Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
OK, so now we have someone trying to summarily delete the section on Azad Kashmir. Sadly, I think we will have to protect all potentially politically editable articles on the Indian Subcontinent. I certainly hope this kind of nonsense doesn't become a pattern in every region of the world where there are claims and counter-claims. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion
Hi, everyone. We've had to fend off politically-motivated trolls who are complaining, in part, that the map of India doesn't include claimed parts of Kashmir, but we are being unintentionally inconsistent, in that the map of Pakistan includes cross-hatching for Indian-administered parts of Jammu and Kashmir that they claim. I don't know how to edit a map, but it's abundantly clear that the map of Pakistan should not include any territory they do not actually control. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's one of our most sensitive maps as from the start both maps were heavily contested. I get you point but i guess we need to discuss with some other mates on how to discuss this change without creating a huge tide of trolls/political edits. jan (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
If we are going to include a Pakistan map that shows cross-hatching of claimed land they do not control, out of consistency, we should do the same in regard to India. And my feeling is that maps including claimed land are not so useful to travellers. I found one possible replacement map on Commons. Pakistan in Asia. The problem is that it shows the position of Pakistan vis-a-vis the entire continent of Asia, rather than merely in its region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
: do something fast in this direction Jay8580(talk). 22 January 2013
I've made the change since consensus seems to be that the cross-hatching of claimed territories isn't useful to the traveler. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss (and revert if you want, but do discuss please). —Quintucket (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can edit the India map easily, however before I do I have two questions:
First, should I upload the new version over the current one? Wikitravel has "be fair" and if it was pre-Commons-migration there would be no question, but the Commons doesn't have any sort of neutrality policy, but does have a rule against messing significantly with other contributor's uploads (significant changes require a new file as a derivative work, though in practice it's often ignored). However if User:Cacahuate were to modify it himself (or even give his consent), there would be no questions.
Second is there an svg version of the file that I can edit instead of the png?
As far as I can see, no editing is needed. Commons has multiple maps for both countries; just use the "(de facto)" ones for both and we are done. Both are already in use in the country boxes, or were last I looked. Pashley (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Editing is needed for the India Map in question (not perhaps appropriate on Talk:Pakistan, but I'm not the one who brought it up here), since it was imported to Commons from WV after the fork, and shows regions of India, as defined by Wikitravel, Admittedly, I've just discovered Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition, which seems to suggest that we'll need to redo it anyways, but it'll take some time before I or someone else gets to it, and in the meantime removing the cross-hatching from the map we're using is a passable solution. —Quintucket (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree that cross hatching is not useful. Maps for travelers should show the facts on the ground clearly (we don't want travelers wandering into India's Kashmir from Pakistan's Kashmir or vice versa because they were confused by our maps!). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, i agree that the maps should reflect the controlled areas for each country, since that's most relevant to travel. I absolutely disagree that we should "just swap out for another map on commons" - as many of you know, several of us spent countless hours making travel maps that are specific to our site, with the regions color-coded etc, so I'm not sure why replacing them with generic maps from Commons would even be remotely considered. There's an svg version of India here, and of Pakistan here. I don't have time at the moment to fix the borders myself, but anyone else that does, please be my guest. Thanks! – cacahuatetalk00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Looks like the bot messed up when it transferred it from wts. You could grab it again from there to make changes, or I will at some point when I have time – cacahuatetalk06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
India and Pakistan have a bitter dispute over Kashmir; each government claims territory that is currently under the control of the other government. They have fought wars over this three times since independence in 1947.
Wikivoyage, however, deals only with the current situation on the ground; our maps show and our text describes that without going into the disputes. If you can go there with a Pakistani visa today then we treat it as being in Pakistan, and if you need an Indian visa, we treat it as being in India. This is the most important distinction for travellers.
Travellers should exercise considerable caution in these areas. Both governments consider them highly sensitive and keep large military forces along the borders.
I suggest we add something like this to both India & Pakistan articles. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs)
I think the wording of the proposed disclaimerbox is slightly misleading. We do go into the dispute, purely for informational reasons. I'd propose the following rewording:
"Both India and Pakistan claim the entirety of Kashmir, and the two countries have fought wars over this land three times since independence in 1947. However, de facto control of Kashmir is divided between those two countries and China, which occupied a smaller portion of the land in a border war with India in 1962.
Wikivoyage deals only with the de facto situation; our maps show only the lands actually controlled by different countries, and claims are disregarded. If you can go there with a Pakistani visa today then we treat it as being in Pakistan; if you need an Indian visa, we treat it as being in India; and if you need a Chinese visa, we treat it as being in China. This is the most important distinction for travellers.
Travellers should check on current conditions before travelling to these areas, as skirmishes between the regular armies of India and Pakistan, guerrilla war, acts of terrorism, rioting, and shootings of civilians by security forces have occurred in recent years in various parts of Kashmir."
