Talk:Bangladesh

For any kind of information you can write to Bangladesh Travel Helpers Forum (BTHF). This organization helps the tourists through giving information & dont take any money for this. You can also book tickets in advance by BTHF. Their e-mail address is : bthf123@gmail.com

The gov't website has a lot of maps that could be useful for Wiki map-makers... (WT-en) Cacahuate 00:21, 4 December 2006 (EST)

So I've now created division pages since I have a better sense of what needs a page and doesn't... so far Chittagong Division, Rajshahi Division, Khulna Division and Sylhet Division seem like they have multiple destinations and can make a good page...

Dhaka Division and Barisal Division don't seem to have much else going on aside from the capital cities and things that can be done as day trips from them, so I've linked them direct to the city pages, and any day trips can go in the 'see' or 'get out' sections on the city pages. (WT-en) Cacahuate 06:25, 5 December 2006 (EST)

• Gopalgonj - Birthplace of the father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

I moved this out of 'cities', not much info on it, can't find it on a map, nor is it included in my LP guide... if someone knows which 'division' it's in, please add it to that page, but I don't think it belongs in the list of 9 cities on the front Bangladesh page... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:15, 17 January 2007 (EST)

It's near Dhaka, adding it there... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:25, 17 January 2007 (EST)

The article currently makes scenic, friendly, wonderful, fish-lover's Bangladesh sound like the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most people who've actually been there tell me it's filthy, congested, dangerous, and has few attractions. Could somebody who knows the score -- calling a French peanut -- fix this up? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Errr, read a little closer, I'm doing my best not to interject too many of my negative feelings since some are personal, but trying to reflect the actual state of the country... I think the articles starting to do that pretty well...

Few attractions yes, the cities (especially Dhaka and Chittagong) are absolutely filthy and polluted. Dangerous? Not so much, unless you go hartal-crashing, but it didn't feel anymore so than India. Scenic? It does have some nice scenery, nice being the keyword.

The people are indeed some of the friendliest on earth, too much so for me, but I'm trying not to interject to much negativity into the article since what I found wrong with the country were more personal issues that might not bother others as much.

The food is indeed very good most of the time, as long as you like fish and rice. note the 'meatless' chicken comment...

Check out the understand sections for Cox's Bazar and Chittagong - I've still got a lot more to do for Dhaka, so that article will reflect a more accurate tone once I get there...

I can certainly add more complaints if that's what people want, I've got a lot of them, but I'm not sure that's what we really want... (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:47, 18 January 2007 (EST)

The articles are looking great, but to address the concerns above, I wonder whether the Dhaka article might sound a little more accurate/genuine if the city's dire poverty and choking pollution were given a mentioned in the 'Understand' section. Personally, I like Dhaka, and I've always had a great time there, but the sparkling capital of an Asian tiger it is most definitely is not. What does our French peanut friend think? (WT-en) WindHorse 12:01, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I totally agree about Dhaka... I haven't really gotten my teeth into that article yet other than cleaning up the prior existing info, as I've been focusing on others, but will get around to it soon... got lots of notes on it... retiring for the night now! P.S., if you're referring to me, I'm more of a spanish peanut, we Americans have a shaky history with them Franches... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:34, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks - Actually, I'd like to help, but it has just been too long since I was last in Dhaka to make a reliable and up-to-date contribution. Ah, yes, Cacahuate is Spanish. Lo siento, amigo! (WT-en) WindHorse 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Well, if you think of something please do! It's probably not necessary at this time, but do you think at some point we should split Dhaka up into districts? Dhaka/Old Dhaka, Dhaka/Central Dhaka, Dhaka/Gulshan (also including Benoni in Gulshan)? At the very least we'll have to do separate maps for these 3 areas I think... (WT-en) Cacahuate 00:03, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I guess at some point all the mega-cities, which Dhaka certainly qualifies, will need to be divided into districts. The ones you suggest for Dhaka sound correct to me. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:57, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Megacities are defined by volume of tourist attractions, not sheer size. Delhi's still a normal 'big city' (although it's starting to be a candidate for districting) and it's way larger in size and tourist volume than Dhaka... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:31, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Good point, won't create those then anytime soon... if ever... (WT-en) Cacahuate 04:09, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Sorry anonymous Grameen Phone deleter, but I'm pretty sure they're still in business. If somethings changed or you care to comment, do so here... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Not sure that the visa section is very authoratative. The advice "better to just pay the overstay fee of Tk 200/day for up to 15 days" is pretty poor. A somewhat common question when filling out visa applications for other countries, applying for immigration status, etc. is 'Have you ever overstayed a visa in any country'. It would be pretty bad to knowingly set yourself up for a situation where you have to choose between lying on that form or telling them you have.

