Talk:Chakma Circle

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in May 2015.

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

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.

Possible hoax article

This is referenced to unreliable sources. Can anybody check it out properly? Is it even real? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, I am coming to the conclusion that this is massively oversold if not outright WP:Bollocks. This seems to be a clan chiefdom not a royal family. I see no evidence of a historic nation or kingdom. I am inclined towards an AfD of all the alleged "kings" who do not demonstrate genuine additional notability and either including this article in the AfD or cutting it down to what can proven and shown to be notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start by sweeping up everything on the subject into one place: Category:Chakma Royal Family. That way we will have an idea of how much we are dealing with. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to be purging the non RS pseudo-references as I feel that they are linkspam for blogs and social media operated by the editor who is adding them. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support starting an AfD in a few days (or later). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Several users have expressed concern about the quality/verifiability of Chakma Kingdom and suggest deletion as the better option. No prejudice against merging following discussion at AfD or another venue. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chakma Kingdom is actually same as the Chakma Circle. The article states "The polity was variously called as a chiefdom, kingdom or simply by the ruler as the Chakma Raja". We don't need two articles for the same topic. The Chakma Kingdom was created later so it can be merged into Chakma Circle. Mehedi Abedin 22:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these two should probably be merged, though I'm not sure if Chakma Circle is the WP:COMMONNAME. The article should be end after the merge with the appropriate common name. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmeraldRange From a quick search, I have found that "Chakma Circle" is more used in Bengali language. But we also need English results. Also we should consider history and academic works about the subject. Need other user's output about it. Mehedi Abedin 09:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yws- when reviewing the sources in the Chakma Kingdom article- most of these books used Chakma Kingdom- typically from British colonial times. Per Wikipedia policy- we should use the name thats used most often in English so the question is on what more modern academics use in English EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge because I believe deletion of Chakma Kingdom may be the better course. Every single citation of creator Tsawzhak's that I've checked (13 out of 37) fails verification, with two thirds of them being to fabricated references. They have not responded to my questions about their research, so I'm beginning to believe that they made the whole article up. Can you identify anything here that is verifiable and is not already in Chakma Circle – anything worth merging? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree other articles created by user are low quality- doesnt necessarily mean Chakma Kingdom is. Tsawzhak is not the only contributor to that article. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 09:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge or Delete as per @Worldbruce. Also the user who created the page is reverting misinformations on Chittagong Hill Tracts such as adding "Jumma" as a demonym and using Chakma language in the title whereas Bengali is the official recognized lang. Addionally pages like Chakma history has to be either rewritten or deleted which is fully written using AI. Imwin567 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Worldbruce and recommend deletion per WP:TNT.-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.