Talk:Pakistan

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Basant ^[1] which is traditionally celebrated in Lahore is the beginning of spring and is connected with kite flying, music and festival foods, which is the sign of a colorful cultural life of the city. Traditional freestyle polo is also on display at the Shandur Polo Festival ^[2] each year, held at the Shandur Pass between Gilgit-Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where visitors come from around the country and abroad. One such competition in motorsport is the Hub Rally Cross ^[3], an off road race held at Hub, Balochistan, each year that brings dozens of competitors and spectators to the challenging desert and coastal course, representing Pakistan's increasing focus on motorsport and its involvement in the event by young people. Collectively, these events have a significant role of safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in Pakistan and encouraging cultural integration in Pakistan. Maheen Moin (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The first line of the second paragraph of the "Millitary" section of the article says:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) is the highest-ranking military officer, advising the civilian government.

This is now outdated as the CJCSC was abolished in 2025. Hence, it should be updated to:

The Chief of Defence Forces is the highest-ranking military officer, advising the civilian government.

Mintyohnoes (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Source:https://undppknhdr2024.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NATIONAL-HUMAN-DEVELOPMENT-REPORT-2024.pdf ~2026-10255-92 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that when looking at the maps in this article, the one in the geography section - Pakistan#/media/File:Koppen-Geiger Map PAK present.svg - appears inconsistent (i.e.: grey disputed territory missing) compared to all other maps, such as Pakistan#/media/File:Population Density by Pakistani District - 2017 Census.svg.

Is this difference intentional and serving a specific purpose, or is it unintentional? Should these maps be made consistent to have a visual coherence? Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown your conduct at this article is borderline WP:OWNERSHIP. You have been continuously reverting edits by other editors with no good reason at all. Earlier you had reverted GDP figures by IMF and ultimately stopped bothering to respond at talk page. Now you have reverted twice, claiming white space is not standard and test of your edit is not constructive as well. I don't know where you're coming from, but this is standard format, and if you weren't sure you should have checked the templates for citations (e.g cite book) for this before edit warring. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Indus Valley redirects to Indus River, so it does not require a pipe. "Gandhara Civilisation" is a red link, but Gandhara or Gandhara civilisation are available, so one of these should be used instead, without piping. The wording should follow inline sources regarding whether the term is "general" or "conqueror", as well as "sultanate" or "dynasty", and whether the correct date is 1748 or 1759. There is also no need to add unnecessary white space, as this was manually cleaned up previously. The source you added regarding Makran does not support that exact statement. Please provide a quote from that source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I will address these by point;

• I had replaced Indus Region with Indus Valley, but yes, it doesn't need a pipe here.
• Civilisation is capitalised in Gandhara Civilisation as it's a proper term.
• There is no way to determine what was wording used in citations since none of the citations have pages. I am going to tag them for it. Regardless, whether it is "Sultanate" or "dynasty" it doesn't a warrant blanket revert.
• The correct date is 1748, which is when Ahmad Shah first invaded (see Battle of Lahore (1748)). If needed references can be added.
• No, there was no need to remove the spaces in citation templates and it improves nothing. That was completely unnecessary and against the standard format. Are you going to revert other editors every time one makes visual edit?
• The source directly supports the statement: After these fleeting incursions, still in the caliphate of Muawiya, Makran was finally ‘conquered by force’ by Sinan bin Salamah bin al-Muhabbiq al-Hudhali, who ‘established a garrison and settled the country after making it his headquarters. (p. 129) Sutyarashi (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The article title is Gandhara, which is set by WP:COMMONNAME and consensus. If the title does not include "Civilisation", then it is not established as a proper noun for Gandhara, so you should either use just Gandhara or Gandhara civilisation; the latter is preferred in lower case in running text. The blanket revert was not for one term; there were many issues with your edits, which I identified. In article mainspace, it is preferred to use citations without extra spacing; the template itself includes spacing only so that someone viewing the template can better understand the format. If the source text is on page 129, then why did you add a link to page 136? An editor verifying the text cannot be expected to assume this and read the entire book; the purpose of adding a page number is to ensure the text can be easily verified. You cannot just make lousy edits like these and expect that no one will revert you. Please provide a source for 1748. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• The article title is Gandhara, which is set by WP:COMMONNAME and consensus. If the title does not include "Civilisation", then it is not established as a proper noun for Gandhara, so you should either use just Gandhara or Gandhara civilisation; the latter is preferred in lower case in running text.

If the title doesn't include Civilisation then why the text has it? And no, even in running text it should be Gandhara Civilisation, it's a proper term.

• In article mainspace, it is preferred to use citations without extra spacing; the template itself includes spacing only so that someone viewing the template can better understand the format.

I would like you to cite a specific policy or community consensus which states it to preferable.

• If the source text is on page 129, then why did you add a link to page 136?

