Talk:Kirthar National Park
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Edit summaries[edit]
Sabiq, I would appreciate it if you would just properly address any issues you have on the talk page, rather than addressing me personally in an edit summary. I'm perfectly fine with any adaptations you want to make, but sentences like "I'm not okay with this" without any context just make it all negative without allowing for much understanding. I wasn't quite ready with the article, but it's not so easy to find good sources :-) I was going to make a "See and do" section combined, but if you can fill them separately that's even better. Feel free to use other wordings and standard headings, or add others, if you can fill the sections. Also, what is the official website then? We should change it, if this isn't it. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure! Points duly noted. This is not the official website nor there's exists one. --Saqib (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- But that site does seem to be maintained by the park staff, don't you think? The only contact information is the Assistant Conservator, and that site has links to their facebook and youtube accounts as well. That should be a perfectly acceptable external link then. In fact, for many destinations, we prefer their tourist oriented websites (often maintained by tourist office staff or so) over the official governmental website, because they are more useful to travellers. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You may be right but I've just found that there're actually few more lodgings now inside the park (isn't that great) so mentioning specifically about only one will be unfair. What do you say? --Saqib (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, since this is also the site to contact "the park" for any other reason. Say I'm a researcher or a journalist and I have additional questions, or whatever. Any official or semi-official site will have information on facilities or activities they provide, but in most cases there are other companies that offer such things (e.g tours) as well. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even if this website is maintained by a staff member of the official department but still the contact information of that person is already mention in our article now and all the information in the site is almost listed in our article so whats the purpose of keeping this site URL? On the other hand, the website says they offer a tour for two persons for US$ 5K and US$ 12K for six persons and only for one day. That's a big joke. I found nothing useful in the site and if you still want to keep the site because it contains link to FB and YouTube, I think that will go against our external links policy.--Saqib (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really care, but our policy is that we include 1 primary link for destinations and listings. When it comes to FB, twitter and Youtube accounts, the idea is exactly that we don't link to those, because all that kind of stuff can be reached via the official or main visitor's website. For most hotels and other park sites the same is true: we already list all their contact information, description and prices, but still we provide the link as well. What you're talking about is judging the site and the things it offers - I'm not sure that's something you want to do, but well. A compromise could also be to include it in the sleep listing, not in the header. I also wonder... if you say these tours are way too expensive (and they sound expensive indeed), what does a day guide cost then? And is there another way to arrange one, besides via the visitor's centres? That would be useful information to have. Any idea? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The site is not official nor even detailed and still you want to keep it because its the only site exists on the park so I'm not sure what to do here. But anyway, I agree with compromise and lets mention the URL somewhere for time being but beside header. I been to park once a long time ago but I didn't used any tour agency so I don't know how much they're exactly charging but I'm sure US$ 500 will be more than enough for a person (include a vehicle, pick and drop from Karachi, meals, guide, stay, et cetera) for such a park where visitors are limited because park is not very popular in the country. Our national parks in the northern areas of Pakistan are more popular and breathtaking are thus more costly. I'll need some time to check how much its exactly cost and then we will mention it in our guide. Yes, besides the visitors centres, its definitely possible to arrange a guide. Many travel agencies in Karachi offer tours to park. --Saqib (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've been told that recently some new lodgings popped up inside the park and even if you want to stay in official department's lodgings, you don't need to book in advance. I think the contact information of that individual can be removed now. I'll get the telephone numbers, stay charges and other details of all the lodgings operating in park and will mention them as individual listings. What say you? --Saqib (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think ideally the visitors' centres should just have listings, including phone number and link to the website. The listing should be placed only once though, so perhaps we should include them in e.g. the get in section, and in the sleep section only mention that they also offer lodging (without the contact details). If there are other lodgings available, that's great. Listings it is! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Yes, I think its fine to have listings in sleep section. Please help me out here. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Saqib Just quickly checking in on this article, I see you've deleted the contact information for the visitors' centers and no other listings currently exist for the sleep section. You seem to have some sort of personal dislike towards those centers or the organization that runs them, but the website and phone number are basic information of value to potential visitors, especially since the article says for several things you'll need to contact the rangers in advance. Practical information on where to sleep (including contact details) is also a requirement for a guide status article, so I don't really get why you want it out? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've recently been to the park on a quick visit and I found that one can stay there without pre-arrangment but anyway I've added the contact number of the department for those who want to pre-arrange anything. --Saqib (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I think it should be proper listings, like we want them everywhere. Then they can include coordinates and email and website links when they are available. Most people want to pre-arrange things when they go to remote areas, even when its not per se needed. This is the general phone-number for the department, right? We always try to include the on-site phone number (or both). I think we had one, somewhere. The article as a whole is much improved by the way. Good work. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would love to add the listings as I said above few days back but unfortunately, on-site visitor's centre and lodgings have no landline telephone connections but they're hoping to get telephone connections soon and currently they're relying on mobile phones. Are you talking about inserting the web link of this useless website again? And yes, this is the number where you can ask anything about the park. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I think it should be proper listings, like we want them everywhere. Then they can include coordinates and email and website links when they are available. Most people want to pre-arrange things when they go to remote areas, even when its not per se needed. This is the general phone-number for the department, right? We always try to include the on-site phone number (or both). I think we had one, somewhere. The article as a whole is much improved by the way. Good work. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've recently been to the park on a quick visit and I found that one can stay there without pre-arrangment but anyway I've added the contact number of the department for those who want to pre-arrange anything. --Saqib (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Saqib Just quickly checking in on this article, I see you've deleted the contact information for the visitors' centers and no other listings currently exist for the sleep section. You seem to have some sort of personal dislike towards those centers or the organization that runs them, but the website and phone number are basic information of value to potential visitors, especially since the article says for several things you'll need to contact the rangers in advance. Practical information on where to sleep (including contact details) is also a requirement for a guide status article, so I don't really get why you want it out? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Yes, I think its fine to have listings in sleep section. Please help me out here. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think ideally the visitors' centres should just have listings, including phone number and link to the website. The listing should be placed only once though, so perhaps we should include them in e.g. the get in section, and in the sleep section only mention that they also offer lodging (without the contact details). If there are other lodgings available, that's great. Listings it is! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've been told that recently some new lodgings popped up inside the park and even if you want to stay in official department's lodgings, you don't need to book in advance. I think the contact information of that individual can be removed now. I'll get the telephone numbers, stay charges and other details of all the lodgings operating in park and will mention them as individual listings. What say you? --Saqib (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The site is not official nor even detailed and still you want to keep it because its the only site exists on the park so I'm not sure what to do here. But anyway, I agree with compromise and lets mention the URL somewhere for time being but beside header. I been to park once a long time ago but I didn't used any tour agency so I don't know how much they're exactly charging but I'm sure US$ 500 will be more than enough for a person (include a vehicle, pick and drop from Karachi, meals, guide, stay, et cetera) for such a park where visitors are limited because park is not very popular in the country. Our national parks in the northern areas of Pakistan are more popular and breathtaking are thus more costly. I'll need some time to check how much its exactly cost and then we will mention it in our guide. Yes, besides the visitors centres, its definitely possible to arrange a guide. Many travel agencies in Karachi offer tours to park. --Saqib (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really care, but our policy is that we include 1 primary link for destinations and listings. When it comes to FB, twitter and Youtube accounts, the idea is exactly that we don't link to those, because all that kind of stuff can be reached via the official or main visitor's website. For most hotels and other park sites the same is true: we already list all their contact information, description and prices, but still we provide the link as well. What you're talking about is judging the site and the things it offers - I'm not sure that's something you want to do, but well. A compromise could also be to include it in the sleep listing, not in the header. I also wonder... if you say these tours are way too expensive (and they sound expensive indeed), what does a day guide cost then? And is there another way to arrange one, besides via the visitor's centres? That would be useful information to have. Any idea? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even if this website is maintained by a staff member of the official department but still the contact information of that person is already mention in our article now and all the information in the site is almost listed in our article so whats the purpose of keeping this site URL? On the other hand, the website says they offer a tour for two persons for US$ 5K and US$ 12K for six persons and only for one day. That's a big joke. I found nothing useful in the site and if you still want to keep the site because it contains link to FB and YouTube, I think that will go against our external links policy.--Saqib (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, since this is also the site to contact "the park" for any other reason. Say I'm a researcher or a journalist and I have additional questions, or whatever. Any official or semi-official site will have information on facilities or activities they provide, but in most cases there are other companies that offer such things (e.g tours) as well. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You may be right but I've just found that there're actually few more lodgings now inside the park (isn't that great) so mentioning specifically about only one will be unfair. What do you say? --Saqib (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- But that site does seem to be maintained by the park staff, don't you think? The only contact information is the Assistant Conservator, and that site has links to their facebook and youtube accounts as well. That should be a perfectly acceptable external link then. In fact, for many destinations, we prefer their tourist oriented websites (often maintained by tourist office staff or so) over the official governmental website, because they are more useful to travellers. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Photos[edit]
I manage to persuade a photographer on Flickr to release some photos of the park under free license which were previously copyrighted. I'm in touch with one more photographer and his photos will be available soon once he release them under compatible free license and I'll post them here. Until then, I think its better to hold for the right banner image so don't start cropping the banner from current available photos. --Saqib (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts, Saqib. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Btw, User:Jjtkk created a nice page banner but I think he didn't noticed this message. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The other photographer has now released his photos under compatible CC-license. Fortunately, now we have plenty of photos of the park itself and other attractions located inside the park. I'm gathering all the photographs (both old and new) below so we can decided which ones to keep in the article for the illustration purpose and which one to use for the page banner OR can we just put the gallery in the article? Few more photos will be follow soon. --Saqib (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Btw, User:Jjtkk created a nice page banner but I think he didn't noticed this message. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ranikot -
Taung
- Nice photos! I think I'll add the tent picture to Sleep right away. Ranikot looks like the Great Wall of China. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Ranikot can be said Pakistan's Great Wall. These photographs are in original so some photos definitely require touching so I'll make a request at Common's Graphic Lab to fix the lighting issues. --Saqib (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Great work Saqib! I'd replace the photo's from Commons that are alsp in the Wikipedia article: it's always nice to have /different/ ones, when people click through. Good banner also! JuliasTravels (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. We've three goats focused photos in the article and all three are worth to keep. I would suggest to make a page banner from this photo and use this photo as the lead photo due to a good quality image of the park and gives a good impression of the place. What say? I've been told that goats becomes main attraction recently and they've started to appear everywhere in the park so having a goat banner seems fine. --Saqib (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Great work Saqib! I'd replace the photo's from Commons that are alsp in the Wikipedia article: it's always nice to have /different/ ones, when people click through. Good banner also! JuliasTravels (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Ranikot can be said Pakistan's Great Wall. These photographs are in original so some photos definitely require touching so I'll make a request at Common's Graphic Lab to fix the lighting issues. --Saqib (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nice photos! I think I'll add the tent picture to Sleep right away. Ranikot looks like the Great Wall of China. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Two points:
- 1) the animal in the foreground of your banner choice is not a goat
