text:
Talk:Padang

Hotels information
Hotel Bumi Minang and Hotel Ambacang are damaged during the earthquake 30th Sept 2010. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 182.8.201.13 (talk • contribs)

 * 2009, obviously. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:20, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Hotels information
Hotel Bumi Minang and Hotel Ambacang are damaged during the earthquake 30th Sept 2009. Basco Best Western Hotel is planned to be opened in June 2010. Pangeran Beach Hotel and Pangeran City are still exist.

Other recommended Hotel (bellow three star):

1.	Hotel Djakarta Makmur, Jl. Belakang Olo No. 57, Padang Phone +62(0751)23331,email: hoteldjakarta@yahoo.co.id

2.	The Sriwijaya Hotel, Jl. Veteran No. 26, Phone : +62 (0751)21942

3.	Boutique Hotel Mayang, Jl. Veteran Dalam No. 50 A, Padang. Phone(0751) 26976 – 33531

4.     HAVILLA MARANATHA HOTEL, address : Jl. Bandar Pulau Karam No.10-d, Padang, Phone(+6275126321), email :   maranatha_homestay@yahoo.com

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 182.8.201.13 (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mesjid Raya Sumatra Barat.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mesjid Raya Sumatra Barat.jpg
 * No FoP in Indonesia. Do we want this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because it also has a watermark. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Padang


text:
Talk:Padang Besar (Malaysia)

Are two separate articles really necessary? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:05, 29 January 2007 (EST)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Padang Besar (Malaysia)


text:
Talk:Padaung

Tone
The tone of this article seems off to me. First, what do the Burmese/Thai call the "giraffe women"? I feel like there should be a better term to refer to them. I'm also not so sure about the listing of cities with the approximate number of "giraffe women" each has. I know people do travel here to see them, but the tone of the article seems a bit offensive, being completely devoted to the "ethnic zoo". What do others think? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:04, 21 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Padaung


text:
Talk:Padua

I heard a rumor that the Basilica Saint Antonio and its square are officially a territory of the Vatican City - i.e., not part of Italy. Does anyone know if that's true? (WT-en) WTDuck2 14:18, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Padua


text:
Talk:Padstow

What an astonishing piece of reportage! No mention of St. Petroc or the Obby Oss? Shurely shome (English colonialist) mishtake? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 61.73.71.238 (talk • contribs)

 * There is no mistake, the article is simply incomplete. Since you obviously have knowledge beyond what is present in the article, please by all means plunge forward and improve the article yourself! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Padstow


text:
Talk:Paducah

I know you guys aren't big on external links, so I won't add this myself. I'm hoping you might add the Metropolitan Hotel restoration project and give the blossoming Uppertown Heritage Foundation a mention. The project is in its third phase as of this post. Thanks in advanced. By the Way, here's a link, if you don't mind swapping. It already links to here.

Services Directory
If you have a Services Directory, I have a suggested entry:

Rob's Window Cleaning www.robswindowcleaning.com 2929 James Sanders Blvd. 270-965-9673

Contact person: Robert Lamb

title: Talk:Paducah


text:
Talk:Pag

Pag is island in Croatia!!!!! NOT IN BALKAN!!!!!BALKAN BEGINES FROM BOSNIA,SERBIA, ALBANIJA, MONTE NEGRO AND MACEDONIA!!!!!! THANK YOU!!! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 78.3.33.180 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Pag


text:
Talk:Pagasetic Gulf

Pagasetic Gulf
Thought about a speedy delete for this as it is a body of water (thus not a valid article subject), but was unsure if it was within my authority. --(WT-en) OldPine 18:17, 20 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete, but you did right to put it through the process rather than speedy-deleting it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:28, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Pagasetic Gulf
No sooner had I deleted this (in conformity to the VFD guilty-until-proven-innocent policy) than it dawned on me that a mistaken standard may have been applied in the VFD discussion. The discussion was treating it as though it was a destination, and hence inappropriate on the grounds of our Project:Bodies of water policy, when in fact it's more sensibly treated as a region in Greece, in which guise it's a perfectly sensible article. Some countries, Greece prominent among them, are probably better defined region-wise by the bodies of water around them than by artifical dry-land distinctions. Let's discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:14, 11 December 2007 (EST)

 * Does Greece need it as a region though? If someone's doing a reordering of the Greece heirarchy and they think it does then I don't see why it can't be recreated then... I'm not familiar with Greece but unless the region isn't already covered by another current article(s) I'm not sure we should undelete it... but just be lenient if it comes up for discussion again – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)

 * In general, I think any even remotely reasonable regions should be at least redirected in the right direction, not deleted outright. In this case, the gulf appears to be contained within the existing article of Magnesia.