I am actually not even required to provide a link. I gave exact pages in the source, it's not fault you didn't bother to check them.

• You cannot just make lousy edits like these and expect that no one will revert you.

And I think your reasons for reverting are lousy at best, just like last time. Sutyarashi (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, piping "Gandhara Civilisation" into Gandhara or Gandhara civilisation would be against WP:NOPIPE. When two alternatives exist, you do not need to use a pipe. As for consensus regarding spacing in citation templates, before your edit, many other editors had edited this article, and a consensus had been established through editing. If many editors have edited the article or added citations without unnecessary additional spacing, then that is the consensus, and you cannot overrule it. Your introduction of over 4,000 bytes of white space was objected to, so it is you who needs to establish consensus, not me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not what consensus means. As per WP:CONSENSUS: An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. You earlier wrote There is also no need to add unnecessary white space, as this was manually cleaned up previously. (presumably by you?). Now that your edit is reverted, by system itself or deliberate edit, it is clearly under dispute and you need to achieve consensus for how come it is preferable or even ok.

That being said, I'm not interested in going around in circles. If it's ok with you I will enlist the dispute at WP:3O. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Did I say it was previously cleaned by me? Many editors have edited this article and preferred the format without extra spacing. Also, spacing is irrelevant in citations, but consistency needs to be maintained. Now, you can add all these extra spaces, but still WP:CONSENSUS will apply, as once your edit with extra spacing is reverted, it does not have presumed consensus anymore. You can go to 3O if you want to keep insisting on this, or you can opt to insist on changing whatever is necessary to be changed, as it is clear by now that the extra spacing was a by-product of lousiness/laziness and you did not mean to change it. You should only be insisting on essential changes. Did you mean to add extra spacing? Do you think it is essential to add it? If the answer is no, then don't waste my time, your time, and the 3O volunteers' time on this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Did I say it was previously cleaned by me? Many editors have edited this article and preferred the format without extra spacing.

I didn't say you did, and I'm not interested in going through whole of page history to find out the one responsible, but at the moment only you're the one insisting for it (you have already reverted atleast three other editors recently claiming the White space as rationale). Also "preferred the format" is doing quite a work here, when they simply may not have noticed. The problem is simple, that in case of visual edit Wikipedia itself restores the standard format of the citations, and not everyone has time to redo their work again. Moreso, so far you have been unable to show how the removal of spaces was necessary or improves the article in any meaningful way.

as it is clear by now that the extra spacing was a by-product of lousiness/laziness

I would suggest you to give a read to WP:AGF please.

You should only be insisting on essential changes.

I'm not insisting on anything. I was just asking about your rationale for reverting. "White space unnecessary" is not the one.

Do you think it is essential to add it? If the answer is no, then don't waste my time, your time, and the 3O volunteers' time on this.

What I think is it was unnecessary to remove it, you're the one insisting for its removal against the standard format. You can prevent more of ours or any other editors' time from being wasted by either giving reason for removal, or by not reverting other editors.

Anyways, I get the feeling you do not want to pursue this issue further, neither do I. I will take in account your objections over piping and redo the edit. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown You need to stop edit warring. It is very clear that articles across Wikipedia have white space in the citation template. You need to achieve consensus for this and stop removing maintenance tags without addressing them as well. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

All your major contentions have been addressed; there is no need to continue this dispute further. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you have not still given the rationale of white space removal, and you have no right to unilaterally add things here and there and call it the day by claiming "all major concerns addressed". Sutyarashi (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE, Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it., what else is not addressed? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you know what citation style/method means? Where exactly does WP:CITE state that removing space in templates is considered a new style? Sutyarashi (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

It covers everything in the citations. As I said, white space is irrelevant; maintaining consistency is key. However, who determines consistency: the existing format with presumed consensus, or the introduction of 4,000 bytes of white space by an editor that was challenged by another? Another point that I did not mention previously is that adding this much white space will make an already lengthy Bibliography section even longer for the manual editor who is already doing the cumbersome work of putting together the citations. The scroll in that section already seems endless; it will become even longer, especially when placing a citation with a last name further down the alphabet. For your few wikilinks, which you could have managed manually instead of adding so much white space, we are not going to make life harder for the manual editor sorting the citations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Where exactly this was discussed before and you achieved consensus to remove spaces? How can you claim white space is irrelevant? It is not the claimed "introduction", but the removal of them from the templates, which is the problem here. You have not address the problem of automated restoration of spaces, either. As for concerns of length, this issue has never been raised for other articles with even longer bibliography, what makes you think this one is the unique case?