I tried using the dislaimerbox template (putting "dislaimerbox" in double curly brackets), but for some reason, it was showing nothing but the title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It means only one parameter exists: {{template name|parameter}}. Could we possibly cut down on some of the text, though, it's awful long for a self-referential, in-article disclaimer. --PeterTalk05:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'd say perhaps only keep the first sentence of the second paragraph ;) I'm not a fan of having meta-notices in our articles at all. If someone has an issue, we can point them to policy pages, notices on the talk page, etc. To my knowledge, we've inserted disclaimers of this type once, just in Israel#Regions, and that's considerably more brief, and possibly more necessary. --PeterTalk07:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm OK with that. This is hardly a burning issue at the moment, but a reminder might be good - and you're right, perhaps only that one sentence is sufficient. It also has the virtue of applying to areas outside of Ladakh that were occupied by China in 1962, if we put it in the India article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Saqib please include the Kashmir area as currently being administered by both countries, India and Pakistan. That will be true map, real ground situation and no one should object to it.Aleeza512 (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Saqib hasn't been able to spend time in Wikivoyage for a while, but please note that Wikivoyage is a travel guide, and as such, the "true map" is the one that most assists the traveller. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but if your suggestion is to show all of Kashmir as being jointly ruled by India and Pakistan, rather than showing the Line of Control, it's simply not going to happen on this travel guide website. Wikivoyage recognizes all de facto borders, not because they are ideal or what all of us want, but because they are reality and travellers deal with real and not ideal conditions. See WV:Be fair for the governing standards on how to deal with territorial disputes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The maps in the articles are invariably red links and the format is always the same, causing me to wonder whether they might possibly be copied and pasted from somewhere. But that aside, are these articles useful to the traveller? How should we handle the output of our prolific new poster? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sub-dividing requires consent, or at least a decent, well considered plunge forward. These edits disregard on going discussions and don't seem helpful. They should be undone.Travelpleb (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Actually I would almost suggest just skipping that and turning them into redirects. There is clearly no reason to have 2-3 sublevels of hierarchy under regions the size of Kashmir. Texugo (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. We'll have to work out where to redirect each one. The hardest problem will be with a division that is partly in Azad Kashmir and partly in Jammu and Kashmir. I guess that would get redirected to a Kashmir disambig page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
So do you think they should be redirected or just deleted? How many readers will be looking for articles on old divisions that are no longer used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've left an additional request on the user's talk page to join this discussion, but if that doesn't happen then I'd suggest converting everything from Special:Contributions/78.145.46.151 (and related IPs) into a redirect to the appropriate region - it is tough to create sensible regions, and all of these un-discussed skeletons don't make that job any easier. As to the reason for redirecting, that will at least keep them from being re-created. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
According to User:Saqib (see User talk:Saqib#Pakistan divisions articles for our conversation and Talk:Punjab (Pakistan) for additional discussion), Pakistani Punjab is currently divided into 9 divisions, and he thinks it makes sense to use those as regions in the Punjab (Pakistan) guide. Some other provinces have had newly-revived divisions, including Sindh. I don't think we should be too hasty to delete these articles without being clear on which divisions are current, which may not be, and which may make sense to use as regions of states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I personally find those IP edits very constructive, I've noticed xe is trying to create the region list based on current divisions. --Saqib (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is one comment in the thread above that is supportive of all of the skeleton regions being created by the anonymous user in question, but it's still far from clear to me why all of these skeleton regions are of any value, and the anonymous user in question has refused to join this discussion despite many pointers to it. To me, this massive pile of skeleton regions appears to be comparable to someone creating skeletons for every county in the US, something we have strongly discouraged. Combined with the lack of any willingness to join in discussion, I've been resorting to using short-term blocks as the only viable way of dealing with this user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have gotten rid of a couple dozen of them by redirecting them to the parent region. In some cases, the parent region didn't even have a single city article under it yet - far from needing subdivision. I rather agree with Ryan's comparison with county articles, and I hope to see the effort change to start elaborating on the important cities in the higher regions rather than creating skeletons for dozens of subregions and towns. The more skeletal articles there are, the harder it is for readers to figure out which articles actually are worth looking at. Texugo (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Currently the history section has:
Today Pakistan is made up of people from various races including Arabs from after the Islamic expeditions, Persians from Bukhara and Samarkand, Turks from Central Asia and the native Sindhus who were converted to Islam.
I would think there were far more Pathans/Pushtuns (or whatever the right term is) or Punjabis than any of those groups. Then there are Baluchis, Baltis and I'm not sure who else.
You know the country, so your opinion is worth more than mine on this topic. Here's mine anyway.
I think of them as one region and still think of it as the Northwest Frontier Province, even though that name became officially obsolete in 1947.
I don't much like the idea of merging FATA into KP because I think both are official names and, as official administrative areas, they are quite distinct. I'd support merging both into some region with a non-official name, perhaps Northwest Frontier (Pakistan), without "Province" since using an official name from the time of the Raj would be remarkably dumb. Pashley (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was suggesting merging FATA into KPK and renaming the region as "KPK and FATA" or "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Federally Administered Tribal Areas", but your suggestion of using unofficial name is not bad either. Btw, for you information, "North-West Frontier Province" was the official name of the province until 2010 when it was changed to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". --Saqib (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Second proposal
Hi Pashley, currently Pakistan is divided based on political administrative areas but I'm thinking of defining the regions based on geography of the country. Probably into three region. Also, please see this. What do you suggest? --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Why were the entire contents of this page archived? The page was not very long, and discussions as recent as two weeks ago were archived. This makes it very hard for people to re-open "old" discussions. Powers(talk)20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
First of all, 2013 isn't "over". I don't know that it's a "big deal", but we usually only archive when a page gets too long, so that discussions can be easily found and added to, rather than hidden in an uneditable archive. Powers(talk)21:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's fairly long-standing practice to only archive when necessary, and to go ahead and add to existing discussions rather than start new ones. Starting new discussions all the time leads to disjointed conversations and it makes it harder to go back to refer to earlier discussions. It's much better to keep related discussions all in one place. Powers(talk)21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Powers is right, when he says it is better to keep most material on the page so that prior discussions can be understood and, if necessary developed further. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
Currently, the Pakistan rupee is one of the exceptions to our currency policy of prefixing currency amounts with the three letter ISO 4217 code for the currency in block capitals and no intervening space. Instead, in Pakistan articles, we are currently enjoined to use the rather long winded HTML construction of, for example Rs 100 so that "Rs" is not separated from its amount by a breaking space.