 * And now a more important question: where in the world can I find Copasetic Gulf? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:18, 12 December 2007 (EST)

 * I agree, emphatically. More-or-less any name users might reasonably be expected to search for — examples include Bombay, Burma, West Indies, Taj Mahal — should be a redirect if there isn't an article for it. Same goes for region names, neighborhoods in a city, and so on. (WT-en) Pashley 04:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)
 * OK, so un-deletion as a redirect to Magnesia is the way to go, per consensus? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

So it's been re-created as a redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Pagasetic Gulf


text:
Talk:Pagsanjan

59.167.236.238 22:14, 24 January 2012 (EST)Was there two days ago (January 23, 2012).

Many signs along the road warning not to talk to illegal flaggers (touts, runners) and to drive directly to any resort where a standard fee would be charged.

Our hosts ignored this advice and got guided to a place that insisted that the fee was a standard P1000, plus many compulsory extras. Not being prepared to fight our way out of the laneway we paid P1790 each.

Once in the boat we passed huge signs painted on the bridge and on a concrete embankment reminding us that the inclusive fee was P1000 and to report rudeness and extortion ("forced tipping") to the mayor. A name and phone number is given, but who carries a mobile phone to a waterfall?

Once the rapids are reached and the tugboat disconnects the ride does live up to its promise. Except at a place with toilets and drink pedlars, everyone stayed in their boats for the entire ride upstream. At the end we walked a short distance on a paved path to get on the bamboo raft to pass under the falls and return. I regret not jumping off the raft behind the falls because it came back immediately. Anyway it was fun to feel and hear the water pounding down.

The falls are not very high but they are high enough to dwarf the raft so is is quite exciting. The view of the raft in the pool with the falls behind is just as good as on the postcards.

The return trip in the boat was non-stop through the rapids and not long to wait for a tow back to town.

After the tow was disconnected near the resort the boatmen began to demand tips. As we had left everything with our friends ashore we told them to wait a moment. However they followed us and seeing the rest of the party and the nice car asked for more. All together the cost was about P2000 each, not including food, drink or transport to Pagsanjan.

No, I did not phone the mayor: because I did not want to upset our hosts and because he would probably just say we should have followed his warnings. Anyone else visiting should be warned.

title: Talk:Pagsanjan


text:
Talk:Pahang

Contributor links - for researching this article try: - (WT-en) Huttite 05:19, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * http://www.pahangtourism.org.my
 * http://www.cuti.com.my/?f=Guide_pahang.htm

title: Talk:Pahang


text:
Talk:Pahrump

Prostitution
Given that this is one of very, very few places in the US where prostitution is legal, the fact should definitely be mentioned in the article. The Chicken Ranch is pretty famous too -- can a tourist do anything other than get laid if they visit? Gift shop, bar, ...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:48, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * The Nevada article discusses that prostitution is generally legal in Nevada with a few exceptions. (Though it describes it in the context of Respect as an issue to "tread lightly" when discussing.  That's seems wrong to me.  It should be in Understand and the rules should be spelled out.) The issue is not specific to Pahrump. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:56, 21 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Pahrump


text:
Talk:Pai

Warning!! This page has been edited by a group of expats, and does not give a full picture of Pai. I'd imagine the group that runs the Pai Post also edited this webpage, removing many refrences to resturants and guesthouses that are not owned by friends or members of this group. -- —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 61.7.175.151 (talk • contribs) (comment originally left on the article page)

 * Doing a quick check against what the article looked like this January, I don't see any places at all removed nor any edits to existing ones (positive or negative), just many new ones added. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pai


text:
Talk:Paihia

Issues involving tours
I haven't visited Paihia, so I'd like to solicit comments on the following question:

Does most of what there is to do there require paying a tour operator? Because right now, most of the "Do" listings are tours, and I'm uncomfortable with WikiTravel guides turning into alternate Yellow Pages of tour promoters. Please discuss this, so that we can come to a consensus about the self-promotion efforts we can see in this article.

