Talk:Southern Sindh

I'm confused and I'v a question. Should I fill this article especially the "Get in" and "Get around" sections with the same content as in Sindh article or should I make it brief here? Other question, in the Sindh article, I've mentioned direct connections between cities but I think they better be removed from there because they're usually in destination articles. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it can be quite short, mentioning which are the best point to enter the South of Sindh. I suppose we should try to pick the list of cities that Southern Sindh should get, and then the get in section can also say something general about those smaller towns (are they also connected by rail, usually?) The detailed info can indeed go into the destination articles. If it's going to be very hard to make destination articles for smaller cities, maybe you can also use these north and south regions to collect the information we do have on those smaller destinations. We've done something like that recently for Suriname, which is also an undeveloped country in terms of tourism. It's not very common, but it might help you include attractions for which you can't create whole city articles. Just an idea. Of course, this is not a good alternative for the large cities, but rather for the sights in villages like some of the shrines. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answer Julias and I've now added the "Get in" section (duplication of Sindh's get in section with few minor changes) and I would like to see which parts you want to exclude. To answer your questions, yes, all the destinations (cities and towns of tourist significance) are connected by rail. Regarding listing the attractions in sub-region articles, thanks for bringing up the topic again but I'm sorry, I'm not satisfied with your example of Suriname. I wish few more editors could join in and sought out this confusion of me. --Saqib (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you find confusing? I was just trying to show you examples of other options. The standard way is to create destination articles for all cities and include attractions that don't deserve an article in a nearby destination. I thought you were worried that you can't get all those cities to usable status because there aren't enough listings available, that's why I mentioned the Suriname example. But it's fine to go the usual way! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, off-topic now. There're many cities in Sindh and let's say majority of them have some kind of accommodations where one can sleep but have no major attraction or only one. Should I create an article for those cities? --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And now back to topic. You said if a destination don't merit its own article, the listing can be included in nearby destination article BUT if attraction is far from the destination, where should I write the practical information such as how to get to that attraction, get around, where and which is the eating place and the local tips ? Along the listing of attraction under "See section"? --Saqib (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a sub-section under See would probably be the best place if there's a town nearby. But if there's no town nearby, it might be better to include that subsection (with listings) in the subregion article (e.g Southern Sindh) instead of in a city that's 200km away. If you're in doubt we can always discuss individual cases on the Sindh talk page or the pub. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should talk on individual cases otherwise I'll go insane thinking and talking here and there. LOL. So now you created few more articles. I never been to Hala, I really doubt it deserves an article and you created article for Ranipur, nobody goes there except those go to shrine in the town but again, lets see if those articles will manage to survive or not. Now its time to sleep, so goodnight! --Saqib (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents an town/city article from covering a large rural area 200km wide if there's little or nothing there. Anticosti would be one example. The park articles for huge national parks are similar in scale. K7L (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's another undeveloped area with a few listings here and there. That's basically the same as the Suriname regions I mentioned before, or as Rural_Montgomery_County (except those are put in a region template and Anticosti in a city template). Putting one far away attraction in a big city article s a bit different, but also possible: there's no policy on this. You can either plunge forward and do as you think best, or we should probably talk about specific examples. JuliasTravels (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Julias, the current "Get in" section contains the information of how to get in this part of Sindh from the rest of country and rest of Sindh as well, but If I'm not wrong, should I limit the information to only the rest of Sindh? I mean how to get in Southern Sindh from Northern Sindh? --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no hard rules on this, but sure, there's no need to repeat all the info that's already in Sindh. Just the most relevant parts will do. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)