I see that I am not alone in my personal preference for the shorter, conventional way of writing PKR100 instead.
I was not aware of the currency policy and I've changed "Rs." to "PKR" in our articles but now I noticed "PKR" is actually not allowed per policy so I'm fine with using "Rs.". After all "Rs." is symbol of Pakistani currency but both PKR and Rs. are widely used. --Saqib (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Frank is the one who added "Rs." to the list of preferred currency symbols (vice "PKR"). Although his edit summary referenced a discussion on the talk page, I can't find any consensus for those changes in that discussion. Unfortunately a lot of edits have occurred since then and it would be hard to revert the non-consensus edit. Powers(talk)14:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Powers, even if that was Frank but he was actually right. "Rs." or "Rs" is actually the symbol of Pakistani currency and is commonly used. I noticed we're using symbols instead of three letter ISO 4217 code for most of currencies so I'm inclined to support Frank's preference. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is simply not true that "we're using symbols instead of three letter ISO 4217 code for most" currencies - that's why the long winded HTML construction of Rs 100 is listed in a section entitled Universally known currency notation exceptions (my emphasis added).
Neither is it true that the current policy is to use "Rs." (with a full stop or period - as opposed to without a full stop or period).
It's also not true that ""PKR" is actually not allowed per policy". You're encouraged to use it where there would be any ambiguity or in an article or topic which is not limited to Pakistan; eg, the phrase "the border cart wallahs typically charge PKR7 or INR4 per hand cart load".
The consensus can change as the majority shifts towards a more rational way of doing things - we saw that with front-linking of URLs and I believe we will eventually see that with links to Wikipedia about non-travel topics.
If anyone missed the discussions before, this is their chance to express a preference now and I repeat that my preference is for the conventional PKR100 because it avoids the difficulty of the HTML construction. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You saying the current policy is not to use Rs. but PKR is allowed but on Wikivoyage:Currency, it says "Rs 100 in Pakistan not Rupees 100, 100 PKR nor 100 rupaya". I don't know who to follow. You or policy page so I'll take myself out of this discussion. --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, adding the full stop on the end of "Rs" is indeed prohibited.
The policy page, wv:$, is a little bit more nuanced than entirely prohibiting PKR, Saqib. Currently in exclusively Pakistan destination articles, the policy is indeed to use something like Rs 100 . That is why I am asking your opinion if it would be better if this exception were removed, since many editors (including your good self) do use PKR. I can not force you to express a preference, but I would be grateful if you would notify any other editors of Pakistan articles that might want to be aware of this discussion.
(Wikivoyage:Currency#Special_cases and "If the... article uses multiple currencies, including foreign ones, use the shortest unambiguous form for each." deals with cases where, and according to current policy, it may still be preferable to use PKR - as in my example above...) --118.93nzp (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Part of the frustration with you and Frank is cases like this. Frank went and agitated for must more specific and voluminous guidance than we previously had. Most of us let it go and let him implement his proposal because we don't much care. But then you come along and question specific parts of that now-voluminous guidance, engaging in hair-splitting of the most pedantic sort possible, which may result in further specificity and volume on the policy, and it could grow to Wikipedian proportions, when most of us would be happy with this. Powers(talk)13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Frank's a German living in Scotland and I'm a Kiwi living in the Top of the South. In your "good old days" things were even more US centric and the incomplete guidance that you point to was both contradictory and ambiguous.
The old policy you referenced, started out by saying "In order to ensure consistency, certain style codes should be recognized." and then blithely went on to essentially contradict that by stating "Prices should be listed with the currency symbol that travellers will encounter, specifically the local formatting." without ever realising that outside of the good old US of A (and a few other countries) there was very little consistency with the way prices were locally expressed, with a huge and entertaining variety of symbols, abbreviations and varying as to whether they were placed before or after the amount and with or without a full stop and other additional formatting and punctuation.
Some of the fiercest editors here insist that everything in all our articles must be consistent. I'm not one of those but, unless money is no object, prices are important to most travellers and it would be good to remove the exception if the most prolific editors of Pakistan articles favour the usual ISO symbolisation of PKR rather than the special exception.
You may need to relax more and participate only in discussion where you are actually interested in the outcome rather than lashing out at editors that irritate you. If we eventually start listening to Frank and improve our Search Engine Optimisation, then we will be getting a lot more editors from outside the US of A, and the very idea of replacing the universally understood five peaks over 8,000m with the US centric expansion of five peaks over 8,000 meters (in an article on Pakistan) will seem rather quaint.