All the best,

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:58, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Paihia


text:
Talk:Pakastan

how many hoildays are in pakastan

title: Talk:Pakastan


text:
Talk:Pakbeng

This was added to the page:

 * I was just in Pak Beng and there are a few things that I found notable enough to share with whomever is planning a trip. First, if you buy a bus ticket from Pai, the travel agent office that they will drop you off at in the middle of the night will charge you $12 US extra to get a visa for Laos.  The border is a five minute walk.  Don't let them rush you into an immediate boat ride.  Chiang Khong is nice and you can hire a private driver just across the street to drive you to the Golden Triangle.  For a car load, it will cost 700 baht (the tour agency from Pai wanted to charge 1500 baht for the same trip).  We chose to stay the night at a great guest house called BOOM HOUSE.  It's just behind the travel agency.  Further, I would buy the slow boat tickets across the street.  It's a bit more expensive, but you get a better lunch and the business owner is honest.  The slow boat views are absolutely beautiful and well worth everything.  Just take it slow and don't let anyone rush you.

 * Also, in PAK BENG, my camera was stolen, I believe from my room. It was only there for about 10 minutes, but the drug dealers are everywhere and the folks know that you are rushed in and out very quickly.  TAKE EXTREME CAUTION WITH YOUR BELONGINGS.

I'm pretty confused by the story here: so the travel agent in Pai tried to cheat them, and the great guest house in in Chiang Khong? And then the boats go from CK to Pakbeng? (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:37, 4 February 2007 (EST)

 * The slowboat that runs the Mekong from Huay Xai (a two-minute boat ride across the river from Chiang Khong) stops in Pakbeng for the night before continuing to Luang Prabang. Sounds like we could data mine for the guest house in Chiang Khong and car&driver cost to the Golden Triangle, plus warnings about watching your stuff (sorry, but 'duh') and buying visas only from the officials at the border in Chiang Khong... (WT-en) Maj 23:10, 4 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Pakbeng


text:
Talk:Pakistan

Political trolling
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)

Kashmir on maps
Hi! A Gujarati newspaper is causing trouble for us http://www.gujaratsamachar.com/20130122/head/head4.html The Indian newspaper found some inconsistency between our India and Pakistan maps. That is causing a major increase in political edits in the Pakistan regions and maps. I protected the general Pakistan article for 24 hours to calm down the motions and stop the edit warring. User:Ikan Kekek started a discussion on how to improve the map and how to adress the inconsistency. jan (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors:

Make sure to visit some reliable, confirmed and internationally recognized sources to upload maps and information. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pakistan/@30.3894007,69.3532207,5z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x38db52d2f8fd751f:0x46b7a1f7e614925c

Eliminating cross-hatching of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 (de-facto) (-mini map -rivers).svg. 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)
 * : do something fast in this direction Jay8580(talk). 22 January 2013

 * File:Pakistan_in_its_region_(de-facto).svg seems to be what we're looking for. —Quintucket (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * Note, that File:Map_of_Pakistan.png and File:Map_of_India.png are still inconsistent -- hatching should be removed from the Indian region map. 88.148.249.186 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * 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?
 * I'm going to post both these questions to Cacahuate's talk page, but I'm posting the explanation here in case anybody wonders about the delay. —Quintucket (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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 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)

 * 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)

 * There is related discussion at Talk:India and Wikivoyage_talk:Regions_map_Expedition Pashley (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * 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! –  cacahuate   talk 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 * You linked to a map of Pakistan that shows only the western half or less of the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 – cacahuate   talk 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The thing is, the maps of Pakistan are now fine. The issue now is the map of India. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we add something like this to both India & Pakistan articles. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs)

