Talk:South Asia

Better to edit mistakes, rather than revert
User:Saqib: with this edit, you suggested your revert be discussed here.

I have a suspicion that you object to the situation being described accurately in Pakistan in a way that gives sufficient warning to the traveller of the risks involved, but surely you do not take exception to do you? --90.221.87.151 07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) having a lower case I-for-India after a comma: "although it is mostly part of Central Asia, It"
 * 2) expanding an ugly abbreviation in prose: "per square kilometre is 7 times the world average." rather than "per square km is 7 times the world average." If you really wish to abbreviate, then the approved SI symbolisation of km² should be used.
 * 3) Using the Commonwealth English of " it's flavoursome food " rather than US spelling of " it's flavorfull food "
 * 4) Using the shorter and more common abbreviation of "UK" rather than "U.K."
 * Can we focus on one point rather than jumping from one roof to another. So lets come straight to the point. I'm not providing inaccurate or false information when it comes to security situation in Pakistan. See Pakistan and Karachi. It gives enough warning to a traveller. The description in region-list should be precious and give overview of the country rather than the deep information about security issues. In my opinion "Tourism is suffering due to the unpredictable security situation." is more than enough. --Saqib (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Kashmir
User:Wikigura I cannot completely agree with the current status of the map. First, it is not depicting the boundaries of the countries correctly, especially in the disputed Kashmir region. Second, the entire state of Kashmir should be part of the map, but some of the (East Kashmir) regions are not shown. Finally, reference for the map is clearly missing.


 * User:Wikigura, I moved your post to the bottom of the page, so that it's clearly visible as the latest post. Also, the way to sign your posts on talk pages is by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of the post. Having said that, as I've stated elsewhere, I think you have some basic misunderstandings about what this site is. The prime directive of this site is the traveller comes first. That means that all de facto boundaries are recognized, not because we necessarily think that they're optimal, but because for travellers, their paramount interest in borders has to do with the limits of where you can travel on what visa. You should also read welcome, Wikipedians, because travel guides don't need to give some kind of official reference for maps; the maps are simply hosted at Wikimedia Commons. Thirdly, territorial claims and counterclaims, like other political disputes, are dealt with on this site with a simple standard of be fair. This site can no more take a position favoring Indian claims to Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir than one favoring Pakistani claims to Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir or indeed the desires of some Kashmiris for and independent state of Kashmir that would presumably cover all parts of Kashmir. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ikan Kekek: I completely disagree with your point -- "because travel guides don't need to give some kind of official reference for maps". You cannot just put a map you feel it as appropriate. I did not put the Indian government claimed map on the page nor the Pakistan's version. Instead, the page requires a more factual and internationally recognized map with dotted borders and clear demarcations. A map, be it anywhere, should be as per the officially recognized way and not as per some random personal choice. I hope you understand that I am undoing your previous edits not for personal choice but to make wiki-voyage page a bit more factual source. Wikigura (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, don't you understand that the official Indian version is that all of Kashmir belongs to India and the official Pakistani version is that all of Kashmir belongs to Pakistan? Neither official map can be included in a travel guide. Travel guides in any case aren't about which borders are officially recognized; they're about actual conditions on the ground. I'm sorry, but if you can't accept that, you don't need to be here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If the area in contention is administrated by Pakistan then the map is accurate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also relevant from earlier discussion File_talk:Map_of_South_Asia.png Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Page banner
As there have been page banner talks on Talk:Asia, Talk:Central Asia and Talk:Bangladesh, we should discuss this banner as well. While the picture has great photographic quality, the motif does not seem iconic, or representative of the region; especially not its major population centers, or the most famous destinations. Mountain sceneries tend to be over-used as banners. We should consider other motifs. Feel free to defend the current banner, or to suggest other options. /Yvwv (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the region does have the tallest mountains in the world. That said, I think the Kumbh Mela banner and the farmer ploughing would be my top 2 choices from this group. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like suggestion 1 because it is commons way of farming in South Asian countries. --Saqib (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed the banner. Looking for other places to use the others. /Yvwv (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename references of 'Indian Subcontinent' to 'South Asia'
New contributor Gun jack 2000 would like to change references to the 'Indian subcontinent' to 'South Asia' as per this [diff https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asia&type=revision&diff=3372197&oldid=3372188].

