Talk:Punjab (Pakistan)

Cities
Time to slash the number of cities to nine? The original list is:


 * Lahore - the provincial capital, and Pakistan's cultural capital

--(WT-en) Wandering 22:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Bahawalpur - capital of the former Bahawalpur state
 * Chakwal
 * Dera Ghazi Khan
 * Faisalabad
 * Gujar Khan
 * Gujranwala
 * Islamabad
 * Jhelum
 * Mandi-Bahauddin - In the western side of Mandi-Bahauddin at the place of Khiwa, the famous and historical war " Battle of the Hydaspes River " between Raja Porus and Alexander The great, a Greece Invader have been fought.
 * Mianwali - home town of famous Pakistani cricket captain, Imran Khan Niazi
 * Multan
 * Murree - famous for its scenic beauty and a popular hill station
 * Rabwah - Head quarters Of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at.
 * Rahim Yar Khan
 * Rawalpindi
 * Sargodha - home of the main PAF base
 * Sheikhan
 * Sialkot - famous for its sports industry


 * Nicely slashed, but I'd argue that it's more a time to develop some sub-regions, so we don't orphan the destinations cut out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:41, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Map
I'm working on the map for Punjab, it is officially divided into 36 districts, any suggestions in how many districts should I divide it into? --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not spent too long in Punjab, so I'm no expert. However, I'd say: Islamabad and the north; Lahore and the east; and then Southern Punjab, which I haven't visited. As for the borders: I spent some time in a village near Jhelum, which I accessed from 'Pindi so for that reason alone, I'd draw that boundary with Jhelum included with Islamabad. As for the rest, I don't know.
 * There is a little inconsistency between the Punjab region article (which includes Islamabad) and the Pakistan regions map (which has the capital as a separate region). I favor redrawing the Pakistan regions map to include Islamabad in Punjab.Travelpleb (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally the number of regions should not exceed nine, but it's not necessary to force that, if a different scheme makes more sense. 36 would be too much, though ;) --Peter Talk 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much indeed! :-) So usually, would you go for just a shorter list, basically coming up with random new sub-region lines, or would you go with something like north, south, east and west? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is sub-region lines? An example would be helpful. --Saqib (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no official meaning, I just meant... dividing into districts ourself. If we're not going with the 36, we can either just go with north, west etc. (or something like that), or we would have to make a selection of districts but then we'd have to count the territory of the not-mentioned districts into one of those. I would say that's confusing, but I'm not sure what standard procedure is. Geographical hierarchy makes sense but doesn't give a lot of practical direction. Saqib, you seem to know this area best, which districts would you propose? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What about creating region list based on this? --Saqib (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice my suggestion of three subregions?
 * North (inc. Islamabad)
 * East (inc. Lahore)
 * South
 * Travelpleb (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say Islamabad should be remain outside of Punjab. --Saqib (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a new discussion about that at Talk:Islamabad. As for regions of Punjab, do you think three is suitable?Travelpleb (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did notice :-) In principle, I'd say it's fine. The question is however if with a division in only 3 subregions we can maintain the 7 +-2 rule for cities in those articles? As it would be the lowest available region articles they would have a link to *every* city in it, and I'm not sure how many that would approximately be? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That rule isn't a golden rule that absolutely must be followed. We should go with what makes sense for the traveller. There's been a lot of discussion about that rule and the conclusion is that it is a decent guide but emphatically not something that should lead to an unnecessary proliferation of unhelpful sub-regions. In this case, I think three sub-regions makes sense.Travelpleb (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not a great advocate of rules at all, and I don't mind exceeding the 9 number when that's useful. I'm just wondering what kind of lists we'd end up with. If there's *way* too many cities in say "east", that would mean we'd soon have to further divide in order to keep it readable. I have no idea of the number of cities, but with 90 million inhabitants (twice Spain! :-)) I imagine there might be many, and also many of interest to travellers. I'm just saying we should keep it in mind, and try to come up with a division that not only makes sense now but also works as Punjab city articles develop. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say lets divide Punjab region into North, East, South and West. Please suggest boundaries for each sub-region. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be too many cities listed. See: or also try the newly developed map that shows the location of articles . It looks like there's not dozens and dozens of articles to contend with.
 * My reasoning for thee regions is this: one area will centre on the Rawalpindi and Islamabad, one are will centre on Lahore, the last area will catch Multan and the area away from the main Lahore - 'Pindi highway. I don't think any of the regions would be under- or over- populated with articles. I can't see how four regions would work. Please explain. Travelpleb (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that list shows the articles we already have, but Wikivoyage is still missing a lot of major towns in this region. See this list for example, and that's major towns only, the smallest one with 40.000 people or so. If we want to make this division for the coming years, hoping the other cities will also get articles, I don't really think 3 or 4 regions would be enough? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. 3 or 4 regions would not be enough thus I've created this: File:Punjab (Pakistan) regions.png. --Saqib (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To come up with a well thought out region structure we should consider these two points:
 * How many articles would there be in each of those regions at today's levels?
 * Which cities that currently do not have articles do you think should have them? In which of the proposed regions would they be placed?
 * Understanding what our article distribution currently is and what we expect it to become is very important here. Travelpleb (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To facilitate this I am going through all the articles and putting the Template:Geo so that we have latitude and longitude for easy map making. This is quite laborious, but when it's done we'll be able to have a good view of what we're dealing with. Then we can make an informed decision.Travelpleb (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Around four district articles would be allocated to each region and I think we don't need to have articles of the other cities at this point. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any ideas about how to name those regions, Saqib? Agreed Travelpleb, that's vital. Good idea to add Geo-templates. Generally, I think all major cities should ideally, one day, have articles. And also perhaps a bunch of smaller towns which are of particular interest to travellers (because they have ruins of some sort, or a natural sight or something.) How many there are in Punjab, no idea :-) I'm guessing a division roughly in 9 or so sub-regions makes sense in terms of allowing space for Punjab articles to develop, but I wonder how we can name them.. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should be conservative with your ideas for growth. There's articles in this region that have been stuck with just a single sentence for several years. Also, what counts as a major city? As for which smaller towns we should include, we should be doing some research so that we can make an intelligent decision. Travelpleb (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha, we'll never agree on that then ;-) In my book, we should never be conservative about facilitating growth! Seriously, I think a region like this just needs a local, or a traveller who's been there, to come along and get enthusiastic. And then things move fast - we've seen it before. We'll never know which regions will be happy enough to find such an advocate soon, but whenever we put work into defining regions, we should create possibilities. But well, that's just my take, I don;t really mind if it turns out differently. As far as major towns go: I have no particular number in mind. For me travel guides serve 2 main audiences. Voluntary travellers, who visit places because they want to see and experience things, and people who end up in a place for e.g. work or family, and need practical information and perhaps some ideas for some light sightseeing. As larger towns will have more of such visitors, even when not attracting tourists specifically, I guess we should strive to have at least usable guides for them. The wikipedia list seems a fair view of "major", don't you think? JuliasTravels (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can name regions as (I) Lahore Sheikhupura Region, (II) Bahawalpur Region, (III) D.G. Khan Region, (IV) Faisalabad Region (V) Gujranwala Region (VI) Multan Region (VII) Rawalpindi Region (VIII) Sahiwal Region, and (IX) Sargodha Region. --Saqib (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Saqib, we have not decided on the number of regions yet, so please curb your enthusiasm for your own suggestion.
 * No region structure can stop potential growth - articles are easy to create. But too many regions with too few articles can make a guide more difficult to use. I think the regions should reflect the situation as it is, not as it may be - it can always change to reflect any growth that does occur.
 * In fact, the proliferation of articles is a potential weakness in this region. This year, a slew of one-sentence wonders has been created but not subsequently worked on. This gives a false impression of the size of the region's content. Punjab currently has only a few articles of more than one sentence but if you look at the list of articles in Pubjab, it looks like there is significant content - in reality most Punjab articles are empty and unhelpful. We are then going to bloat the sub-region to hold these empty, useless articles. Travelpleb (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that someone has been creating subregion articles for this region. I added them to the article, but I don't think they necessarily reflect the direction this discussion is heading. Texugo (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Punjab enthusiasts love creating articles. It would be great if someone would be prepared to help exercise some editorial oversight.Travelpleb (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How about expressing a specific opinion about them, please? Also, please have a look at my post at Talk:Pakistan. I think it would be good to develop a consensus before deciding whether to propose on Vfd to delete these new contributions wholesale. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of this Map discussion consists of various opinions about how to sub-divide Punjab, including my own (I even drew a picture to express simply my opinion). It would be great if you too put forth an opinion. Bear in mind a point I made in the Pub that many of the city articles are new, empty and possibly VfD-worthy.Travelpleb (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I read through the discussions. So I'm gathering your suggestion would be to Vfd all the new division and district articles? This is an issue that goes beyond Punjab, as articles have been created for places in Kashmir, too. So I still think that there should be discussion in Talk:Pakistan, because right now, the discussion I started there involves only me, myself, and I, and that's not going to achieve a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say dump them, yes.
 * I think Pakistan needs a massive overhaul from disinterested contributors; however it seems most editors either have too involved an interest, or are simply uninterested. We'd need to go through every article, assess whether it deserves to be included or deleted, figure out where worthy articles are on a map, and then sub-divide regions as necessary. That's a huge job that will suffer both from the pleas for inclusion by over-keen enthusiasts and the general lack of care from the wider crowd. Given all that, do you want to involved in a possible Project:Pakistan?Travelpleb (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never been to Pakistan, so I fear I lack sufficient expertise to do more than copy edit. I'm also very busy, especially for the next week, and will be away for a good part of the summer. If there are specific ways I can nevertheless help, though, I'd be happy to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for being away for so long. Punjab is actually officially sub-devided into 9 divisions. I've created a region list here. --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are, conveniently, 9 divisions. It seems intuitive to use them as regions, as currently shown in the article. However, I haven't ever been to the Pakistani part of the Punjab, so I give no expert opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Subregions for Punjab, Sindh, Azad Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces have been created and all the divisions are official and still exists. I'll start creating maps for these sub-regions once we reach a consensus on these subregions. --Saqib (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have my support in anything you feel is best to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, can you please fill the region list colours correspondence to colours on the region map. --Saqib (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this request. I wouldn't have been sure how to do it and probably could have figured it out, but I'm glad you took care of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Officially, provinces are divided into divisions, and those divisions are further divided into districts but here on WV, I've created divisions (as province sub-regions) and then, link them directly to district's capital city rather than district articles. Hope that's fine. --Saqib (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's totally fine, until such time as there is so much to write about all these destinations that the official divisions are needed, which probably won't happen for the foreseeable future. Thank you so much for taking care of all of this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ikan, yes you're right. Btw, what do you think about this format?  --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the format is fine. It would be great if there were more cities and towns in the map of Pakistani Punjab, though, and perhaps the map should be enlarged to make the place names more easily readable. I had to click on the map to see the name "Islamabad." Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, do you want me to mention all the division capitals (total 9) on the map or only major cities of the province. I'll also upload the source files of the maps I've created yesterday on Commons later. --Saqib (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if there's room to put the names of all 9 division capitals, that would be great. If there isn't room (for example, if some of the names overlap when you put them on the map), choose the cities you consider most important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Saqib (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's coming along! I think the division names need to be somewhat bigger and easier to read, and the road paths would look nicer if they were about half as wide or less. Texugo (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, these are division's capital city names not division names, do you want me write names of divisions (for example: Lahore Division) rather than just Lahore? Second, do you mean to say that I should decrease the width size of roads? --Saqib (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a dot on the map for each named city. I don't think you need to write the names of the divisions because the colors match those in the regionlist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * City boundaries are already divided by lines. Wondering why would you need to see dots. --Saqib (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the entire division is one city? If that's the case, why is there a black dot for the city of Lahore? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * I see. I misunderstood. Right, no need to write "division" on each one, but I would also like to see dots for where the city center is, since this is not an area of border-to-border urban development. For purposes of tourism it is easier to think of where the urban city centers are, rather than the administratively defined city boundaries which include loads of rural areas. Texugo (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wouldn't want unlabelled dots there, just dots for the city centers of the ones you have labelled, and they could perhaps be smaller dots unless all these cities are close to the size of Lahore. Also, maybe it's just personal preference, but I think the road and river widths are still too wide, overwhelming the district borders and other features of the map. Texugo (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've uploaded the new map image with changes. I didn't decreased the size of dots as Lahore is marked with star as being capital city of the province. Btw, I guess Ikan was also said the same thing above "I'd like to see a dot on the map for each named city." Right? --Saqib (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's starting to look mighty fine! If you do get back in there for some reason to make further improvements, or if you just feel like messing with it some more, you might consider
 * moving the distance key down slightly so it's not touching the top border
 * reducing the title font size by about 25-30%
 * extending roads and rivers to the edge of the map
 * seeing if you can't fit all the text in there horizontally instead of angled this way and that
 * Just some ideas. You're doing a great job! Texugo (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you think region discussion template from the article page should be remove now or not yet? --Saqib (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but you intend to make the region articles that include the cities in each one, right? And clean up the IsPartOf templates for the cities so they are under the districts? And after doing so, trim the list of cities on this page down to 9? Is that the plan? Texugo (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not creating any subregion articles for Punjab because of non-availbility of content. However, yes, IsPartOf should be clean up but I'm not sure whether to put the cities under their district or divisions and how to put them under district or division as district articles do not exist and divisions are redirect so IsPartOf template won't work until district or divisions articles created. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. It might be nice to at least split the city list here into subsections by district then. That unbroken list of 54 cities is downright intimidating. And no, if we aren't creating district articles, then just leave the IsPartOf template for the cities pointed here. Texugo (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if splitting the city list is good idea. However, I've already listed other major towns located in a particular district on the district headquarters city article under "Go next" section. See this for an example. --Saqib (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In keeping with our policy on long lists, we generally try to break up any list that gets into double digits. Texugo (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * City list is trimmed down to 7 now. I've listed the most populous cities of the province. --Saqib (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the current region-list which I created last year. I've created new region-list for Sindh which is best from a traveller point of view and I'm going to do the same with Punjab. Even though Punjab is quite big but I'm going to divide it into only 2 sub-regions (South and North). If there're concerns, please raise them here before I add the new region-list. --Saqib (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been set aside for quite a while now. I see that Northern Punjab and Southern Punjab articles were created, but they were never links from here, and their cities/other destination lists have not been filled in. Are we still going forward with this split? Is there a map? Saqib? Texugo (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Texugo, I'm fine with two sub-regions, Norther and Southern. I've created the map a long ago but actually there's not much content in articles and some city articles haven't even created yet so I didn't incorporated the region list into article and thought of leaving the things as it is for a while. --Saqib (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it's a nice map and it reflects how we have it divided for now. Let's get it in the article with the links to the respective 2 region pages. I can fill in the cities sections... Texugo (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it otherwise I'll try to do it myself in few days.--Saqib (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How to handle empty articles?
As part of the ongoing discussion about assigning sub-regions to Punjab (Pakistan), it has come to light that the region contains a great many empty articles (e.g. X is in Punjab (Pakistan). - then that's it). These articles are part of the reason why the sub-regions are being created in the first place. However, it seems somewhat odd to create a region structure for these empty, useless articles.

I don't think it would be helpful to have a plethora of sub-regions, with many of them only containing these dud pages.

Is there a policy or a precedent concerning this? Do we ignore the dud pages and create a hierarchy based on the articles that stand some chance of being used or do we incorporate them into the structure, giving them equal regard to their more fledged peers in the probably misplaced hope that they'll grow?

Also more opinions are always welcome on the Talk:Punjab (Pakistan) itself.Travelpleb (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been some overzealous article creation for that part of the world in the past, potentially done for political reasons, so if an effort is being made to clean things up then redirecting any stub articles should be fine. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That would also involve trammeling the er... hard work of one of the interlocutors in the regions discussion, something which I'd not feel comfortable doing without more than a little support. Travelpleb (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On a related note, there was a discussion about deleting and possibly recreating our content-less outlines to get a fresh, Wikimedia-only history. If the articles in question were created pre-migration, let me know, as I'd like to do that. On a more related note, I don't think it's always worth subdividing regions, even if they have more than 9 cities in the list. If another subdivision would make things more convoluted/not help the traveler, then it's better to just subdivide the list itself (example). --Peter Talk 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * Especially if there are no unique things to say about each of the proposed subregions. Then you just get stuck with additional blank region articles, or people duplicating the same information in each of them, which is generally a no-no. Texugo (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, please let your opinions on sub-divisions be known at Talk:Punjab (Pakistan). As for the empty articles, most were created post-migration but I think there will be some for you.Travelpleb (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All very well in cases where there's nothing to add or expect. However, I don't see the point of deleting here, and I don't really see any political motivation: most are just created in an enthusiastic effort to cover the Punjab region. For good reason: it's home to half of the population of Pakistan, has a rich history and plenty of potential, even when current situations might not make it the most popular of destinations :-) It's too early to claim that these articles will not be developed, as many have been created very recently and most are large cities. I've gone ahead and added some basic info to some of those articles, User:Saqib is actively working on this region too. To be honest, I think it would be far more helpful if more people (with more experience in creating sub-regions) would join that discussion there, instead of such general negative remarks and hints to mass deletion here in the pub. In any case, if anyone feels these big Pakistani city articles should be deleted, I'd say follow the normal procedures for that :-( JuliasTravels (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my comments, in the past there were a huge number of articles created covering areas disputed by India and Pakistan, and we finally began deleting them on sight as it was clear that the only point in their creation had been for the purpose of saying "X is in Pakistan" (as opposed to India) - that comment was not meant to apply to any recent efforts, although many of those articles are still around. Similarly, in the past when large numbers of region articles have been created that didn't improve the utility of our guides, such as creating stubs for every county in a region or every political subdivision in an area, we have generally redirected those articles rather than trying to rearrange or sub-divide existing hierarchies to fit these newly-created stubs - again, that may or may not be relevant in the current situation.  Beyond pointing out how such discussions have been resolved in the past I don't have any local knowledge that would be of much relevance to a discussion of organizing the Punjab region. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also don't feel that I know enough about Punjab to comment on the particulars of subdividing, beyond that I know it's one of the most touristic regions of the country, and I presume it could have a significant amount of content some day, if not yet. --Peter Talk 21:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How about cases where all those empty articles could only be expanded to have 3 listings or so, as that is all that physically exists? I've had that issue at Bangladesh, which is why I created smaller sub-districts that cover sections of the countryside, and encompass all of those tiny villages that might have one attraction or one guesthouse and that's about it. Pakistan could be a similar situation, but I'm no expert. JamesA  >talk 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a fine solution for rural areas with villages, and I guess it applies to many countries, rural Pakistan too. We're not by far at that point yet though, what we're talking about and creating is only the list of major towns (>40.000 people, most >100.000). And there are a lot of those in Punjab. Listings are hard to create for non-locals because information in English online is limited, but it's not at all as if these articles can't be expanded. The question of how to subdivide remains very hard though, as none of us except User:Saqib know the region. I don't feel for many empty region articles either, so perhaps it would make sense (for now) to stick with just a rough north-south-east division or something, and just have longer city lists in those. That's the more general (non-expert) discussion we're trying to have, so even your non-expert opinions are welcome there ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge on creating sub-regions so I wouldn't comment whether Punjab should be sub-divided or not. However, I've divided the Punjab region according to . And I strongly agree with JuliasTravels, major cities of Punjab shouldn't be deleted. Many of them hold good potential to at-least become guide article one day. --Saqib (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for creating articles for less obvious places, I've made a few myself, but I always try to add something useful to each one in an attempt to plant a meaningful seed for future growth. These one-sentence wonders don't really seem to going in that direction - many are only days old, but also many are months and even years old. Anyone with the internet can gather more information than X is here. For example, not only have I sourced coordinates for each and every one of these probably-but-possibly-not no-hopers, I've made sure that the coordinates are correct and updated the relevant Wikipedia pages in the all too often cases of error.
 * In the course of gathering all that information I've browsed each town's Wikipedia page, and for the most part our larger and more established sister does not have much to say about these places. I don't want to be too much of a wet blanket, but we're not going to get a remotely useful guide for off the beaten track Pakistani Punjab any time soon.
 * But importantly, we don't want to stifle the possibility of growth in this area however remote it seems. It's this conflict of useless stubs clogging up a hierarchy in the hope of growth that is causing the problem.
 * I'm inclined to agree with JuliasTravels - the Punjab question is a general discussion about the guide's structure rather than one that requires expert field knowledge. I say: yes, keep the stub articles but only consider the handful of more substantial articles when deciding on sub-regions. Therefore each sub-region will be a usable nucleus with the potential for growth intact. If these sub-regions have longs list of mainly stubs, then no big deal.Travelpleb (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When I see 27 empty articles, and nobody can even say what they are about (e.g., write a single paragraph explaining why to go and what to see), I argue for an immediate deletion, because tons of stub articles make Wikivoyage look like a collection of stubs. It is a dark spot on the reputation. Same applies to unnecessary or excessive sub-regions. --Alexander (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One might argue that such completely useless articles are one of the exceptions, but the general policy is "if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected". I think that applies here.


 * Consider a visitor who wants to meet his Pakistani friend's family in their rather obscure hometown or look at some relatively unknown place where his great-grandfather was posted during the Raj. We may never have an article on those places, but a redirect will help find them. Pashley (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Free Wi-Fi
It has been reported that free public Wi-Fi is being introduced across the region. Surely, worth to add here but only once the service starts. Posting this here for record so we may remember it. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Which 9 "Cities"?
Per 7+2, non-bottom region articles should list no more than 9 "Cities". Here's the current list:


 * — the capital of Pakistan
 * — the provincial capital, and Pakistan's cultural capital
 * — home to one of the few natural safari parks in Pakistan, Lal Suhanra National Park
 * — a textile hub of Pakistan
 * - Holy place of Sikhism
 * — the city of wrestlers, also known for its electrical, ceramics and textile industry
 * — a must stop for tourists, most famous for its wonderful mangoes, friendly people and pottery, also lots of tombs and beautiful mosques
 * — military headquarters
 * — home of the main Pakistan Air Force base
 * — famous for its sports and leather industry

Which two should be removed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wah Cantt has no points of interest listed, so it can go. Gujranwala has only a park, a business centre, and a cinema listed -- not much for a visitor. (I have no direct knowledge of Punjab, but as there has been no response from anyone else, I looked at the articles to determine what would be most useful for readers.) Ground Zero (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Ground Zero (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)