 * Template:Disclaimerbox should be used for this sort of information rather than Template:Infobox. LtPowers (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * Yes, your wording is definitely an improvement. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you like it. I tweaked it again, slightly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Disclaimerbox only takes one argument. LtPowers (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what that means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * It means only one parameter exists: . Could we possibly cut down on some of the text, though, it's awful long for a self-referential, in-article disclaimer.  --Peter Talk 05:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Sure. Which part do you want to remove? The last paragraph? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * 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, and that's considerably more brief, and possibly more necessary. --Peter Talk 07:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * This map of India shows Indian claimed Pakistani administered Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Chinese administered Aksai Chin, however why in this map of Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir region is not shown as claimed territory by Pakistan government? Can I modify the biased map of India deleting hatching region? --Saqib (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Saqib (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Division and district articles
In the last few days, an IP user has been posting division and district articles like the following: Muzaffarabad Division, Mirpur Division, Baltistan Division, Sargodha Division, Sahiwal Division, Badgam District Islamabad District, Poonch District.

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)

 * 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)

 * I tend to agree. Is there any objection to putting them up for Vfd? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * I may be misremembering. Perhaps it was partly in the Kashmir Valley and partly in Jammu. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if it crosses two legit regions we have, it can be its own disambig page. Texugo (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Above divisions are based on old divisions of Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * According to User:Saqib (see User talk:Saqib 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)
 * 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)
 * So I shouldn't delete them all, then? It's pretty confusing without any explanation being given. --Peter Talk 23:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Ethnic groups
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.

As I see it, this needs fixing but I do not know enough to do it. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want to know about the current demographics of Pakistan? --Saqib (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Not really, I just think the article needs better text. Pashley (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regions
Would it be a good idea to merge Federally Administered Tribal Areas into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? I don't have any concrete reasons to do so except the fact that FATA is generally a very non-touristy region in Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

Archiving
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)
 * Is it a big deal? 2013 is over thus I archived. --Saqib (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Please feel free to undo my archiving. Yes, 2013 is not exactly but almost over. Second, I think its better to start a new discussion if you've something related to Talk:Pakistan/Archive_2003-2013 or Talk:Pakistan/Archive_2003-2013 rather than making comments on months old discussion so it can be noticed. As for 2 weeks old discussion, the merging is finished but anyway I'll put that discussion back here. --Saqib (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Post-migration discussion unarchived. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Showing prices
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  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.

What do others think? Would it be best to change the advice given at Currency ? --118.93nzp (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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   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".
 * There certainly was discussion of this topic previously - here's one example that both I and Frank have participated in: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karachi&oldid=2516323#Pakistani_Rupee
 * 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)
 * You saying the current policy is not to use Rs. but PKR is allowed but on 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)

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. 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.

(Currency 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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 " with a full stop and without a space, never mind a breaking space of the prescribed  type! --118.93nzp (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 with a full stop and without a space, never mind a breaking space of the prescribed  type! you changed    to    rather than what would have been correct according to the current iteration of wv:$ using:    . --118.93nzp (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been fixed now. --Saqib (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's still buggered.

 * 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.

 * And with our Pakistan article, it is more comprehensively buggered with full stops and no spaces at all!

 * 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.
 * I therefore propose that the wv:$ policy is amended to remove the Pakistan exception. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would still recommend using "Rs" instead of more convenient "PKR". --Saqib (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

m --118.93nzp (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) m is not less readable than 2,700m?
 * [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)
 * Yes, it usually have a space. --Saqib (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * In terms of readability, 2,700m is vastly preferable to 2,700
 * That's debatable. And separating amounts from their units with a space is not weird.  Wikipedia does it, just for one example.  Powers (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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 &nbsp; or nowrap and it's a moot point.  Powers (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 &nbsp; or nowrap) so that it does not (sometimes, depending on line breaks) interrupt the semantics. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 * 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)

"edit warring"
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". [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&oldid=2520587&diff=prev 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)

Dak bungalows
These are described under India. Should they be mentioned for Pakistan as well, or perhaps for particular places? Pashley (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But as far I can tell, there're not many left in Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The reason I asked is this Taxila page mentions a dak bungalow in a nearby town. Pashley (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)

Incomplete map/ major misunderstanding
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)
 * Why don't you first conquer Kashmir and then complain here? --Saqib (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * See also previous discussion. Pashley (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning box needed?
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Shouldn't we give travellers a rough idea what to expect at Islamabad airport?
This reversion without an edit summary explanation as well as removing the IATA designator and re-introducing more tortuous English, removed this substantive passage:

" Benazir Bhutto International Airport, (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."