Also your passport will have a record of the overstay -- something that consular or immigration officials in other countries may notice. Its rare that they look for that, but if they do, they'll certainly think twice about granting you a visa or entry.

Also, the "extortionate Rs 5000 (~$110) for American citizens" is a little harsh. Countries often set visa rates based on the principle of reciprocity. An American tourist visa costs about the same for Bangladeshi citizens. I propose removing the "extortionate" adjective. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 138.88.62.116 (talk • contribs)

I'm the author of both of those comments, and feel that both of them are very true and relevant to the article. I've applied for about 20 visas in the last 2 years and don't ever recall having to answer the "have you overstayed?" question. And as you say above, it's highly unlikely that anyone's going to take time to do the math and figure out if you were a few days late.

Regarding the "extortionate" comment... I'm well aware that visa costs are often based on reciprocity, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense. The US and Bangladesh are at opposite ends of the spectrum in pretty much every aspect. Bangladesh needs tourists. The US doesn't. If the US relaxed it's visa costs and restrictions we'd get flooded with immigrants... sticking with Bangladesh as an example, I would guess that 80% of the entire country would move to the US if given the opportunity. But all that aside, I find extortionate to be a very appropriate word, because that's exactly what I felt was happening... it wasn't about the politics of visa costs, it was simply an attempt to extort has much as possible. Did I mention that the $110 was for FIFTEEN DAYS???? To visit one of the poorest, and by most accounts, least appealing countries in the world? And that in order to extend the visa at all beyond the 15 days costs another $110? Do you have a better word to describe that? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Very few Americans/Europeans visit Bangladesh (excluding dual citizens) and tourism is not a high priority. This policy may be classified as idiotic (my opinion), but it's the reality. Visa fees are typically based on a reciprocity fee schedule. Most visitors in Bangladesh are Indians, but they are not charged as much due to SAARC agreements. I agree that visiting this country is unappealing unless ones has family or business, but their policy is consistent with international practices. America did have free visa applications in the past (1990s): the amount of people applying for visas was actually less than it is today. Fees were introduced to cover costs - an appropriate policy even for a poor nation. So, the word that should be used is "reciprocity." If the US removed visa fees for Bangladeshi citizen's they would probably reciprocate. No offense intended to anyone. rgds, rms.

What costs does Bangladesh need to cover that any other country doesn't? Anyway, I trust you've read my rant above, I already covered it pretty much. Anyhow, let's compromise... how about "hefty"... surely you don't disagree with that? Consider Pakistan, who also have a similar "reciprocal" visa fee... however you get at least 30 days for that, and can extend it a couple times for free once inside the country (and fairly easily at that). Sorry to fight so hard on this, but the visa situation in BD left a really bad taste in my mouth, and I've applied for a lot of visas. Also please note that the text we're discussing is regarding the Kolkata Consulate, where a maximum of 15 days are given (longer visas are issued through some other embassies, for the same cost); that's a large part of why I consider it extortionate and not just relatively expensive – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 19:20, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

They have the same costs as any other country that charges fees. I've had several dealings with the Bangladeshi government, and believe me this was not extortion - just sheer incompetence. Extortion is when they make you pay a bribe before accepting your income tax check (not a joke). I think you've picked a good compromise with the word "hefty". If you're carrying an American passport consider yourself blessed that most countries won't even require a visa - something few Asians enjoy. Best wishes. rms

Should these be mentioned somewhere, such as "Stay safe"? This has not affected foreigners, and a foreigner would probably have to try hard to get caught up in such crimes. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not think it is necessary to mention in the stay safe. Because it is a big incident but it is not a regular event. If someone want to visit Bangladesh it is ok not to be aware of this type of incident. --nasir khan saikat 12:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, and thanks for your reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

They're both good. Can one be used for another article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

We can use the new one. But it would be better if you mirror the image before using this image. otherwise the men on the boat will the covered by the title of the article 'Bangladesh'. Hebrew is a right to left language and the image was perfect. --nasir khan saikat 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mirroring would be better indeed. However, for Bangladesh as a country I prefer the old banner. It has a mystical quality, which is more inviting to me than then second one. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, the proposed banner does in fact have a slice of life for a change :) I'm neutral. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both good, slight #1 Syced (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created the first banner, so may be a little biased. But the first is a little more artistic, with deep shades of green and misty mountains. The proposed one is just another standard photo of a boat in the water. I've also noticed that another slightly artistic banner I had for Dhaka, highlighting the city's famous rickshaws, has also been removed and replaced without discussion. James A ▪ talk 09:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like that banner much better than the current Dhaka banner and would vote for it to be restored. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That makes three of us already then, so I went ahead and changed it back. I left a note on the talk page. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