- 2) please remember that, on most screens, the pathetic and inadequate horizontal ToC, will obscure the lower third of the image - so crop accordingly... --118.93nzp (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry? The banner was cropped with a 7:1 width to height ratio. --Saqib (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Zoom out and crop so that the gazelle is more to the right and higher so that it will not be obscured by either the article title or pathetic ToC, Saqib. --118.93nzp (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to reiterate your dislike of the banner system at every opportunity? It gets a little tiresome to see the same complaint spread all over the site. Texugo (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Until and unless the promoters of this daft implementation wake up and realise how horrible the current implementation looks at many screen resolutions and how inadequate the ToC is for all current users it's necessary to point out how little we have gained and how much we've lost with the current visually challenged implementation. In this case, it's very necessary to point out that this particular banner needs to be differently cropped and positioned. Perhaps you would get back on topic and tell us exactly why this isn't a valid point? --118.93nzp (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pointing out that this banner needs to be cropped differently is certainly valid and acceptable. Using this space and every possible space to reiterate your abyssmal opinion of what has been a highly-popular initiative, however, is not appropriate. It amounts to forum shopping, and is in no way a respectable or effective approach in seeking to sway public opinion. I would kindly ask you to refrain from continuously repeating your complaints on pages not directly related to our policies on this issue. Texugo (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- This would not be an issue if folks were not mindlessly using these poorly implemented banners everywhere. I reserve the right to bring this up on every single article where it does not work properly. The solution is not to try and censor me but rather to:
- 1) Implement a properly working horizontal ToC with drop down detail for H3 and H4 headings
- 2) Move the ToC below but immediately adjacent to the banner image
- 3) Move the article title above but immediately adjacent to the banner image, remaining left justified and with the clickable icon for the full-screen map and other cruft like Star article icons, etc, in the same band and right justified. --118.93nzp (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are not helping your case nor earning any respect by declaring that you are going to annoy everyone about it until you get your way, not about banners, not about wikipedia links, not about anything else. I do not understand why you would insist on turning people against you by refusing to be civil. Again, you are being respectfully told to stop socially unacceptable behavior, and refusing point blank. Texugo (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pointing out that this banner needs to be cropped differently is certainly valid and acceptable. Using this space and every possible space to reiterate your abyssmal opinion of what has been a highly-popular initiative, however, is not appropriate. It amounts to forum shopping, and is in no way a respectable or effective approach in seeking to sway public opinion. I would kindly ask you to refrain from continuously repeating your complaints on pages not directly related to our policies on this issue. Texugo (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Until and unless the promoters of this daft implementation wake up and realise how horrible the current implementation looks at many screen resolutions and how inadequate the ToC is for all current users it's necessary to point out how little we have gained and how much we've lost with the current visually challenged implementation. In this case, it's very necessary to point out that this particular banner needs to be differently cropped and positioned. Perhaps you would get back on topic and tell us exactly why this isn't a valid point? --118.93nzp (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to reiterate your dislike of the banner system at every opportunity? It gets a little tiresome to see the same complaint spread all over the site. Texugo (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have not declared a wish to either annoy people or be uncivil. Now please address the points I raise and try to put the traveller first, rather than your own viewpoint. --118.93nzp (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have just pointed out a tiresome behavior that is recognized as being disruptive, and you have just "reserved the right" to engage it in anyway. The points you raised about what should be done with this particular banner are legitimate. The disparaging comments about the banner system itself are out of place here and on pretty much any page except for the pub and the talk page of the banner expedition. Why don't you bring these things up in the appropriate venues? I'm sure you'd have pretty unanimous support for number 1 at least. But bringing them up here and on myriad other unrelated discussion pages is not only disruptive and annoying, but counter-productive to your own cause. Texugo (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Texugo, I've cropped the banner with a 7:1 width to height ratio and current dimensions are 2100 x 300 pixels. The banner is looking fine for me (my screenshot) then why its not showing fine for others? YPSI, can you help me here and please crop a banner from this image so I can see the difference please. --Saqib (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Saqib, it looks totally fine to me as well. The only way I can make it look as bad as 118 does is if I roll the font size way up to 150%, but anyone surfing the web with a font size that big will have some kind of issue on just about any site anyway, so I'm not 100% sure this needs to be changed. Texugo (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh i see. Good going dude! --Saqib (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK, now I got GIMP working. Should I crop it as 2100 x 300 like you've done? (as the picture is 3504px wide, 3500 x 500 would also be possible, but then the antelope will become smaller relative to the banner). BTW the banner looks normal to me as well. Maybe 118 is using a smartphone or a tablet or something else with a small screen? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- No need to crop the banner now YPSI. The banner is absolutely cropped properly but actually the issues are with our complainer's computer. --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Two technicians were fixing a temperature display on a hot summer day; the display showed "0°C". One of them was examining the electronics and said: "No, it seems to work properly." The other guy replied: "Then it's for sure the damn weather that's broken." :D ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- No need to crop the banner now YPSI. The banner is absolutely cropped properly but actually the issues are with our complainer's computer. --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK, now I got GIMP working. Should I crop it as 2100 x 300 like you've done? (as the picture is 3504px wide, 3500 x 500 would also be possible, but then the antelope will become smaller relative to the banner). BTW the banner looks normal to me as well. Maybe 118 is using a smartphone or a tablet or something else with a small screen? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh i see. Good going dude! --Saqib (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Saqib, it looks totally fine to me as well. The only way I can make it look as bad as 118 does is if I roll the font size way up to 150%, but anyone surfing the web with a font size that big will have some kind of issue on just about any site anyway, so I'm not 100% sure this needs to be changed. Texugo (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Texugo, I've cropped the banner with a 7:1 width to height ratio and current dimensions are 2100 x 300 pixels. The banner is looking fine for me (my screenshot) then why its not showing fine for others? YPSI, can you help me here and please crop a banner from this image so I can see the difference please. --Saqib (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh so smug and self satisfied: http://quirktools.com/screenfly/#u=http%3A//en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Kirthar_National_Park&w=768&h=1024&a=22
This page is biased towards the rich world, but a stated goal of the WMF is to try to cater for those users in poorer countries and those who may be using net and notebooks: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/best-screen-size/
--118.93nzp (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- That is a tablet size, and when viewed in landscape orientation it displays just fine, just as any larger screen does. Any smaller screen would use the mobile site. I don't think there is any problem with this banner.
- And your personal attacks/insults are neither true nor welcome here. Texugo (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Copied text from other guides[edit]
I'm not sure we want to have pieces of text written for one park plainly copy-pasted to this one. Good parts of the see and do sections are just plain copied from Big Bend National Park and Zion National Park. Of course that's possible from a copyright point of view, but it seems wrong to re-use our own material for several parks. Even if the info is correct for both, it will suggest that no original research has been done. It's not just a few words, but whole paragraphs, like Simply driving through Zion (Kirthar) is an incredible experience, but to enter Zion and not take at least a short walk would be almost foolish. The park is a hiker's mecca! The trails are of varying difficulty and length, ranging from easy strolls to steep climbs or backcountry hikes. The park information desk provides detailed information and overview maps for the main day hikes and trails ranging from short strolls to strenuous hikes of several hours. Longer backcountry hikes with overnight camping have to be discussed with the park rangers in order to reserve spots for the limited back country camp sites in the park.. Am I the only one who sees a bad precedent in this? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Thanks for bringing up the issue. I was actually thinking of asking the same question a few days back when I started copying the text from other park articles. Your concerns are valid and I would like to hear what other comments. But please be note here, I'm not a writer but even though I usually try to contribute with my original research and write in my own words but when its becomes hard for me to to describe a destination, I try to find the texts in other articles and if they're very nicely written and can depicts the destination well for which I'm writing, I copy it. But I would like to hear if this of a major concern. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you copy the same text over and over again to many national parks, then it definitely is a bad idea. If there are whole sections filled with nothing else than copy pasted text from elsewhere, that's also bad. Copy pasted text from other articles can be useful as a something to start with, but I think you (and anyone copying) text should edit it at least to some extent and adapt it to the particular national park. That said, I'd say all national parks in the world from Albania to Zambia are about hiking and enjoying the nature, so in that respect they aren't that different. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I want to add here that this article is not going to publish in the form of a book or something else soon nor its ready yet (guide status) so definitely I've in my mind to paraphrase the text I copy as much as I can but it take times for me to paraphrase it. Don't worry, I've definitely not in my mind to leave the copied text as it is or in the originally form. --Saqib (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's good :-) I'm not saying you can't get inspiration from other parks: indeed the activities are similar. It should just be in original words, I think. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- LOL. Thanks for advice, caution and bewaring me anyway. I'm still learning! --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, don't worry, I'm not saying you're in the wrong on this. I don't think there's policy for it, actually, that's why I asked what others think rather than just say it should be changed ;-) But if you're going to change it, there's not problem in the first place. I'll see if I can help a bit, soon. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm anyway, As usual, I'm waiting to see your comment at Talk:Southern Sindh. --Saqib (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, don't worry, I'm not saying you're in the wrong on this. I don't think there's policy for it, actually, that's why I asked what others think rather than just say it should be changed ;-) But if you're going to change it, there's not problem in the first place. I'll see if I can help a bit, soon. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- LOL. Thanks for advice, caution and bewaring me anyway. I'm still learning! --Saqib (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's good :-) I'm not saying you can't get inspiration from other parks: indeed the activities are similar. It should just be in original words, I think. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I want to add here that this article is not going to publish in the form of a book or something else soon nor its ready yet (guide status) so definitely I've in my mind to paraphrase the text I copy as much as I can but it take times for me to paraphrase it. Don't worry, I've definitely not in my mind to leave the copied text as it is or in the originally form. --Saqib (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you copy the same text over and over again to many national parks, then it definitely is a bad idea. If there are whole sections filled with nothing else than copy pasted text from elsewhere, that's also bad. Copy pasted text from other articles can be useful as a something to start with, but I think you (and anyone copying) text should edit it at least to some extent and adapt it to the particular national park. That said, I'd say all national parks in the world from Albania to Zambia are about hiking and enjoying the nature, so in that respect they aren't that different. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- From an attribution standpoint, you should say what article you are getting the text from. --Rschen7754 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh hello, well, see the article history. Anyway, I've very much paraphrased the text I borrowed from other articles. --Saqib (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Some odd terms[edit]
- artillery road (Get in) - do you mean arterial road?
- un-metalled by-ways - I realize that this is a Britishism, but it may not be one that non-British will understand - despite having lived abroad for 10 years and on 3 continents, I had never heard this and had to look it up. For a more universally understood way to say this, I have changed this to "unpaved", as already used in the Do section.
Texugo (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "unpaved" and yes I meant arterial road. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Texugo (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Towns?[edit]
Karchat is mentioned several times. I think it needs a sentence or two of explanation here and a redirect for the town name pointing to this article.
Text also includes "disembark at the Noori Abad". What is that? If it is a town, remove "the". Pashley (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Karchat is a very small village. Yes, it would be good idea to have a redirect. Noori Abad is a small village as well and kind of small bus stop. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Map[edit]
Entrance from M-10 is least used and majority of visitors (even from Karachi) travel to the park via M-9 so I cropped the map, otherwise we're diverting our travellers to a part of the park where the facilities are not good (I'm referring to Khar). On the other hand, most of the attractions are concentrated around Karchat. Any opposition? --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I think that the Khar entrance should be shown, too. Then text in the article itself can warn potential visitors of conditions there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I re-added the Khar entrance and changed the background as well. --Saqib (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I re-added the Khar entrance and changed the background as well. --Saqib (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Get in by car[edit]
What does this mean?
The road through some small villages takes you to the Karchat whilst the only way to get into Karchat is by a 4x4.
Was one of the instances of "Karchat" supposed to be a different name? The "whilst" implies a contrast to me, and unless the first name was supposed to be a different place, there is no contrast. If no other place is intended, I'd edit the sentence to read as follows:
The road that takes you through some small villages to Karchat is passable only by 4x4.
However, I don't know if that's what the sentence is supposed to mean.
Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- You sentence is correct. Thanks for copyediting. Much appreciated. --Saqib (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm glad I was understanding that correctly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Unexplained listing removal[edit]
Why was this listing removed, please? (The edit summary was silent.)