A simple search will reveal scores of passenger complaints about this facility but this is the source that the quotes were taken from: in "Worst Airports of 2014" Manila drops from pole to fourth position. --180.191.108.13 23:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 * 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.
 * On the other hand, if the airport is awful, we should say so. Pashley (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 * 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.
 * The core information may be worth communicating, although as Pashley  suggests direct quotes are not needed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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"--180.191.108.13 09:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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? --180.191.108.13 09:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 agree Peshawar Bacha Khan airport is worse - but it's neither a hub airport nor an international gateway nor listed in our Pakistan article, is it? --180.191.108.13 00:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actuallty I've reverted your edits because I can't argue. ENJOY! --Saqib (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --180.191.108.13 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Facts don't have to be precise measurements of grime, just I think it is better to keep away from quotes. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that sometimes a few well chosen ones can make the prose more interesting, however I've recognised your preference and removed some. --222.127.76.207 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tour
Is there a rationale for keeping this entry in the "Do" section, please?

--222.127.76.207 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * No. It should be only in the Rawalpindi guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Or possibly Islamabad, since the listing says each trip starts from there, but for now, I moved it to Rawalpindi. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --222.127.76.207 02:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Cell phones & fingerprints
Pakistanis face a deadline: Surrender fingerprints or give up cellphone, Will this have any effect on visitors? Pashley (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Pakistan photos
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)
 * 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)
 * Oh, very beautiful, indeed! I'll try and help out in the coming days. Danapit (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eeeeer... how would I know where the pictures were taken, and therefore which article they might belong to? Danapit (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Kindly add these cities into Pakistan article and expand limit form 9 to more

 * Sukkur – City with historical and other places such as Lab-e-Mehran, Saadh Belo,Arror.
 * Hyderabad, Sindh – famous for cool breezes and foods.
 * Nawabshah – central city of Sindh
 * Larkana – fomous for Rice,greenry, Mohenjo-daro,'Garhi khuda bux'. --Jogi don (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Please read Avoid long lists. 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)

Buses through the Khyber Pass
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.

 * Even if there are buses running over the pass, I would be reluctant to travel there. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Largest Muslim country in the world?
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)

 * 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)
 * My mistake. Lets fix it. --Saqib (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced POV
Ref this, I have two issues:

-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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * I edited. Comments? Pashley (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * I have now edited the India infobox as well. Pashley (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is balanced now. Thanks.--TripWire (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Warning box
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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed. We have Template:Cautionbox for cases where there is a moderate risk you'll run into trouble. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The distinction between Cautionbox and Warningbox is not likelihood of trouble but rather the severity. If the threat is to life and limb then use Warningbox, even if it's a small risk (see, e.g., Walt Disney World). Powers (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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:
 * Is there a need for a box?
 * Yes: goto 2.
 * No: no box
 * Is the threat to life and limb?
 * Yes: Use warningbox
 * No: Use cautionbox
 * -- Powers (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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.
 * Philippines is similar and has the correct usage in this regard Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It sounds like you're arguing against having a box at all, which seems reasonable. Powers (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but bolded text at the beginning of "Stay safe" could be another option. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * That's very notable, and it's nice to see you, Saqib. How do you think we can best address this huge drop in crime and violence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ISI
This edit is being contested. See discussion at User talk:ALIwaince, starting with the "ISI" thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Shall we restore the text in question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
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)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * per that doc on Talk:Bangladesh, it seems that Pakistan also uses 12. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we should change it here. Ground Zero (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ If was still around, I'd like to confirm but sadly they've retired. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unqualified pilots?
CNN Almost 1 in 3 pilots in Pakistan have fake licenses, aviation minister says Pashley (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Spoken throughout the country"
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)

 * 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)
 * I think they are all regional languages, so yes, "in the country" would better convey the meaning. Vidimian (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ... or perhaps "... in areas throughout the country" (or a similar variation) if that word is found worth keeping. Vidimian (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Numbering system in Pakistan
An edit war is taking place, but the placement of the commas followed 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)