 1st / old 1 seems better to me please don't change. 27.147.203.20 14:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• • • • • • • • • the old 1 is better;both mountain & river lover will be attracted to BD, 2nd pic doesn't seems good to me :/ --Promise Prompri (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, everyone. Bangladesh has has an 8th division since 2015. Would someone like to update the map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've got the files somewhere on my computer from when I updated the map to include the at-the-time new Rangpur Division. If anyone volunteers to do it, I can send the files, or else I'll probably get around to it sooner or later. James A ▪ talk 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, it should be noted that the government has plans to further subdivide and create even more regions (Comilla and Faridpur last I heard). So where do we draw the line? That would overall create 10 top-level regions. Much larger neighbouring countries India and Myanmar both have 6 top-level regions. It would need to be discussed in more detail, but maybe the best option would be to use the eventual 10 divisions, with no further sub-regions within these. So the overall hierarchy would be something like 'Bangladesh > Comilla Divison > Comilla'. James A ▪ talk 21:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason for us to respect the regional level below divisions. The only level below the division level should be cities and other bottom-level articles such as national parks. I don't think 10 divisions would be too many to deal with, but if necessary or most useful, they could be grouped into larger regions by direction (north-east, south-west, what have you). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Other destinations" are supposed to be destinations other than cities (or towns, villages, et al.), such as national parks, wildlife preserves and large ruins. So I move this town's listing here for discussion:

• Rangamati- To take the colorful tribal experience of Bangladesh.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here's another, also moved from that section:

• Bogra- One of the oldest towns in northern Bangladesh.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Which symbol should be used -- ৳ or Tk? Ground Zero (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Laotian and Thai precedent would indicate perhaps we should use "100 taka" rather than either of the symbols you suggest. Powers ^(talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've scanned the main cities and other destinations articles featured on Bangladesh. Tk 100, 100 tk and TK100 are by far the most common formats, with Tk 100 being the most common of those. 100 taka and 100 Taka appear in one listing in the Cox's Bazar article, but the rest of the article uses "Tk". ৳100 appears in Chittagong, where it has been added by @Moheen Reeyad:, who works for the Wikimedia Bangladesh Foundation. It was his edits that led me to raise this question. I am pinging him for his input. Changing the policy to "taka" would seem to be putting it out of alignment with the notations contributors are actually using. I'm not sure I see the benefit of doing that, although I understand the precedent you cite. Ground Zero (talk)

Now here's strange thing... On my setup (Ubuntu, Firefox) the symbol is displayed in editing mode, but not in "view article" mode. Does anybody else have a similar problem? Edited to add: even copying the weird box symbol I get in "read" mode into edit mode gives me: ৳ which in "edit mode" I can read without a problem... Edited again to add: And now that ৳ is displayed correctly in "view page" mode while the others are still boxes. What's going on here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Weirdness in the interaction among fonts, operating systems, browsers, and Unicode is very common, which is a major reason to avoid relatively obscure currency symbols. Sometimes it's tempting to use $, €, £, and ¥ and leave everything else to abbreviations. Powers ^(talk) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The most commonly used symbol for the Bangladeshi taka is "৳" and "Tk". As I have seen most US related articles using dollar sign $. However, if there any displaying problem in different browsers, then it would be better to write "Tk". ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have other views, or should we take Moheen's advice on this, i.e., to use "Tk" since there seem to be problems with displaying "৳"? Ground Zero (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I also have display problems (Ubuntu, Firefox), in the discussion above I see some of the symbol displayed correctly and some not, so really not sure what's going on here. Going for "Tk" might be safer. Then of course this might only be a problem for users of obscure operating systems. Drat70 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

CNN says A third of Bangladesh under water as flood devastation widens. I think we should add a warning but am not doing it myself because I do not know the area or any of the details. Pashley (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

[EDIT] While the current banner has a great motif, the resolution is too low. Here are some new banners. Which do you prefer? /Yvwv (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, the banner of South Asia could be brought up for discussion. /Yvwv (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think the swamp forest, because it's watery, is a little more representative of Bangladesh than Konglak Hill, so since those are the two best pictures, I think the swamp forest wins by a nose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

New candidate. Would any of those pictures do for South Asia? /Yvwv (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The new candidate should be a banner for something. But why do you want to change the banner for South Asia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