Now getting back on topic, do you have a preference for expressing prices in Pakistan articles, or do you prefer a riotous anarchy of styles? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
This is getting silly.
Saqib has refused to express a preference (as his right) and yet he is now busily changing a minimally policy compliant formatting of "PKR10,000" to "Rs.10,000" witha full stop and without a space, never mind a breaking space of the prescribed Rs 100 type! --118.93nzp (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
If my changes (PKR → Rs) are silly then what should I call this? Who say I refused to express my preference. See above my comment (date-stamped 14:53, 3 February 2014). --Saqib (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Pragmatic? Consistent with your edits? Making your own edits consistent with developing policy?
I know your English is poor, but please concentrate carefully now Saqib: I would not have had a problem if you had indeed (PKR → Rs) - but you didn't! You (PKR → Rs.) ie witha full stop and without a space, never mind a breaking space of the prescribed Rs 100 type! you changed PKR100 to Rs.100 rather than what would have been correct according to the current iteration of wv:$ using: Rs 100 . --118.93nzp (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
In your latest attempt with our Karachi article although you have now removed the erroneous full stop you still haven't separated it from the amount at all - let alone with the recommended non-breaking space.
All of this confusion by our most prolific and interested editor of Pakistan articles just really goes to illustrate in the clearest way why I raised this topic in the first place: the standard three upper case letters of PKR placed before the amount with no intervening space at all (and certainly no complicated HTML of a non-breaking space) rather than our current complicated exception is surely the way to go to make life easier to achieve consistent formatting of prices in Pakistan articles.
[undent] I'd say Saqib & the policy are obviously correct in preferring Rs to PKR. Removing the exception is not even worth considering since Rs is a widely used abbreviation. In general, we should use the three-letter ISO codes only as a fallback when there is nothing better.
Does it normally have a space? I don't know, so I'm asking Saqib. If it does, then making the space non-breaking is a good idea but no-one should be losing sleep over use of normal spaces in our text. Pashley (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Most copy editing is of low importance - that's why it's so amusing to see editors get so bothered about it. Many spelling mistakes and such like don't affect meaning too much. However, they do impact how readers perceive the authority of our guide and may cause some readers to question the accuracy of the information if they think we can't be bothered to get the trivial stuff right. Certainly if we continue to have this weird preference for separating amounts from their units with a space (except for degrees of temperature and electrical units), for the sake of readability it is preferable to remove the space entirely rather than have it remain as a simple space of the breaking (or orphan making) type.
It's very difficult to make any progress in discussions if you will not concede even the tiniest and most obvious points, Powers.
Please explain to me how exactly an orphaned 2,700 m is not less readable than 2,700m?
As to Wikipedia, they have many more Wikignomes to go around cleaning up the orphans by adding in the non-breaking spaces. At least they are consistent in using even non-breaking spaces between the C and F and ° in 32°F=0°C...
Frequency. "2,700m" looks weird to everyone; with a line break it only looks weird to people who happen to have a line break there. And it's a false dichotomy anyway. Use or {{nowrap}} and it's a moot point. Powers(talk)16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Peeples' aesthetic sensibilities are different. I understand that an unspaced style looks bad to you and some others. Some think it is easier to understand and looks better without a space between the amount/number and its abbreviation/symbolisation. I understand that you like to see a lot of full stops (eg, in the US) but these aesthetic preferences are by no means universal. All that I ask is that when folks indulge their aesthetic preferences for a space they are not lazy and make sure that space is of the non-breaking sort (using either or {{nowrap}}) so that it does not (sometimes, depending on line breaks) interrupt the semantics. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Checking, I see that there are now no instances of PKR in the article and most prices are given with Rs (without a period), which I think is exactly as it should be. A few use "Rs." and I did not check for non-breaking spaces; I consider those minor issues. Pashley (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
With regard to the comment in small text above (which I shall now strike as being wrongheaded), Powers has now helpfully explained that "Reverting an edit is not "edit warring". Reinstating an edit of your own that was reverted is."
On my user talk page, I have thanked him for his helpful and succinct comment that explained a lot that has caused me puzzlement in the last decade or so. I apologise and withdraw my comment. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
There're few exists in older towns and older parts of bigger cities but I never heard anyone staying in them. And I think they're mostly being used as a accommodation for officials and government employees thus not very welcoming to tourists and travellers. I would say we should only mention them where there's no hotel, or guest-house available. --Saqib (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK. My experience was India in the 70s with the VW van that was usual for the "Hippie Trail". We stayed in several, they welcomed tourists and were among the best places to stay — cheaper than good hotels but cleaner and quieter than most of the backpacker places. Some, like the one in Agra, were really well located; a lot of them no-one without a car would find, though.
For us, they were a great way to meet locals; for example, we spent some time with a crew who had three land rovers and about ten people as a flying squad against cholera outbreaks — charge into a village, vaccinate everyone, test the water, ... — but no current outbreak. The doctors & nurses spoke good English; drivers & cook did not but grinned a lot. Their cook was superb; given a bit of help from us on the ingredients budget, he produced the best meal we had in India. Pashley (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Respected admin,
You have to make sure a full map pf Pakistan on wikivoage. Current map is not completed.you have divided KASHMIR as you wanted. remember visitor of wikivoyage trusted wikivoyage. we should protect our visitors trust. Thanks —The preceding comment was added by 182.188.147.247 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Obviously after the horrific incident yesterday where scores of schoolchildren were individually and carefully shot dead, peoples' prayers are with their grieving families.
