Talk:Sindh
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Saqib in topic Usable?
| This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Sindh. View the page revision history for a list of the authors. |
I'm working on the map for Sindh, it is officially divided into 23 districts, any suggestions in how many districts should I divide into? --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, Saqib, the divisions you've used now (5 in total), are they official administrative divisions or rather regions you've created here for practicality? Thanks, JuliasTravels (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- They're official. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the fast reply! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even though I created region list here and the map enthusiastically, but I think we don't really need such region list here. I've recently removed the region list from Azad Kashmir article as well and I'm considering of doing the same here. Any objection? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I surely wouldn't delete it, I think it's very nice that you already created the (unlinked) list and the map. I understand that we don't have enough information to fill up separate articles yet, and that's fine, but this is a huge region which in time will have to be divided anyway. I mean: compare it to a country like Belgium. Sindh is at least 4 times it's size, with 4 times as many people, but we've divided Belgium into its official 10 or 12 provinces too. The regions can be developed further over time, and then get proper articles, while for now they can already help a bit when trying to navigate the region. I say well done. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- After bit of research, I've learned that regions list is actually added in an article where we've articles for it sub-regions but unfortunately we don't have sub-region articles for Sindh at the moment nor we need as of now since Sindh is not home to many tourist sites whereas Belgium is. And while I agree with you that Sindh will be developed over time, obviously article will be changed accordingly and a region-list would be added as well when a need arise. --Saqib (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about that. The common rule of thumb is to not create empty region articles when there's not enough information to fill them yet, which is particularly a problem on lower level divisions. There's nothing wrong with laying out the main geographical structure in the article like you did here: it's useful information about Sindh itself, it doesn't create empty skeletons and we're still talking about rough geographic divisions anyway. There are plenty of examples where it was done the same way, so no need to undo your work. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so if we're going to keep the region list, I'm afraid I'll have to decrease the regions from currently 5 to only 2 (South Sindh and North Sindh). This is not encyclopaedia and current official divisional based region list is useless to a travellers point of view. I've found two region articles (Sakhalin and Svalbard) both similar in size as Sindh but without region list. And please it would be nice if you provide me some examples of region articles as well you're referring to in your above comment. --Saqib (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm... maybe I'm just missing something :-) I don't seem to understand why you're so keen to remove the region list as it is. Is it only because you're afraid it's against some policy (if so, which policy page then?) or is there another reason? You said above that this is an official division. Considering the size and population of this are, we will want to work towards a division into more than just 2 subregions, right? The 23 provinces would of course be too much detail for a long time to come, but the 5 divisions seemed like a good compromise, and since it has a legal basis, it wouldn't be as artificial as north and south. Although I don't agree, there has been recent opposition against such artificial divisions (e.g. Talk:Germany). There was agreement on the Regions map expedition that " the organic process that lends itself well to travel writing does not always work so well for the subdivision of our region articles", so laying out the region structure beforehand is a good thing. People who do want to work on a region can then just get started, with no risk of overlap etc. It seems much the same discussion as we had not so long ago at Talk:Jacksonville. There we all seemed to agree that is was fine to already have the map and the list, as long as the articles wouldn't be created until there is enough info. (Somehow no-one seems to have acted on it though). Northeast_Tanzania has an unlinked regions list as well (no map yet, unfortunately). There are others where the subregion articles are not all created yet, but they are red-linked, with articles being created by and by (e.g Azores). That's another option. And then of course there are endless examples of regions where the sub-region structure is laid out, but the articles are empty outlines (like [[Chaco_(Argentina) for example). I think the common agreement is we don't want that. I'm really not trying to oppose anything, I just think what you did before was a good idea, and would think it a pity to revert it :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I said above and I hope I would able to convince you this time. Although there's no harm against creating a region-list without having sub-region articles but to keep consistency with our guide status region articles, I believe we should have sub-region articles. Do you agree? Second, even though Sindh is big but not so many places of interest and even some of the big cities are not even visited by travellers, which means having 5 sub-region articles is not good idea. Thirdly, even though the current 5 divisions are official but not useful to a traveller point of view. I'm not born in Karachi (Sindh) but I'm living here since my childhood and I myself never heard even if such divisions even exits until I found them last year while defining regions for our Sindh article but practically "Southern Sindh" and "Northern Sindh" terms are common as compare to official divisions and if you don't believe me, I want you to make a Google search please. And while I agree with you that 2 sub-regions will be not enough for a big area like Sindh but as I said before, the article and so the region-list can be obviously changed over time when a need arise. Furthermore, to support my proposal, I'll give you the reference of Punjab, User:Travelpleb suggested to have only 3 sub-region for an area which is bigger in size and population than Sindh but at that time, I was new to this WV world and I neglected his great proposal and instead created the useless region-list based on official divisions. Now what do you say? --Saqib (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm... maybe I'm just missing something :-) I don't seem to understand why you're so keen to remove the region list as it is. Is it only because you're afraid it's against some policy (if so, which policy page then?) or is there another reason? You said above that this is an official division. Considering the size and population of this are, we will want to work towards a division into more than just 2 subregions, right? The 23 provinces would of course be too much detail for a long time to come, but the 5 divisions seemed like a good compromise, and since it has a legal basis, it wouldn't be as artificial as north and south. Although I don't agree, there has been recent opposition against such artificial divisions (e.g. Talk:Germany). There was agreement on the Regions map expedition that " the organic process that lends itself well to travel writing does not always work so well for the subdivision of our region articles", so laying out the region structure beforehand is a good thing. People who do want to work on a region can then just get started, with no risk of overlap etc. It seems much the same discussion as we had not so long ago at Talk:Jacksonville. There we all seemed to agree that is was fine to already have the map and the list, as long as the articles wouldn't be created until there is enough info. (Somehow no-one seems to have acted on it though). Northeast_Tanzania has an unlinked regions list as well (no map yet, unfortunately). There are others where the subregion articles are not all created yet, but they are red-linked, with articles being created by and by (e.g Azores). That's another option. And then of course there are endless examples of regions where the sub-region structure is laid out, but the articles are empty outlines (like [[Chaco_(Argentina) for example). I think the common agreement is we don't want that. I'm really not trying to oppose anything, I just think what you did before was a good idea, and would think it a pity to revert it :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so if we're going to keep the region list, I'm afraid I'll have to decrease the regions from currently 5 to only 2 (South Sindh and North Sindh). This is not encyclopaedia and current official divisional based region list is useless to a travellers point of view. I've found two region articles (Sakhalin and Svalbard) both similar in size as Sindh but without region list. And please it would be nice if you provide me some examples of region articles as well you're referring to in your above comment. --Saqib (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about that. The common rule of thumb is to not create empty region articles when there's not enough information to fill them yet, which is particularly a problem on lower level divisions. There's nothing wrong with laying out the main geographical structure in the article like you did here: it's useful information about Sindh itself, it doesn't create empty skeletons and we're still talking about rough geographic divisions anyway. There are plenty of examples where it was done the same way, so no need to undo your work. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- After bit of research, I've learned that regions list is actually added in an article where we've articles for it sub-regions but unfortunately we don't have sub-region articles for Sindh at the moment nor we need as of now since Sindh is not home to many tourist sites whereas Belgium is. And while I agree with you that Sindh will be developed over time, obviously article will be changed accordingly and a region-list would be added as well when a need arise. --Saqib (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I surely wouldn't delete it, I think it's very nice that you already created the (unlinked) list and the map. I understand that we don't have enough information to fill up separate articles yet, and that's fine, but this is a huge region which in time will have to be divided anyway. I mean: compare it to a country like Belgium. Sindh is at least 4 times it's size, with 4 times as many people, but we've divided Belgium into its official 10 or 12 provinces too. The regions can be developed further over time, and then get proper articles, while for now they can already help a bit when trying to navigate the region. I say well done. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even though I created region list here and the map enthusiastically, but I think we don't really need such region list here. I've recently removed the region list from Azad Kashmir article as well and I'm considering of doing the same here. Any objection? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the fast reply! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- They're official. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll say I don't know the region, so I assumed your statement above and your choice of subregions meant they were useful and known. If they aren't, then of course that changes things :-) You didn't mention it before though. Do you plan on developing north and south articles to usable status? If you are, then that's fine (let me know if I can help). If you aren't, then your first proposal was probably better (to just remove the whole subdivision for now). JuliasTravels (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding Julia. Frankly speaking, when I defined these sub-regions last year, I had no idea how sub-regions work here. And yes, I'm going to significantly work on Sindh article and once I'm done with it, I'll start working on its sub-region articles. I just wanted to confirm one thing whether it would be appropriate or even acceptable to tag the Sindh article with guide status once the work is done but its sub-regions and destination articles (city articles) are still at outline status? I guess no. --Saqib (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, indeed. For guide status the articles needs "different choices for which linked destinations (i.e., the 5 to 9 item cities, subregions, and other destinations lists) to visit (all usable status or better)". Even to tag it with usable status, the most important cities have to be at usable status. You don't need subregions for usable status though. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. thanks for clearing that up. --Saqib (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Would this article be deleted please and re-created to loose the WT attribution. The content in lead, understand, get in, get around, and buy sections is added post-migration. The content under see section was copied pasted from WP article which can be copied again. Stay safe section is significantly changed as well after migration. --Saqib (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, can you explain the plan? Do you want to start from scratch or put back a copy you have saved? There is only agreement to delete and recreate skeletons, with only one or two editors. Just quickly comparing this version to the pre-import one on Copyscape shows that there is still significant overlap. And although you have contributed most, there are other editors involved. So just speedy deleting seems problematic? JuliasTravels (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I meant delete the article and restore the revisions created post-migration as you told me once here. --Saqib (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- That was a different situation, I'm afraid... You were the only editor then. If I would do that here, it would mean that the first post-move editor, in this case Powers who just changed the Get Out header, would be credited with the entire text as it was imported. Even though much of the text has been changed by now and will be changed in the future, the page history would then still be a breach of copyright law. I guess for articles like these we'll have to wait for the disclaimer to be changed. The only legal alternative I can think of, is to start from scratch without using of the old materials. Sorry :-( JuliasTravels (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. And I guess start from scratch the Sindh article is not possible or allowed. Right? --Saqib (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not common practice, and I guess it's not a priority (since we're hoping to change the disclaimer) but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be allowed per policy. It would mean however, that you can't use any text from the current article. That is better in any case, since matching texts have a negative influence on search results. It would also be better to get an okay from some of the others. What you could do, if you're serious about really re-doing the Sindh article, is creating a new article for it in your user space, and when it's done, ask if anyone objects to us deleting the old one to replace it with the (much better) new one. If anyone does, you can still just copy your new text in so you have no risk. I imagine no-one will mind though, if you've put effort in it :-) Let me know if I can help. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is getting pretty long so lets finish it. So does that means that if I want to re-do the article, I can't use any text from the current article even though much of the text (except the one under See section) is significantly or changed as compare to what it was pre-migration? --Saqib (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you've written it yourself, yes, you'll have to fully paraphrase any text or credit the original authors. We can archive this discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- HI Julia. Is it okay to place a listing of an attraction in an article of nearby city (150km away) if the said city (to which the listing actually belongs) don't have accommodations thus not qualify an article? OR the listing should be placed instead in the lower level of region article such as Northern Sindh. --Saqib (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- A nearby destination with an article would be the usual place to put it. 150 km seems a bit far away, but if we have no articles for nearby communities, it should be fine for now, especially when the attraction is commonly visited via that city. If it's an important attraction it's fine to also mention it in the see-section of the region, not as a listing, but just in the text. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Julias. I appreciate you constantly tried to help me. You'll think I'm insane but per your comment above (date stamped 15:10, 14 January 2014) is it okay and you'll not mind at all, if I simply remove the region list template for time being from this article? I released the best is if we first do the destination articles and once we're done with them, we'll think what we can do we sub-regions (either we need them or not at all). --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you're insane :) Yes, the main priority should be to complete the destination articles. However, there's no need to obsess over the region and delete the subregions again. Just leave them alone for now, others (including me) can work on them if they want. I know you're worried about the status, but since there's really no good travel guide for this region, I think it's quite fair to give Sindh guide status when its main destinations are developed, even when the subregions are not ;-) So I'll gladly support that, I'm sure others will. At least when the structure is there and the base article (Sindh) is developed and show up in the search results, people can find the linked destinations and help adding info over the years. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- If the region list will remain here, it will keep running in my mind all the time. Haha, silly but that's true. I'll still say to lets remove the region list for time being. I don't want our editors to edit sub-region articles, instead I want everyone to concentrate on base article which is most important, at-least, until the low level articles are not completed. I'll insert a new map here labeled with all the "other destination" attractions as well which can give a good overview of the region. I'm not against sub-region articles at all, but creating an empty sub-region article or filling it with duplicate material is not a good idea. On traditional guide books, they don't have sub-region articles even if the region is as big as Sindh until it really deserves sub-regions articles but on WV, every region have sub-regions and then again sub-regions but all empty but I know thats how WV works. Anyway, thats another topic. I'll be waiting for you to give me green signal so I can remove the region list and add a new map and then lets focus on destination articles. --Saqib (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're taking the development of these articles a bit too personal, I think ;-) It's a joined effort. It's perfectly normal to have a structure laid out, I'm quite confident we'll be able to fill the parts of it as we go: we're just getting started. Just focus on the destinations if it gives you a headache and see how it goes. If you feel the same way in a few months or so, we can always have another look. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay (disappointed) --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean to disappoint you, I just meant we keep going back and forth and it's probably better to focus on content for a bit, to have a better idea of what's useful or not later. However, if you find it important, I will not object. Do as you think best, you know the region much better than I do. I think I'll take a break from the Pakistan articles myself, before I go crazy instead of you ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Julias, please don't mind me. Okay, I gave up my earlier decision to remove the region list but PLEASE do not stop your helpful contributions to Pakistani articles. I need your help and advices and I want you to contribute to Pakistani articles until they're not developed. --Saqib (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean to disappoint you, I just meant we keep going back and forth and it's probably better to focus on content for a bit, to have a better idea of what's useful or not later. However, if you find it important, I will not object. Do as you think best, you know the region much better than I do. I think I'll take a break from the Pakistan articles myself, before I go crazy instead of you ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay (disappointed) --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're taking the development of these articles a bit too personal, I think ;-) It's a joined effort. It's perfectly normal to have a structure laid out, I'm quite confident we'll be able to fill the parts of it as we go: we're just getting started. Just focus on the destinations if it gives you a headache and see how it goes. If you feel the same way in a few months or so, we can always have another look. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- If the region list will remain here, it will keep running in my mind all the time. Haha, silly but that's true. I'll still say to lets remove the region list for time being. I don't want our editors to edit sub-region articles, instead I want everyone to concentrate on base article which is most important, at-least, until the low level articles are not completed. I'll insert a new map here labeled with all the "other destination" attractions as well which can give a good overview of the region. I'm not against sub-region articles at all, but creating an empty sub-region article or filling it with duplicate material is not a good idea. On traditional guide books, they don't have sub-region articles even if the region is as big as Sindh until it really deserves sub-regions articles but on WV, every region have sub-regions and then again sub-regions but all empty but I know thats how WV works. Anyway, thats another topic. I'll be waiting for you to give me green signal so I can remove the region list and add a new map and then lets focus on destination articles. --Saqib (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you're insane :) Yes, the main priority should be to complete the destination articles. However, there's no need to obsess over the region and delete the subregions again. Just leave them alone for now, others (including me) can work on them if they want. I know you're worried about the status, but since there's really no good travel guide for this region, I think it's quite fair to give Sindh guide status when its main destinations are developed, even when the subregions are not ;-) So I'll gladly support that, I'm sure others will. At least when the structure is there and the base article (Sindh) is developed and show up in the search results, people can find the linked destinations and help adding info over the years. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Julias. I appreciate you constantly tried to help me. You'll think I'm insane but per your comment above (date stamped 15:10, 14 January 2014) is it okay and you'll not mind at all, if I simply remove the region list template for time being from this article? I released the best is if we first do the destination articles and once we're done with them, we'll think what we can do we sub-regions (either we need them or not at all). --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- A nearby destination with an article would be the usual place to put it. 150 km seems a bit far away, but if we have no articles for nearby communities, it should be fine for now, especially when the attraction is commonly visited via that city. If it's an important attraction it's fine to also mention it in the see-section of the region, not as a listing, but just in the text. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- HI Julia. Is it okay to place a listing of an attraction in an article of nearby city (150km away) if the said city (to which the listing actually belongs) don't have accommodations thus not qualify an article? OR the listing should be placed instead in the lower level of region article such as Northern Sindh. --Saqib (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you've written it yourself, yes, you'll have to fully paraphrase any text or credit the original authors. We can archive this discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is getting pretty long so lets finish it. So does that means that if I want to re-do the article, I can't use any text from the current article even though much of the text (except the one under See section) is significantly or changed as compare to what it was pre-migration? --Saqib (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not common practice, and I guess it's not a priority (since we're hoping to change the disclaimer) but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be allowed per policy. It would mean however, that you can't use any text from the current article. That is better in any case, since matching texts have a negative influence on search results. It would also be better to get an okay from some of the others. What you could do, if you're serious about really re-doing the Sindh article, is creating a new article for it in your user space, and when it's done, ask if anyone objects to us deleting the old one to replace it with the (much better) new one. If anyone does, you can still just copy your new text in so you have no risk. I imagine no-one will mind though, if you've put effort in it :-) Let me know if I can help. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. And I guess start from scratch the Sindh article is not possible or allowed. Right? --Saqib (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- That was a different situation, I'm afraid... You were the only editor then. If I would do that here, it would mean that the first post-move editor, in this case Powers who just changed the Get Out header, would be credited with the entire text as it was imported. Even though much of the text has been changed by now and will be changed in the future, the page history would then still be a breach of copyright law. I guess for articles like these we'll have to wait for the disclaimer to be changed. The only legal alternative I can think of, is to start from scratch without using of the old materials. Sorry :-( JuliasTravels (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I meant delete the article and restore the revisions created post-migration as you told me once here. --Saqib (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, can you explain the plan? Do you want to start from scratch or put back a copy you have saved? There is only agreement to delete and recreate skeletons, with only one or two editors. Just quickly comparing this version to the pre-import one on Copyscape shows that there is still significant overlap. And although you have contributed most, there are other editors involved. So just speedy deleting seems problematic? JuliasTravels (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Would this article be deleted please and re-created to loose the WT attribution. The content in lead, understand, get in, get around, and buy sections is added post-migration. The content under see section was copied pasted from WP article which can be copied again. Stay safe section is significantly changed as well after migration. --Saqib (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. thanks for clearing that up. --Saqib (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, indeed. For guide status the articles needs "different choices for which linked destinations (i.e., the 5 to 9 item cities, subregions, and other destinations lists) to visit (all usable status or better)". Even to tag it with usable status, the most important cities have to be at usable status. You don't need subregions for usable status though. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Copied wording
[edit]I don't really see the problem with "called Bab-ul-Islam". The word doesn't mean people use that title instead of the official one all the time in daily life: it can be more abstract. Any other wording is fine though: I've changed it to "is known as". Is that okay? You are copying pieces of text from Wikipedia, and doing so without mentioning it in the edit summary. There's general agreement that we should try to have unique content, also for SEO reasons. Nonetheless, WP has a free license so it's technically okay to use material from there, but you should mention it in your edit summary, with a link to the relevant article or a mention of the authors, even if you're using only parts of sentences. Cheers! JuliasTravels (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I copy some text from WP. In the past, I usually mention in my edit summaries that text is from WP. Actually, I thought of adding Template:Wikipedia here but anyway, I'll mention in my edit summary from now. --Saqib (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's fine to also use the template as an addition, but it shouldn't replace the mention in the edit summary. Now that we're part of the Wikimedia family, we can use inter-wiki hyperlinks in the edit summary to comply with copyright rules and Wikipedia's own policy. Once you've done that (link in the summary), the template is technically redundant, so you don't have to use it anymore. It's becoming a nice article by the way :-) Good work! JuliasTravels (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Got it. Yes, I guess I'm done with most of the sections except Understand and Do sections. --Saqib (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Do
[edit]Hi IK, you asked a few days back in an edit summery "Should Kirthar be in both "See" and "Do"?". I think yes, but why do you think it shouldn't be. After-all Karachi is mentioned under "See section" but still we've listed the activities available in Karachi under "Do section" as well. I'm referring to "water-based activities" and I think majority of our articles actually using the same pattern. We mention attractions of a particular destination in See and activities under Do. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point, but Karachi is a huge city, whereas Kirthar is a park. Are there other state-level articles on this site in which parks are mentioned in both "See" and "Do"? (I don't know the answer to this question.) My feeling is that for a park, it's probably best to pick the most relevant section and mention it there, just as we would for a listing. I don't feel extremely strongly about this, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we've West Bali, a guide status region article mentioning "West Bali National Park" twicely both in See and Do sections. Btw, neither I've a strong feeling to mention of the Kirthar twicely but I thought its a good idea to mention briefly in the Sindh article about the activities that are available in the region but if you still think it is un-necessary then I've no problem taking that out. --Saqib (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I may look at the article later, but for now, I'm content to leave you to your own judgment. As long as there's nothing repeated from one section to the other, it's probably OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we've West Bali, a guide status region article mentioning "West Bali National Park" twicely both in See and Do sections. Btw, neither I've a strong feeling to mention of the Kirthar twicely but I thought its a good idea to mention briefly in the Sindh article about the activities that are available in the region but if you still think it is un-necessary then I've no problem taking that out. --Saqib (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Usable?
[edit]Can article be now promoted at usable status or not now? It have 4 city articles and 3 other destinations at guide status while 4 cities at usable. --Saqib (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)