IMO, Asia has too many mountain banners. Banners with lush nature, buildings and/or people would be preferrable to represent South Asia. /Yvwv (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Out of the suggested banners, I liked Khagrachari most from a purely photographical standpoint, but it could be anywhere with a beautiful scenery in the world. Sundarbans looks more specific to Bangladesh, but the photo quality is low and the background is too hazy. The rice field is generic to all South Asia (and if the farmer wasn't visible, to much of Asia). So I think Ratargul seems optimal in its representativeness for the country (looks close enough to a mangrove forest even if it isn't) as well as in the picture quality. Vidimian (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a preference for 4, followed by number 5 --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do we want little flags of countries whose citizens don't require visas for stays of up to 90 days? I think we don't, and just the country names are sufficient, but I don't recall any discussion of this on any policy page. I don't think these kinds of edits should be made without discussion someplace like Wikivoyage talk:Image policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think they make it easier to get the information at all. They add clutter are not decipherable on a mobile device. Ground Zero (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

ARR8, would you like to make an argument in favor before we revert your edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I brought this up in the Pub a while ago, outlining this and asking for feedback, and no one objected at the time. I would have done things differently now that I have a better understanding of how consensus and status quo bias works here, but, regardless, I'd already made this change on a few pages and assumed people were at worst indifferent. My offer in the pub still stands, and I'm willing to remove these everywhere I've added them if that's preferred. ARR8 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at the thread. Only AndreCarrotflower expressed any degree of approval. You had, if anything, skepticism if not a consensus against. The Pub, in any case, is not a place to make policy decisions, but instead a place where you can link a discussion elsewhere on a change of policy or start one there and then continue it on an appropriate policy page's talk page. But how you interpreted all the skepticism in that thread to amount to a lack of objection, I don't understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I posted a reply there. Your intentions are wonderful; just don't get ahead of consensus too much. Major changes in appearance that can affect numerous pages need more than a few people's discussion. You should also post to Requests for comment if you start a thread on Wikivoyage talk:Image policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that now. When I'd posted that, I'd interpreted the lack of anyone saying "No, don't do it" as permission to go ahead on a trial basis. Again, how consensus works around here was explained to me some time ago (by User:AndreCarrotflower), but this discussion predates that. ARR8 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and reverted all uses of this. And, of course, thanks for the explanations/discussion. ARR8 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Determining where Wikivoyage:Plunge forward applies vs. where Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias applies is more of an art than a science. If there's a way to make policy more clear, we should do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate that. It's definitely not intuitive, at least for me. ARR8 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't think policy here is too complicated; I've learned a lot by experience. The harder parts are formatting and capitalization in listing templates. And also learning about how discussions work on Wikivoyage. I was originally on Wikipedia, but discussions are really not the same there; here, many discussions include almost every active user on the site. Wikipedia is very different. Anyway, I didn't do enough on Wikipedia or understand it enough to participate in discussions, so even when I got to Wikivoyage I found things fairly new. I understood the basics of editing, but not much beyond that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

ARR8, thanks for having a good attitude about this. I'm glad to have you around, because we should never want to get into a complacent mindset and feel like "because it's always been done that way" is a sufficient argument against all types of change (though at the same time, change for its own sake isn't normally the nature of Wikis). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Far be it from me to advocate for change for its own sake. Actually, as time goes on, the more I appreciate the status quo bias here - it seems to work with a community as engaged as this one is. Hopefully, we can revisit the topic of flag links at some point in the future. ARR8 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Chattogram montage 42.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Replaced at Wikidata ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: on Talk:Iraq someone claims that Bangladesh uses the 12 hour clock more (not surprised since most places with the legacy of the British or the US tend to use 12 more, with some exceptions). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

That could be the case, but it would be good if they would present some evidence. Ground Zero (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also see this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sounds reasonable to me. Ground Zero (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

While dividing Bangladesh into divisions might make sense in terms of geographical size, I don't think so in terms of travel content. Mymensingh Division has the lowest number of bluelinked destinations (only one), while Chittagong Division has the highest number of bluelinked destinations (13). Therefore, we should group certain divisions into regions and divide Bangladesh like the following:

• Central Bangladesh (Dhaka Division)
• Northern Bangladesh (Rangpur Division and Rajshahi Division)
• North-Eastern Bangladesh (Mymensingh Division and Sylhet Division)
• Southern Bangladesh (Khulna Division and Barisal Division)
• South-Eastern Bangladesh (Chittagong Division)

Although I generally don't contribute on travel content in other countries, I thought I would do it, at least with the geographical hierarchy. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Given how there are so few bluelinked destinations (I'm not surprised, though. Bangladesh isn't really a thriving tourist destination), Bangladesh doesn't need that many regions, and we certainly don't need region articles with only one bluelink. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since enough days are passed and no there are no comments after this, I'll just plunge forward and group some of the divisions. However, I won't change the names of Dhaka Division and Chittagong Division. If someone does an undo to my edits, I will invite them to this talk page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply