emboldened by state power. Not only middle-class Hindus, this time Scheduled Castes and various other lower-caste Hindus, too, fled the city in huge numbers. The Dhaka City Muslim League secretary and Mohajir leader, in a joint statement, said, "Before Partition, Hindus were the majority in Dhaka; now they have become the minority."

UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I am citing Eaton to emphasize Dhaka's Muslim background, which your edits call into question. Your edits cover the pre-partition period, which is already sufficiently covered in this article. The Daily Star's information, which you selectively quote, can be relevant for articles like the Vested Property Act, the Partition of Bengal (1947) and the Partition of British India. It would be an exaggeration to define Dhaka through this footnote of the city's history.

For example, look at London. The Great Fire of London gets a passing mention in the history section with two sentences and no mention at all in the lede. It is elaborated in much more detail in history of London.

Your edits constitute over 3,100 characters and is excessive and unnecessary. It is simply not needed here. Please redirect yourself to the relevant articles for a detailed discussion of the topic. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

“I am citing Eaton to emphasize Dhaka's Muslim background, which your edits call into question.” How, care to elaborate? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And you’re comparing the fire in London to the demographic shifts brought by the partition of India? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, can you produce sources that define the partition as a footnote in Dhaka’s history? So far you have nothing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Use your common sense. In Bangladesh, partition is not treated with the same level of importance as in India and Pakistan. There are no public holidays or extensive conversations about partition, as in India and Pakistan. For the people of Dhaka, partition is just like the Great Fire of London. It is a footnote in the long and eventful history of the city. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Appeals to common sense by somebody using a source dealing with 1204–1760 history for events in 1947 and comparing a fire in London to the partitioning of British India beggars belief. What’s abundantly clear is you lack any sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Events in 1947 are sufficiently covered in this article. You are pushing a narrative which is exaggerating and distorting sources. You are now wading into personal attacks. I should remind you of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which source in particular is it “distorting”? Which one is it “exaggerating”? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Also since this needs to be reiterated, wikipedia is guided by reliable sources, of which scholarly sources are the most preferred, and not by what may or may not be the memory of current residents of Dhaka about the history of their city. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX something being verifiable doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. You have been told by two editors that the content you are trying to add is undue here. Now please stop being inconsiderate and feel free to add your content in other relevant articles. A.Musketeer (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

For pre-partition Dhaka:

• Ahmed, Sharif Uddin (2018) [1986], Dacca: A Study in Urban History and Development, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-8153-9407-5

For the Hindu exodus:

• Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–118, ISBN 978-0-521-67256-6
• Tan, Tai Yong; Kudaisya, Gyanesh (2002) [2000], The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia, Taylor & Francis, pp. 165–172, ISBN 978-0-203-45060-4
• Rahman, M. A. (2 December 2022) "Dhaka before and after Partition" The Daily Star

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

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)

 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)

Missing content regarding poverty, slums, water infrastructure

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)

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)

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)

Potential for condensing

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)

New section on infrastructure

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)

"DhK" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § DhK until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dhk" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § Dhk until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"DHk" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § DHk until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)