I don't want to speak for them, just give them a starting point here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't support scrubbing all mentions of the Indian Subcontinent. This expression is used, so it should be acknowledged. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) It's pointless to say that South Asia is also known as the "South Asian region" or "Southern Asia". That's akin to saying that South America is known as the "South American region". The Indian subcontinent or just subcontinent is an alternative word describing the region. It's not as common as South Asia these days but it is still used. It doesn't make sense to remove it. Gizza ( roam ) 00:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All that would be accomplished by scrubbing all references to the "Indian Subcontinent" would be to potentially leave our readers confused when they do hear the term. If Gun jack 2000 disagrees with the use of that term, fine, but this isn't the way or, frankly, the place to argue that point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, he/she wants to change this article, so I thought this would be the place to discuss it?
 * I would rather help new contributors understand the right process, even if we disagree with the change they are trying to make. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I meant Wikivoyage isn't the place to argue that point, not this page in particular. The term "Indian Subcontinent" is one that people use, therefore it's one that we use. We're not in the business of advocating for or against any particular terminology (nor could we even if we wanted to, given our middling readership numbers). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost usable?
Based on Region guide status, this article seems to be almost at "usable" status. Just some more detail in the "See" and maybe "Do" sections, and I think it'll meet the criteria. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Railways between India and Bangladesh to be Revived
Five of six railways laid for India and Bangladesh before 1965 to be revived. --Apisite (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Other destinations
While most of the listings is good, there are two problematic listings: For Sundarbans National Park, why listing just the Indian part and not the Sundarbans as a whole? For Taj Mahal, it is an attraction within Agra and not a separate destination. We should change these two listings to something better. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * — one of the best places in India to see tigers
 * — the incomparable marble tomb in Agra


 * The Sundarbans wouldn't be a problem once it's converted into an extraregion, but not sure about the Taj Mahal though. It is listed in Asia and is a world-famous attraction but an attraction in Agra at the same time, so I'm kinda neutral about it. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SHB2000, please ask yourself whether a single building, no matter how famous, can be a destination by itself. If the Taj Mahal were far away from any city (like the Disneyland or Mohenjo-daro), it would have its own article and be listed in "Other destinations". However, the Taj Mahal is within another city called Agra and so it don't have its own article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be equivalent to having the Sydney Opera House in Oceania or the Eiffel Tower in Southwestern Europe. Except the respective cities (Sydney and Paris) are listed in those articles whereas Agra is not. Agra may have had a small chance of being included in cities if there was space for one more from India, which would only be the base if we remove the capitals of the smaller countries (Male and Thimphu stand out). In any case, I think 3 out of 8 "Other destinations from the Bengal region (Eastern India/Bangladesh) is disproportionate. There is only one city/other destination from South India/Sri Lanka. Maybe Sigiriya? Alternatively if the Taj Mahal is removed, Bodh Gaya where the Buddha attained enlightenment represents North India, and in a sense Sri Lanka, Bhutan and parts of Nepal where there are significant Buddhist populations. Gizza ( roam ) 05:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many travellers do come to Agra solely due to the Taj Mahal though. I've been planning one for the same reason. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, therefore I think the Taj Mahal is the destination here, in the literal sense of the word. People who know of the Taj should be in the range of billions, even when you don't count the Indians in. But acknowledgement of Agra? Much much less, I suppose. Particularly by those who have not been there yet — who form the main target audience for these lists. I myself is an example: one of my earliest searches on this website (or rather its predecessor) 15+ years ago was the Taj Mahal. Before that, I didn't know it was located in Agra — had never heard of it in the first place — and wasn't even aware that the Taj was located within a city (as opposed to some open, flat rural land somewhere).
 * There is also an established practice in Wikivoyage for listing attractions that are much better known than their host cities as ODs, especially in the articles higher up in the geographical hierarcy like this one. Even if that wouldn't be so, the Taj Mahal is easily the exception that proves the rule.
 * I don't think Agra vs the Taj Mahal is comparable to Paris vs the Eiffel Tower or Sydney vs the Opera House because both "Paris" and "Sydney" as names hold a much wider worldwide fame than "Agra" does. And their fame does not stem from a single building, to boot.
 * So I oppose removing the Taj Mahal from the list, and since this is a continental section article, I support replacing the Indian national park with the article for the encompassing transnational region. Vidimian (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for your inputs. I have moved the original Sundarbans article to Sundarbans (Bangladesh), possibly suppressing the need to change the Sundarbans National Park listing. I have reluctantly agreed that an attraction can also be a destination, so the Taj Mahal listing might remain as it is. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)