Talk:Cox's Bazar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Bangladesh Portal
Cox's Bazar is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by Geography workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh.
Collaborations: Sundarbans & Cox's Bazar

Contents

[edit] Image Problem

I found this image is watermarked and possibly unfree image. Furthermore, it was taken by Faruque Abu Sayeed (Bangladesh Photo:Faruque Abu Sayeed, 2003) and uploader did not provide any permission link.It needs to be fixed.--NAHID 07:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the water-mark signature. Arman (Talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, the signature seems to be back. I'll take another look. Arman (Talk) 06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Edited version at: Image:Coxsbazar sun 2003 v2.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanaziz (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I think that the town and district pages should remain separate. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cox's Bazar and Cox's Bazar District apparently are the same thing, and the articles are almost the same as well. May be we can incorporate "Cox's Bazar Town" into the District article, and make "Cox's Bazar" a redirect page (or, vice versa), or may be we can develop the District article to represent the bigger scene and leave the appropriate information on the Town to "Cox's Bazar", putting a link leading to "Cox's Bazar District" on it. What's your view? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Text copied from User talk:Armanaziz

I have always felt that the town and district pages should be different. Unfortunately for the Cox's Bazar pages the same text is used for both the town and district pages. An effort should be made to separate them. I do not know much about the area and as such I am unable to put in my mite. Regards- P.K.Niyogi (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Cox's Bazar town and Cox's Bazar District can be arranged in a single article. It won't create much difference. But, we should have a standalone article on Cox's Bazar Beach with massive information and a rich gallery. In addition I prefer to create a disambiguation page on Cox's Bazar to arrange them. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

End of copied text

Oppose merger: I would strongly support the view of Niyogi da. Cox's Bazar District is a subdivision of Bangladesh - it is just named after the most prominent location in the district. But it includes many other places like Maheshkhali, Teknaf, Ramu - which are distinctly separate from Cox's Bazar. Just like we have separate articles for Dhaka and Dhaka District, or Chittagong and Chittagong District, there should be two separate articles for Cox's Bazar and Cox's Bazar District. The focus of the Cox's Bazar should be strictly limited to the town and the beach (I don't support creating a third article on Cox's Bazar beach). It may include a section on "list nearby attractions" which could include names and very short descriptions of nearby places within or even beyond the district - like Teknaf, Rangamati, Bandarban etc. The purpose of the article would be to be reference for a tourist who wants to visit Cox's Bazar. While the purpose of the Cox's Bazar District article will be to provide reference for a sub-division of Bangladesh. Arman (Talk) 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I lay down a few things that may be considered here? Here goes:

  • The location articles of Bangladesh needs standardization. When it comes to creating separate articles for the town and district, there are two sets of standards already used:
    • A separate article focussed on the town, and information (considerably more, apart from the instances of Dhaka and Chittagong, the two big cities in Bangladesh) about the rest of of the district into the district article.
    • The town merged into the district articles, especially when it improves the context.
  • The biggest claim to fame for Cox's Bazar - the longest beach - starts at the edge of the town and immediately runs out of its area. A separate article for the town ideally should have only a link leading to a beach article at best, or a link to the district article which would contain a section on the beach.
    • The town article can, of course, include information on the minority population and the markets run by them, the hotels, smuggling, the Buddist Temple, the weather station and features that are particular to the town.
  • Cox's Bazar is a political geographical entity that has way more things than the beach. The people (including religious diversity and cross-border refugees), the history (including the Mughal-Portugues-Magh triad vying for power, and the rise of militant politics), the flora and fauna (including the rich and protected breeding grounds for Sea Turtles), the economy (including the non-formal sectors like smuggling)... and much more is there. A separate article on the beach may exclude all that, but ideally not the town or the district article.
  • But, most importantly most people would come to the Cox's Bazar article to look for information on the beach. While Wikipedia may not become a tourist guide, it also needs to keep focus on the information that's sought more (along with comprehensive and contextual information). That is the reason I proposed the merger.

