Talk:.bangla

Bangladesh Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.btcl.gov.bd/home/main/download/dotBD-agre.pdf
- In .bangla on 2011-05-20 21:41:18, 404 Not Found
- In .bangla on 2011-05-31 13:14:57, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No conensus (non-admin closure) -- Yashovardhan (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.bangla → .বাংলা – The title of this ccTLD related article should be .বাংলা not .bangla (In english .বাংলা can be romanized as .bangla, but the english romanized latter is not a valid domain. eg: http://উত্তরাধিকার.বাংলা is valid but http://উত্তরাধিকার.bangla isn't valid). I saw there is other articles like .рф, .срб, those articles didn't use romanized latter as article title. So i request to move this. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport Support as nominator. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport: good rationale provided by the nominator. Ebonelm (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: per WP:TRANSLITERATE Genealogizer (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogizer, you shouldn't apply two rules in one same thing (both .বাংলা, .рф, .срб are Internationalized ccTLD). --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I guess. Googling ".bangla" gets me 176,000 results while ".বাংলা" gets 18,000, and almost all of those appear to be in Bengali and so don't really count. Yeah I know Google results are sketchy, but that's a big difference. And really we only use or care about use in English-language source. I mean, going thru several pages of results for ".বাংলা", over 90% are Bengali and all of the remainder are technical documents, ICANN official documents and technical stuff. It appears that 100% of English-language sources use ".bangla" -- Stuff like ".bangla domain registration to begin from Dec 16" in the Bangladesh Chronicle seem typical in the results. Secondary sources like this, magazine and newspaper articles (and books) are the preferred source over primary technical documents for determining WP:COMMONNAME, I believe.

In addition, I dunno about .বাংলা for an article title. No person who can't read that script can read it or pronounce it, and this is the English Wikipedia for English readers. Don't know about .рф and .срб, but I guess those are probably wrong too.

I get that ".bangla" is, in a sense, wrong in that it is not technically the (native) name of the entity described, but we are more about "common name" and "the title should tell the (English-speaking) reader what the article is about" and "we want the title that people will search on" and so forth than about being technically correct about technical terms (details of technical terminology should be reserved for the article body). If you like, just rewrite the lede slightly to say ".bangla is the romanized version of .বাংলা, the domain name..." and then the article becomes about .bangla, in a sense.

I understand that projects like this, which are under Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh, are often worked on by bilingual (or multilingual) editors fluent in English and Bengali, and who are therefore smarter than I am (and thank you all for your work). And it's natural for such editors to feel comfortable with Bengali terms in Bengali script. But we have to remember that a lot of readers aren't, so we have to push back a little. Herostratus (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport: The domain is not .bangla which does not exist. We should have .বাংলা as the large bold name in the top, because that's the domain name. We should explain the translation/translitteration of .বাংলা in the top, and have a redirect from .bangla so English speaking people can find it.--BIL (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the term ".bangla" exists. If if didn't, it would't be used by 100% of English-language sources to describe the domain name. Since it exists, it's a handy way to tell people how to find the article and what it's about. To do otherwise smacks of language snobbery and educated-elitism. Note that our article is named Chongqing and not 重庆, and so forth. The same spirit applies here I would say. Herostratus (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little more neutral since I note that there is no article about IDN domain names which contains non-english letters except for Cyrillic and except for redirects. There is a discussion about Arabic letter domains, which didn't give any conclusion.--BIL (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose WP:USEENGLISH. This would be next to impossible for the vast majority of readers on the English-wikipedia to even know what the characters say or how to pronounce it. This problem could not be solved by having it in the prose. We exist for the reader, not for ourselves, and this change would do nothing for the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I just noticed an above argument "We should... have a redirect from .bangla so English speaking people can find it". Well wait who is reading the encyclopedia? People who aren't English speakers? Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reverse logic that should be taken: you have a foreign language redirect to the English-language common name found in sources. This allows people who have a limited grasp of English to find the article they are looking for, while still having the article at the title that is most comprehensible to anglophones. I know you oppose the move as well, but just thought it worth pointing out why the redirect system proposed is the opposite of what we normally do and a bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

Dot-bangla.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]