However, for a long time kidnappings for ransom and political and religious violence have been a constant in many parts leading to warnings by many governments not to travel at all. Is a warning box needed or will all travellers already be aware that the school massacre was not a one-off incident? --Ttcf (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, condolences to all for that horrible incident. In my opinion, Pakistan is a high-risk area for terrorism and definitely merits a warningbox, but I'm not there. User:Saqib, you're on the ground there. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Horrific, terrible, horrible, dreadful and shocking incident. I still don't think we need to put a red warning box on Pakistan page. Yes I'm Pakistani but honestly speaking, I'm being very neutral here. I also don't think Northwest Pakistan page requires such a warning box. But yes, travel to FATA which is part of Northwest region is STRONGLY discouraged but because we don't have much pages on FATA here so I didn't bothered to add the template into them. On the other hand, Northwest page mentions under the stay safe section that travelling to FATA should be discouraged. And for those who don't know: In the last few months, militants activities has been come to a halt due to a military operation in FATA and so this attack came as revenge as it was expected. --Saqib (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
" Benazir Bhutto International Airport, ISB IATA (Islamabad International Airport) was just awarded the title of Worst Airport in the World 2014 citing its resemblance "to a central prison", criticized "for the crowds (and absence of crowd control), the pervasive corruption, the aggressive-yet-inconsistent security checks, and the overall lack of cleanliness and technology" toppling Manila from pole position after many years. It's currently in review to be expanded and modernized to meet the needs of future passenger numbers as demand for air travel has increased dramatically."
I do not think the quotes are a good idea since we should not use them without attribution, proper attribution would need an external link that would violate policy, and anyway I do not know how reliable the source is.
The main problem as I see it is that you are boldly claiming it has been awarded the title of "Worst Airport in the World 2014", when in fact the 'award' is just taken from some dodgy blog about airports on the internet. Not exactly Skytrax.
As you might imagine, my job has taken me to hundreds of airports on every continent except Antarctica. Islamabad - and especially its staff - is the worst of any I've ever been to (I except airstrips in Equatorial Africa and Siberia).
The "dodgy blog" is quoted by newspapers worldwide since it is compiled from travellers' reports - a bit like us in fact.
Here are some Skytrax quotes: " Its such a horrible place to be. Custom officers greet you with such rudeness" "Without doubt ISB is the world's worst airport and recently had this status officially recognised. Use this airport every couple of months at the moment and always dread the experience" "Truly awful airport. Aside from the actual facilities (not) on offer, it is the people who work here that make this airport perhaps the worst that I have experienced." "Overall the airport is too bad. Hope the new airport under construction turns out to be a good and well maintained airport" "bathrooms are horrible (a daunting task to use them). Overall a horrible, unorganized, chaotic, below international standards airport." "all I can say is never again!" "I have been traveling through ISB for three years now and I continue to marvel at the pain travelers have to endure to get on an airplane." "appalling and insufficient for the number of people" "it never fails to amaze how ineffIcient and nightmarish it is. Everything is covered in a layer of dirt." "one of the most irritating airports I have ever been for a capital city gateway"--180.191.108.1309:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I didn't dispute that it is probably, all qualities considered, one of the least desirable airports to fly to. I simply take issue with your claim that it has been awarded the 'Worst Airport in the World 2014'. Based on the evidence provided it is not.
I guess you could say 'it was voted worst airport to sleep in by an online community of people who like sleeping in airports', but such niche insights are not generally included in our guides. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Some really funny survey it was. I've been to Islamabad airport quite few times. Yes its small but not really world's worst. The survey was not reliable BTW. Anyways, Islamabad getting bigger airport terminal very soon. --Saqib (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Which would be your nomination for world's worst then, Saqib? Do you really think your edit was fair to travellers? As and when a new terminal is built and if the staff improve their attitude we can always change the description - after all this is a Wiki, isn't it? --180.191.108.1309:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
You never get tired? Don't you think this was more than enough? Why you want to mention this silly fact in Pakistan article too? It doesn't belongs there. And how come I know the world's worst airport. I never been to each and every airport in the world. There are over 50K airport in the world. And BTW If you don't know a place, please don't write about it. I don't think you ever been to Islamabad airport, how can you say its world's worst airport. I don't trust the source that conducted the survey. They do such survey for self promotion but ground realities are totally different. To me, Peshawar airport is more worst than Islamabad. The survey was soo biased. --Saqib (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand that you're naturally upset to have one of Pakistan's hub airports named as the worlds worst. Filipinos were similarly embarrassed when Manila held that place for 3 years. But Terminal 3 at Manila has now been improved - the staff have been told in no uncertain terms by the president himself to "shape up, or ship out". Now I'll try and answer your questions:
I think it is helpful to warn potential travellers in the Islamabad article, but it is not sufficient. In this, the Pakistan article, we list 3 international gateway airports in Pakistan. To my way of thinking, if you are not a diplomat, then Lahore should be considered as your entry point unless you are a masochist. The Pakistan article needs very strong wording about how truly filthy, rude and chaotic Islamabad is.
I don't believe we've ever had the maxim of "If you don't know a place, please don't write about it" but, even if we had, did you miss the part above where I wrote "As you might imagine, my job has taken me to hundreds of airports on every continent except Antarctica. Islamabad - and especially its staff - is the worst of any I've ever been to (I except airstrips in Equatorial Africa and Siberia)" ?
There are NOT more than 50,000 airports in the world. I don't count landing fields and airstrips with no passenger terminal facilities whatever as airports. To my mind, no "aerodrome" without a three letter IATA designator could realistically be called an airport and many of those (such as FFA) are not, in my book, commercial passenger airports. No more than about 17,000 three-letter IATA codes have been issued and way less than half of those are, the way I use English, commercial passenger airports with terminal facilities.
I think this can be easily fixed by simply writing why you believe it is so bad, without any exaggerations or hyperbole. If it is truly bad, just give us the facts on the ground. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll try and remember to take my calipers with me next month and measure exactly how many microns thick the grime is. Seriously though, rudeness, disorganisation and filth are both comparative and subjective - that's why I ask if anyone knew a worse hub airport than Islamabad. If they do, then the wording could be changed to one of the worlds worst. --180.191.108.1301:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think that sometimes a few well chosen ones can make the prose more interesting, however I've recognised your preference and removed some. --222.127.76.20701:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Definitely. Even foreigners have to submit a copy of their valid visa, and will have their mobile numbers blocked as soon as their visa/resident persmits expires. --Saqib (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps some of you may have noticed that I was collecting photos of Pakistan here on Wikivoyage and wondered why. Actually still there're many Pakistan articles that lacks page banners so I thought of gathering big resolution photos that looked impressive to me so we can craft some nice page banners out of them. I'll be gathering some more images in the next couple of days but in the mean time would appreciate if some of you may help me make some page banners. No hurries by the way so what say User:Danapit and User:Ypsilon? --Saqib (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Beautiful photos of beautiful locations! Though for the next few days I'll be exploring southern Spain and be limited to a throwaway tablet with no real editing software and only occasional Internet access in practice. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Each photo has a name that makes sense and could be used to find the article, although a suggestion from Saqib for the appropriate corresponding articles would help a lot. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dana, this collection contains photos of 3 regions of Pakistan (Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and while many of the locations where these photos were captured are very tourity places but still we don't have articles on them. I've very limited knowledge of that parts of the country but I'm planning to start articles on them by next month. I was thinking of having banners beforehand which can be then added as articles started to pop-up. --Saqib (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Quite frankly, although I'm more than happy to help with any task related to WV banners, I still have no idea how to approach this task in a structured way. The pictures are far too many - I don't believe there will be this amount of articles created. I have for example noticed that there must be many pictures from the same location (Hunza Valley). How is this way of creating banners be more efficient then going to an appropriate article, find a matching category in Commons and picking one photo there? Danapit (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry this issue doesn't crossed my mind. Most of the image are not yet categorized on Commons as they're freshly uploaded. I'll soon categorize them and will let you know once I'm done. Until then, we can put this on hold. BTW I've noticed you already created some nice banners. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Kindly add these cities into Pakistan article and expand limit form 9 to more
Please read Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists#Lists of Cities and Other destinations. In bottom-level region articles, every city in the region with an article should be linked, but in non-bottom-level regional articles — particularly articles about countries — the linked "Cities" are limited to 9, by overall consensus on the policy. The number of "Other destinations" (i.e., destinations other than cities, such as national parks and archeological sites) is also limited to 9.
Which 9 is open to discussion here, but if you'd like to expand the number of cities listed in non-bottom-level regional articles, the place to argue for that is the relevant policy page, Wikivoyage talk:Region article template.
Sorry, I know this probably sounds bureaucratic, but this is the way Wikis work: Everything is open to discussion, but any contested change requires a consensus, and different topics get discussed in different places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Afghanistan page makes mention of a bus route from Jalalabad to Peshawar, presumably through the Khyber Pass. It was my understanding that the pass was mostly closed to foreigners and, indeed, this page makes no mention of it. Wondering which is correct...
We have an article at Khyber Pass. It currently does not give a clear answer to your question and may need updating.
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I saw this new statement: "It is believed that had General Ayub Khan run fair elections who then became 2nd President of Pakistan in 2958, Fatima Jinnah would have become the first Muslim President of the largest Muslim country in the world."
I thought Indonesia was the world's largest muslim country at 250 million, with Pakistan behind it at 180 million? Indonesia's muslim population is 87% , but that would still put it ahead of Pakistan? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, 0.87*250=217.5, and the population of Indonesia was also larger than that of Pakistan in the 1950's. Also, the year is probably not 2958 (but 1958), and already the very first president of Pakistan, Iskandar Mirza, was unsurprisingly a Muslim. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
-How did you come about this info at the first place?
-Second, it is otherwise understandable that no country will allow people to enter restricted area(s), like disputed borders or conflict zones, but then why doesnt the same info isnt mentioned in the same template at India? Or is it that India encourages its tourists to wander off near the disputed border/LoC? All I want is that the true picture (as you suggested) should be presented.