 * After doing some research, I found out that stuff like 1,00,000 indeed is used in the Indian subcontinent, and I can say I was wrong. YourLocalWikiGuy (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Great, but you still didn't restore those commas properly, so I reverted. Feel free to re-edit the text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but at least don't remove the non-Indic number category. YourLocalWikiGuy (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can restore or make followup edits as needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pakistan


text:
Talk:Pakistani students coming to Finland

VfD discussion
Not sure any explanation is required. Speedy I think. Apart from anything else it has been set up as a disambiguation page. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I do not think it can be speedied. There is at least one valid travel topic that is very close to this. Perhaps "Foreign students in Europe" or "Studying abroad"? I'm not sure of the exact right title or scope. but studying — especially students from "developing" countries going to "developed" countries — is a huge reason for travel. Better to re-name and generalise the article than to scrap it. Some of the advice here, like get a driver's license at home because converting it is cheaper than getting one in the host country, can be useful and is not obvious. (WT-en) Pashley 22:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd say it should be changed to Studying in Finland. "Foreign students in Europe" is likely to be too broad a topic, and the current title is too narrow. I certainly don't think there are enough differences to warrant having a separate topic each for Turkish students coming to Finland, Jordanian students coming to Finland, Iranian students coming to..., and every other country... (WT-en) Texugo 22:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, but then do we get Studying in Finland, Studying in Germany, Studying in France, Studying in the UK, ... ? (WT-en) Pashley 23:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Studying in Finland makes sense. Anything more specific than that then a can of worms is well and truly opened with thousands of permutations. Also, I must say that it had not occurred to me that students formally moving overseas to study would look to Wikivoyage for logistical advice; hence my suggestion for speedy. There are surely far more appropriate places? Do we really think that students will use Wikivoyage as a source of such advice?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:06, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Business travel and studying overseas (all those Learn sections) are well-established reasons to use Wikivoyage. I agree that the original article is kinda ridiculous, but wouldn't oppose a Studying in Finland article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:52, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * We might, Pashley, if there is information to impart that would not fit comfortably into a Learn section. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Rewrite is needed to fit the Studying in Finland proposal. The current article is not really helpful and more a list of commonplaces. I suggest we redirect first and then see how the article develops. (WT-en) jan 09:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd prefer a single Studying abroad article with the suggestion of looking at the "Learn" section of destination articles. We don't have "Working in Finland", Working in Thailand", etc., just Working abroad and the Work sections of destinations. I think the same applies here. (WT-en) Pashley 01:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * How about starting things off with a Studying abroad article, and letting it expand from there? The original looks like it may have been written by a Pakistani student now in Finland, who found these things out the hard way and wants to help. This is good in principle, unless Wikivoyage is going to limit the scope of its content to exclude this sort of information. If there is not an issue of space, why not provide this service? Those hints look moderately useful to someone with no travelling experience planning to go to a very different climate and culture. The format will probably have to differ from the norm to make sense, but as a possibility, consider a main article Studying abroad, with sub-articles for region specific hints like Studying abroad/Pakistani in Finland if/when there is enough content to justify the split. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Merge and redirect to Studying abroad (see above) (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I like the idea of starting off with a Study Abroad article and splitting as it expands. I think that's much more reasonable than beginning with a random Studying abroad in Finland article that will be likely to fall into obscurity, since there really isn't any place right now to link to it. It would just be a floater. Having an established Study Abroad page would provide a base for creating more specific articles relating to study abroad. If the information here is decent information, perhaps it could be moved to the the Talk Page of the study abroad article once it is created. That way we wouldn't lose content. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Only problem is, I'm not sure there's all that much to say about studying abroad in general? The Pakistani guy studying in Finland is going to be facing a very different set of hurdles from the Finnish guy studying in Japan... (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Tag for merge to Studying abroad. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:49, 7 March 2010 (EST)