Looking forward to a solution fast, as that would enable the editors to work on the important stuff - the article itself. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A Proposal: Ok, let me outline the problem here. The question is which of the followings should be articles and which can be redirects?
  1. Cox's Bazar
  2. Cox's Bazar Beach
  3. Cox's Bazar Town
  4. Cox's Bazar Sadar Upazila
  5. Cox's Bazar District

- My proposal was to have 1, 4 and 5 as separate articles and redirect 2 & 3 to 1. The justification is - 4 and 5 are clearly defined administrative units - so they deserve separate articles. I hope up to this everyone agrees. Now I'm a bit confused whether beach and town should be separate. Probably they can be - given we have enough materials. So, I suggest this: Instead of wasting time on debating the article title, let's have two distinct parts in the Cox's Bazar article: one on the town and the other one on the beach. if and when the article gets too long, we'll split it into two articles and have a disambiguation page for the Cox's Bazar. I hope we'll be able to reach that point within current collaboration. Is this an acceptable proposition for all? Arman (Talk) 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In this line of thinking Cox's Bazar = Cox's Bazar Town may be the appropriate way to treat it. Bangladesh government and Wikipedia uses the Bogra and Barisal and Sylhet and Cox's Bazar to denote the towns. Both uses Bogra District, Barisal District, Sylhet District and Cox's bazar District to denote the district. There are two straight ways to do this:
  • Do it in the standard format. That means one article titled "Cox's Bazar" that deals with the town, and another titled "Cox's Bazar District" and include the beach along with other stuff into that.
  • Do it in logical format. That would mean one single article titled "Cox's Bazar District" and would include everything, making it easier for the reader. All the other titles in the list above could lead to that article as redirects.
There are, of course, other like creating a separate article for the beach (though that would bring more difficulty to a casual reader, the majority of people who come to Wikipedia). Why are we trying to make Cox's Bazar "the article", disregarding the District? And, why are we not considering non-beach stuff that needs to be included into the article? I may be wrong on both, though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger and comment: I would agree with Soman and Aditya and Arman above. That is, in all other instances, the name without any suffix (like "District", "Upazila") was used to denote the city/town by that name. For example, Dhaka is the city article, while Dhaka Division, Dhaka District etc are specific articles on the topic. So, we should have Cox's Bazar District for the article on the district in the same standard format as the other 63 districts of Bangladesh, Cox's Bazar is the article on the town, and this article should be the main article on the beach. Specifically, Aditya's proposal above (about having two components on town/beach in the Cox's Bazar article) sounds good to me. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • <edit conflict> Nice. Here's something to add to that - let's start on the Cox's Bazar article now, and leave the the rest of the pages in the list as is. Any cleanup to remove redundancy or creating context... we can do later. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the merge proposal tag from both of the articles. I hope that wasn't too inconvenient. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration Discussion

The article now looks quite good with all these brilliant images. However, text content wise the article is still struggling. Can anyone point me to a good source which can be used to develop the body of the article? Arman (Talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia, perhaps? Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Banglapedia entry on Cox's Bazar talks more about other nearby attractions than Cox's Bazar itself. We'll need more in-depth sources. Please keep on searching. Arman (Talk) 06:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
See if these links help -
More coming. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's some more:
Banglapedia has more stuff on Cox's Bazar. Pity that it's strewn over a hundred articles. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess wikipedia can now do the consolidation! Thanks for the links. Arman (Talk) 07:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy to know that I could be of some help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cox's Bazar participation in national economy

Cox's Bazar is a very famous spot of aquaculture, fishing, salt production etc. We may focus these issues in Economy and development section. I have added few stuff but they are not sufficient to illustrate actual importance that Cox's Bazar holds in those sectors. What do you think ? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Arman (Talk) 07:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] District

The River Naf or the Saint Martin's Island have nothing to do with Cox's Bazar, apart from the fact that they belong to the same district. I really belive these places, and pictures belong to the district article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree that these items belong to the District article, so please do feel free to add these items, if possible in greater details, in the relevant article. As far as this article is concerned, these items come under a subsection clearly marked as "Other Tourist Attractions near Cox's Bazar", which makes is quite obvious that these are not in the area exclusively known as Cox's Bazar. From the perspective of a global tourist, a discussion of nearby attractions of a tourist destination seem quite relevant and useful to me. The Banglapedia article on Cox's Bazar also discusses places like Teknaf and nearby islands. Arman (Talk) 09:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
True. The Banglapedia article also includes pieces like - "In addition to the long sea-beach with its silvery waves breaking at the foot of hills and sea-bathing, the attractions of Cox's Bazar include a drive along the beach, the view of the sun setting on the rolling sea-waves, the moonlit night, and the exciting interior of the bazar and its people." Let's see if we can figure out a way to be right and accessible at the same time. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)