TripWire (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Don't delete something you concede is true, unless you have another reason, such as its not being important for x or y reason. The watchword on Wikivoyage is not NPOV, anyway, but be fair; however, the operating principle here is the traveller comes first, so regardless of what people's politics are, if information is useful to a traveller, it should be included.
I think you're misunderstanding the specific point here, though. The reason for the text you're having a problem with being here and not in the India article is summed up here:
"Most of the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) is currently safer than most of the rest of Pakistan"
The entire tone of that paragraph is cautionary but reassuring. Do you really think the same is true of the part of Kashmir controlled by India? Correct me if I'm operating on outdated information, but I believe it would be highly misleading to insert similar language in the India article, if the effect was to imply that only areas of Jammu and Kashmir right near the LoC were dangerous and travellers were unlikely to be able to get to them. By contrast to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan in relation to the rest of Pakistan, as I understand, the Indian-controlled Valley of Kashmir is one of the most dangerous areas of India (at least in terms of potential exposure to political violence) compared to other parts of India. If you have current information that contradicts these things, that could be important and might merit a change in language, but merely trying to be mechanically evenhanded without considering any question of context or interest of the traveller is inappropriate for a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I get it, the policy here is different then that at WP. I didnt know that earlier, thanks for correcting me.
But then, I am sorry, I am not getting the argument here. The be fair policy explicitly mentions the following guideline:
"possible dangers to travellers. Are areas along the border off-limits or risky due to military activity?"
So my concern simply is that whether the situation on the Indian side of Kashmir is conducive for travellers to "visit area along the borders"? Are they not off-limit or risky due to military activity? How is it that on the Pakistani side alone, where no skirmishes take place, the border is off-limit, but on the Indian side, where Indian maintains a presence of 0.6 million soldiers, the fact that the areas along the (Indian Kashmir) border is also off-limit is not only mentioned, but you are still suggesting that it should not be mentioned. Isnt, by only mentioning this fact in Pakistan article and not mentioning the same at India will likely misguide the tourist visiting the Indian Kashmir, and may put them in danger?
On one hand we agree that the Pakistani Kashmir is comparatively safer then the rest of Pakistan less the areas along the (Pakistani Kashmir) border, and on the other hand we also agree that in case of Indian Kashmir the situation is opposite i.e. Indian Controlled Kashmir is dangerous than rest of India, but ironically, this very fact (alongwith the fact that areas along Indian Kashmir too are dangerous and off-limits) is not mentioned in the (Kashmir) template present at India! That's what I am concerned about now, and I think this needs to be corrected in the interest of giving a clear picture to travllers visiting the Indian Kashmir.
I am sorry, but where does in the India article do we educate visitors of the following fact, as told by yourself: "the Indian-controlled Valley of Kashmir is one of the most dangerous areas of India"? TripWire (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please go ahead and edit the "Kashmir dispute" box or "Stay safe" in the India article in any way you feel would make it more informative and helpful to travellers, and if you feel the changes you would like to make should get more discussion or documentation than just an edit summary, feel free to post to Talk:India about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have no problem with these edits, but I think User:TripWire was also complaining about the way the analogous infobox reads in the India article. I think that's a topic best dealt with in Talk:India, but I mention it because of the way discussion here seems to have gone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think it's too balanced now. Shouldn't the infobox in the India article mention that areas of the Valley of Kashmir not in the immediate vicinity of the Line of Control can be dangerous due to ongoing insurgency, terrorism, and counter-insurgency operations by sometimes trigger-happy Indian troops? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Trigger happy? I am not sure. Yes, there have been instances of excessive use of force by the Indian Army, but I dont think they just go about shooting around people.--TripWire (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
That seems like a semantical argument. Anyway, my remark stands, and part of my point is that a fair comment on dangers in the Valley of Kashmir would have to mention insurgency, terrorism and Indian Army operations and can't omit any of the above. Pashley, any thoughts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sure, a tourist, especially a foreigner traveling in Kashmir where India maintains presence of 0.6 million troops will not be similar to if the same person is in mainland India. But the extent to which the danger exists is to be ascertained first.--TripWire (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
We usually don't give percentages of risk; are you suggesting that? "Stay safe" is just a section to mention things that might be a problem for safety, and similarly, in an infobox about the Kashmir conflict and the potential threats to a visitor's safety, mentioning potential problems without trying to give any hard and fast quantification of them seems sensible. Anyway, we're discussing India way too much on this talk page. Let's wait and see what Pashley says, and of course you are just as free to work on a fair phrasing for the India article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
User:Mohammadbinkazim96 has been removing the warning box at the top of this article, but as far as I can tell the travel warnings issued by various countries are still active. As such, the warning box should stay, but I've started this discussion to hopefully address the edit war that is now ongoing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I think we shouldn't pick and choose which destinations get warning boxes based on our own users experiences or estimations or even the situation on the ground at any given moment. When the majority of our usually linked governments gives a negative travel advise, that should warrant some kind of warning (at least to get up to date info) here. Not only because of the immediate dangers for travellers, but also because such an advice has consequences for the validity of insurances and the expectations one can have for consular assistance.