text:
Talk:Palace on Wheels

Palace on Wheels
We do itineraries, sure, but we don't do private train trips, cruises, tours, etc. Do we? --(WT-en) Inas 06:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No, we don't. Delete.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. It is a popular tourist trip and we seem to have a user willing to work on it. Why not encourage him or her? We do cover things like the Three Gorges boat trip, Felucca cruise on the Nile. This seems to me to be of the same ilk; one of the standard things to do in that country. (WT-en) Pashley 10:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. This is one specific tour operator (albeit owned by the gov't), and doesn't qualify as an article. There's been dissent on even having the much broader Rail travel in India article, so a much finer grained one doesn't really make sense. This train can easily be covered at India, and/or at Rail travel in India, if that article sticks around – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. As Pashley says, it's a popular trip, and one that takes about as long as the Trans-Siberian Railway too.  The incredibly florid yet ungrammatical prose ("A journey absolutely corresponding to one’s odyssey through one’s world of whims and fancy"!?) needs some major weed-whacking though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. As one planning a visit to India, I think this information could be very interesting. May be out of my price range though. (WT-en) 2old 10:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. This train is one of India's biggest tourist attractions, and the current article has enough info to justify keeping it around.  While it doesn't fit into our typical geography-based hierarchy I agree with Jani that it's comparable to something like Trans-Siberian Railway and thus worth an exception under the "enough information to merit its own article" guideline. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Merge & Delete. It seems that there's already broad support to keep the article, but I agree with Cacahuate that, given we are talking about one specific tour operator, it makes more sense to merge it into Rail travel in India. This article isn't very large; I think merging can reasonably be done. As a comparison, Rail travel in the United States had info about a private train tour operator very similar to Palace on Wheels before said operator went out of business. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

 * See, I don't think the article is about "a specific tour operator", but a specific itinerary around northern India. Would it make sense to recast the article so that it covers the route both as the "packaged" Palace on Wheels, and a roll-your-own version on normal trains? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, that would make sense to me. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:03, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

 * The Palace on Wheels is very much a specific tour operator, on a route that is covered by many modes of transport, and doesn't offer anything unique other than a more cushy seat.... everything that needs saying about it (it's luxurious, pricey, food's good) can be said in like 3 sentences at Rajasthan. A separate article on it would be taking us in somewhat of a new direction, and I think down a slippery slope... not to mention that there isn't even enough to say about it to fill even a small article, that wouldn't be total fluff or misplaced... so I stand strong that it should be deleted.

 * If the route were somewhat interesting and in need of a general itinerary, then I would agree we could morph it into that and cover all of the transport options.... but the tour they do is quite straight forward and run of the mill, and just covers the major destinations in Rajasthan, hitting all the spots that visitors to Rajasthan hit anyways, regardless of their method of transport... I don't really see much value in it as a broad itinerary article either, which would need to be written from scratch by someone who cares... there isn't existing info in this article that helps in figuring that out, so I don't see that we need to discuss Rajasthan itinerary articles further on the VFD page... we should stick to discussing this article that's up for VFD.... and imo, it's not even close to qualifying :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:19, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. Per Jani. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:31, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:33, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Marketing Puff
This entire article reads like a marketing blurb. Has anyone done this trip? Can we have prices, reviews and real experiences?

External Link
(WT-en) Jjtk Agree that link work but it redirects to Facebook Pages whereas it should point to an informative website. I reverted it to Wikitravel Version Nikhilchandra81 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It redirected here, to a website that claims it is the only official website of " Palace On Wheels Inc., a travel company selling tours aboard Palace on Wheels in India" but there's probably several companies selling the tickets. I'll link to official Rajasthan Tourism website. Jjtk (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC) At least it looks official... Jjtk (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is the official website but then there is very limited information on the train as opposed to the other link which I updated. But I'd let it be for it's the official website. Nikhilchandra81 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Ideally we'd like to have the information here on Wikivoyage, not linked to. Jjtk (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palace on Wheels


text:
Talk:Palanga

this text is copied and pasted straight from www.inyourpocket.com, which i guess is pretty illegal.

 * Then plunge the article forward and make sure it is not illegal! (WT-en) Jan 13:04, 19 June 2006

title: Talk:Palanga


text:
Talk:Palatka

Comments
Ouch... let's prune out those restaurants, can we?? We're supposed to be recommending a few choice ones, not listing them all. (WT-en) OldPine 14:37, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * LOL - Sorry, was trying to build up this city from an almost blank page! (WT-en) gamweb 04:04, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Palatka


text:
Talk:Palau

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Palau/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:52, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
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) 13:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palau