- Ranikot. An enormous fortification built on barren hills in the north-eastern part of the park. Ranikot is believed to be one of the largest forts in the world and is a major attraction in the region due to its historical significance. The fort’s massive 10m-high walls of dressed sandstone are 30km in circumference. Seen from a distance, portions of its ramparts resemble the Great Wall of China, as they dip and turn to the contours of the hills. The fort was built by the then-Governor of Sindh in 836AD. The fort’s structure, encircling many hills, has a diameter of about 9km. The long, strong walls are made of gypsum and lime-cut sandstone. It was originally constructed for bow-and-arrow warfare but it was later enlarged to withstand and cope with firearms. It can take two hours to reach Ranikot by 4x4 from Karchat.
Pending an explanation, I've restored an updated version of this listing...
--118.93nzp (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, couldn't you wait for some time re-adding the listing to article but anyway, now that you done it, I won't complain, revert your edit or even give a explanation to why i removed it from the article. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- This what I added:
- 1 Ranikot. An enormous fortification built on barren hills in the extreme north-eastern part of the park. Ranikot is believed to be one of the largest forts in the world and is a major attraction in the region due to its mind boggling size: the fort’s massive 10m-high walls of dressed sandstone are 26km (16 mi) in circumference. Seen from a distance, portions of its ramparts resemble the Great Wall of China, as they dip and turn to the contours of the hills. Much of its long wall is made of natural cliffs and mountains which at places rise as high as six hundred and fifty metres feet above sea level. Consequently it's also sometimes known as Dewar-e-Sindh (رانی کوٹ) Great Wall of Sindh).
Some attribute its construction to Arabs and some to the then-Persian Governor of Sindh in 836AD and yet other Sindh archaeologists think that some of the present structure, and especially a small inner fortress about 8km inside the main gate, was either constructed or renovated in the early 19th century by Mir Karam Ali Khan Talpur and his brother Mir Murad Ali at a cost of 1.2 million rupees. Reasons for its baffling construction in this desolate area are equally diverse and unsettled.
The fort’s structure, encircling many hills, has a diameter of about 9km. The long, strong walls are made of gypsum and lime-cut sandstone. It was originally constructed for bow-and-arrow warfare but it was later enlarged to withstand and cope with firearms.
It can take two hours to reach Ranikot by 4x4 from Karchat, but there is easier access via Rani Kot Fort Road, which is a left fork opposite the road that leads to Sann in Jamshoro District, about 60km north on the N55 out of Hyderabad, Pakistan.
- 1 Ranikot. An enormous fortification built on barren hills in the extreme north-eastern part of the park. Ranikot is believed to be one of the largest forts in the world and is a major attraction in the region due to its mind boggling size: the fort’s massive 10m-high walls of dressed sandstone are 26km (16 mi) in circumference. Seen from a distance, portions of its ramparts resemble the Great Wall of China, as they dip and turn to the contours of the hills. Much of its long wall is made of natural cliffs and mountains which at places rise as high as six hundred and fifty metres feet above sea level. Consequently it's also sometimes known as Dewar-e-Sindh (رانی کوٹ) Great Wall of Sindh).
- Why should I have waited, Saqib? Genuine question, since I can not read your mind. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, may I know what was the reason of replacing better quality image of Ranikot with an image of rather (noisy) poor quality? --Saqib (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Page banner[edit]
Here are some alternative banners: what do you think? I don't know the place, but from esthetical point of view, I'd prefer #3. I don't find the photo quality very good though. So I'd say #2, #3 and #1. --Danapit (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Grazie Mille Dana. Nice banners. I don't know why but I prefer #1 but I would like to have suggestions of others. --Saqib (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- All very good, Dana! Saqib, which do you think is most representative or typical of the kind of scenery most travellers to Kirthar will see? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Let's go for 1 then! I just found it a little colorless, but otherwise ok. --Danapit (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- All very good, Dana! Saqib, which do you think is most representative or typical of the kind of scenery most travellers to Kirthar will see? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyediting[edit]
This looks like it needs copyediting. Ravikiran (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)