However, I could imagine a more subtle way of doing this for the countries where there isn't an all out "don't go" advise. The warning boxes as we have them seem fine for, say, Syria or South-Sudan at this moment. For countries with more nuanced advises though, we could consider a small standard banner mentioning that there are security issues that warrant looking for up to date information, perhaps linking to the safety section for extended information? Looking at the LP website for example, it holds a more friendly yellow box for Pakistan, saying Because of ongoing security problems in Pakistan, foreign governments advise against all travel, or all but essential travel, to many parts of the country. Your travel insurance may be invalid if you ignore this advice. Because of the risk of political violence, foreign visitors are required to travel with an armed escort in some areas. Seek up-to-date information on the security situation before travelling to Pakistan.JuliasTravels (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Frankly if everything that poses a potential threat to life an limb needs a warningbox, then by all means we should plaster WV from top to bottom with them. I would myself prefer they were used far more judiciously, with Syria being a good example. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the distinction were just the severity of the threat, maybe we should put a warningbox in United States, telling people that if they go to a movie theater, post office, mall, night club, kindergarten, military base or college campus, they might be murdered by a mass shooter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are taking my clarification about when to use warningbox and when to use cautionbox and conflating it with guidance as to when to include any sort of box at all. That is not my intent, and I wish you wouldn't misrepresent my point so. If you were to include a box about being possibly murdered by a mass shooter, then yes it absolutely should be a warningbox, not a cautionbox. But I would question whether such a box is necessary. Powers(talk)21:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
But why do you think such a box is not necessary? Not to put words in your mouth, but I think it would be because of the low chances of any individual being caught up in such an incident, certainly not its severity. So there you go: Likelihood of trouble vs. severity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. As I clearly stated, my comment about likelihood vs severity addresses which box to use, not whether to include a box at all. The decision tree goes like this:
Doesn't make sense to me. It's all or nothing, nothing in between? I guess you won't change your mind, and once again, we'll have to see whether others agree with your bright-line stance on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Is this not easily solved by the guidance for WarningBox itself? Template:Warningbox : If the danger affects the entire region, the warning box can be placed at the very top of the article. If the danger is localized or avoidable, place it under "Stay safe".
Given the existing warning is localized (albeit for large parts of the country) then it should therefore be moved down to 'stay safe', as per the guidance.
Now you're talking about Pakistan, not the tangents we've gone onto. Which part of Pakistan is considered safe for non-essential travel, according to the foreign ministries that have posted travel warnings for their citizens? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
As for Pakistan, the difficulty is that those advises differ somewhat, in that regard. Most of them, e.g. the US, Australia and Canada simply advise against all non-essential travel to the whole of Pakistan (and against all travel to over half the country), while the UK has a (rather extensive) specified list of regions, and warns for terrorism aimed at foreigners in general for the rest. Personally, I'd say in such cases the top op the article is probably good (and that's also what many otheer sites like LP go for in this case), but I have no strong feelings about it.
As for the broader discussion, it's probably worth pointing out the discussion at Talk:Walt_Disney_World#Warning_box_for_roller_coasters_is_overkill and comments of Ryan there, which gives some further background to LtPowers' position. I, for one, don't share that position at all and feel that warning box should be used sparingly as to not dilute its effect. This black and white decision tree doesn't represent the subtleties of these boxes either. I'd say those pages give rough guidelines on when to use these boxes, but don't prevent us from using good judgement or interpretation. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for my absence. Ikan, what do you mean by "nothing in between"? What would be between "the threat endangers life and limb" and "the threat doesn't endanger life and limb"? My point is that we have always used warningbox for severe dangers of this type; we introduced cautionbox for threats to one's comfort or cashflow. To my knowledge, we have never used cautionbox for mortal dangers that are simply not likely to occur, thus the guidance on Template:Cautionbox's documentation. Powers(talk)00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's the likeliness that's at issue here. There are gradations of likeliness. Moreover, if there are highly visible signs at the location warning you not to do something, that makes it even less likely that someone wanting to ignore the risks would pay attention to a warningbox on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello everyone, I 'm here to highlight that w:The Spectator in a recent report reported that "Until a few years ago, Pakistan was one of the most dangerous countries on earth... Violence has not just dropped a bit. It is down by three quarters in the last two years...." It also says "Just three years ago, according to the Numbeo international crime index, Karachi was the sixth most dangerous city in the world. Today it stands at number 31 — and falling." --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'd call ISI the Pakistani military intelligence service not "secret police". I do not think there is any doubt they have some political influence in Pakistan, some CIA ties, and a history of intervention in Afghanistan including support for Taliban. I do not see that that is very relevant for travellers, though. Pashley (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sure, military intelligence. The relevance is that it's part of the description of the country, and we provide such background info to prospective travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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) 13:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The languages mentioned in Talk are said to be spoken throughout the country. Is this just an involved way to say "in the country", or are none of the main languages regional? –LPfi (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm confused – isn't "throughout the country" (or "thruout the country") the way to mention if a language is spoken nationwide? I'd interpret "in the country" as "anywhere in the country". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia)09:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
An edit war is taking place, but the placement of the commas followed w:Indian numbering system. A big part of the confusion people from outside of South Asia feel when seeing this numbering system is that the commas don't appear just every three places like in the system used in most of the rest of the world. I've attempted to have a discussion at User talk:YourLocalWikiGuy, but since User:YourLocalWikiGuy is choosing to edit war, the discussion has to take place here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
_(-mini_map_-rivers).svg)
Done If Saqib was still around, I'd like to confirm but sadly they've retired. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
