This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal articles
@Orient Bengal: Welcome to wikipedia. This seems to be a WP:POVFORK of an old disputed version of the Bengali calendar (see Talk:Bengali calendar for the dispute. Would you confirm you copied old parts of that article into this, and also explain why you created this article last week? @Kautilya3: I cannot find the title "Akbarian Bengali calendar" in reliable sources I searched (google book, google scholar, and databases behind pay wall). Can you find any? We can either merge / AfD this article, or rename it to Bangladeshi calendar (I see few mentions of this term, see this, page 132, ~14th line, for example). What are your suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MSW, renaming this to Bangladeshi calendar is certainly a good solution. I can clean up the article some more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is vandalism. Not a single source calls it a Bangladeshi calendar, but all talk about Akbar's calendar. You also removed reliably sourced information on the festivals, for which The Daily Star has always been considered a reliable source in Wikipedia.--Orient Bengal (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source is linked above! with page number and line number!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore: you are right that the redirect was not created by a sock. Rather he created a page. Ms Sarah Welch retitled the page, from which this redirect resulted. We have decided to keep the page, suitably revised. But this redirect is for an unsourced term, which should be deleted as a sock-creation. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]