Jump to content

Talk:Brahmanbaria District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Say NO to too many items

[edit]

Plese do not add plenty of names in promonent educational institute or places of interest lists. If you add to many items that will decrease the importance of all the items. Stick to top 5 or top 10 principle.That will increase the quality of the article.Al-minar (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Al-minar. Please do not add many items in the lists as it will just discard the value of the whole article.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add photographs please

[edit]

The article lacks photo miserably. Would anybody upload photographs of say..New Railway Station, Kal Bhoirob temple, Zia Fertilizer, etc in the article?This will improve the quality of the article remarkably.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmanbaria articles

[edit]

According to WP:BDPLACE, which is currently being considered for adopting and reflects general norm of naming articles, recommends that: (1) Brahmanbaria should be about the town (settlement/locality) and (2) Brahmanbaria District shall be about the administrative unit (territory). Also, the name should be official full name, i.e. Brahmanbaria and not B-Baria etc. In last couple of days, there had been a lot of moves and the history is a mess. At this point, when I am writing this, both articles are in rightful place. PLEASE discuss before doing any move and STATE YOUR RATIONALE before doing any moves. – nafSadh did say 07:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing different in this page than what is covered in Brahmanbaria District already. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Upazilas of Brahmanbaria

[edit]

Happiest persoN proposed on 21 November 2015 that Upazilas of Brahmanbaria be merged into Brahmanbaria District. Bangla1234, the former article's original author, immediately removed the merge template, so evidently the idea is controversial.

Merging Economy of Brahmanbaria

[edit]

Hello Everyone, The page Economy of Brahmanbaria is differ than Brahmanbaria District. It's about Brahmanbaria's economy. There are many information added and we will add more. --Bangla1234 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bangla1234 (talk)[reply]

Who is we? I don't think there is enough sourced content to warrant a separate article. Pinging Happiest persoN, Worldbruce, and Sminthopsis84 for thoughts based on participation above. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think merger is appropriate. The material about railway lines and stations should be on the district page, but also if there is a railway enthusiast available to do the work, much more content could be built on pages dedicated to these subjects. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I haven't moved the rail material to a different page, but perhaps that could be done subsequently; the merge has been  Done Klbrain (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography:

[edit]

The section is grossly incomplete. In the second line it says "the Prime Minister gave permission to use Ashuganj Port..." but does not say to whom. Presumably to the Indians. This section requires rewriting based on proper sources which I lack. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brahmanbaria District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]