The problem here is not the wikilinks or other edits, it is the fact that you are reverting other editors on this basis, when it does not improve anything. No one has got time to do their work twice. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It is the other way around. Your introduction of spaces does not improve the article but instead increases the length of the Bibliography section unnecessarily. Again, I never said I removed the spaces; it is possible that most of the references were added without spaces, as they were considered unnecessary. Not everything requires a discussion; consensus is presumed until an edit is reverted. I clearly cited WP:CITE: once you introduce a change in the method and style of citations, you need to establish a new consensus. In addition to WP:CITE, Template:Citation also clearly states that Spacing and ordering of the parameters within the template is irrelevant. So, you are clearly fighting for no reason. I, for one, have a reason: first, the no-spacing format is consistent in the Bibliography section, and spacing adds unnecessary length for the manual editor. So you can let it go; there is no need to go in circles on this. Also, your claim about other articles with longer Bibliography sections is just an example of WP:OTHERCONTENT; it is not necessary that every article has the same standard and format at any given time. There can always be a first time for anything, and an article can have its own consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree with your assertion that responsibility to achieve consensus lies on me. If it sits well with you we should take it for dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi You can go ahead and take it to WP:DRN, but note that edits performed over a period of time, with references formatted without spaces, and subsequent edits by other editors to the article, constitute presumed consensus, as those revisions were accepted without objection by other editors. Yes, the responsibility lies with you to achieve consensus because your edit was objected to. Additionally, we have an unofficial 3O and 4O from Chattenoir and an IP editor indicating that you are in the wrong and need to achieve consensus. You may accept that unofficial 3O or take it to DRN, but do not restore the spaces after protection is lifted without establishing consensus, as I will go straight to the edit warring noticeboard if you do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at every edit but at a glance it seems you have made an addition and this has been reverted and you have un-reverted several times?

If so you need to stop doing that and either reach consensus or request dispute resolution. Chattenoir (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chattenoir How did Suyarashi reach out to you? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

He didn't. Did you read what I said? I am trying to stop him engaging in an edit war Chattenoir (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I read it, and thank you for trying to stop them, but the way your message was worded suggested there had been prior communication. Are you certain there was no prior communication? We (you and I) had a recent dispute at 2026 Iran war, and it seems very strange that you would show up here unless you are following my edits or the other party attempted to WP:CANVASS you, assuming that you would support them given the recent dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I am following this page as well as the 2026 Iran war just as you are. We did have a dispute on that article, do not hold a grudge and accuse me of things that there is no basis for please.

your message was worded suggested there had been prior communication No it wasn't mate. Chattenoir (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia would be a much better place if no one held grudges against each other, but here people try to get back at you at every opportunity if they could not get their way during a prior dispute. There would not have been a need for this entire discussion if we had all set our egos aside. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Take note that I am replying to him, not you. Chattenoir (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Enough. I don't know who's in the right or wrong in this dispute, and per policy, I don't care - the edit-warring stops now. I've fully protected the page for 48 hours so that a discussion can take place and community consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed content can be established. If disruption resumes once the full protection expires, further individual sanctions can be expected. A reminder that this page falls under an Arbcom-imposed contentious topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, thanks, but in that case can you restore revision as was at the time of discussion started before SheriffIsInTown made series of changes unilaterally? Sutyarashi (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  At the moment the page should likely remain at WP:THEWRONGVERSION until discussion establishes a consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger — I think Sutyarashi is wrong here. He has a previous history of edit wars to restored his own preferred versions. As above (Chattenoir & SheriffIsInTown also explained how Sutyarashi is wrong). There is a chance of edit wars by Sutyarashi even after 2 days. See their edit war pattern.3 ~2026-23967-23 (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your argument that there is consensus just because no one had objected to removal of spaces from templates until now, is unjustified. WP:WEAKSILENCE clearly states that such a "presumed consensus" arising due to silence from other editors is no longer valid when objected to. That being said, I will take it to DRN instead instead of going into circles here now.

Additionally, we have an unofficial 3O and 4O from Chattenoir and an IP editor indicating that you are in the wrong and need to achieve consensus.

They had provided no opinion regarding the dispute, moreover both of these editors have themselves been reported to ANEW for edit warring recently, with IP being blocked. Your reference and threat was uncalled for. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:WEAKSILENCE is an essay and is about silence during discussions, i.e., if someone does not reply to a post in a discussion, that does not mean that the other party has achieved consensus, but WP:CONSENSUS is a core Wikipedia policy, and presumed consensus through editing principle does not change, especially when nothing was changed to begin with. The citations were entered without spaces to begin with, and over time, assuming that spacing is irrelevant per Template:Citation, we are not going to rip the article apart just because a single editor is hell bent to fight over something which is considered irrelevant per documentation. No process, including DRN, is going to resolve the issue, which is irrelevant, so what is left is the issue of presumed consensus, and that question was already resolved for you by the unofficial 3O of Chattenoir. They told you that you made a change which was reverted; now you need to gain consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Citation templates had white spaces in the revision as of 26 January 2024 before you started making long series of changes to article, which can only mean that you or any other editor removed them afterwards. Your claim that The citations were entered without spaces to begin with is dumbfounded.

we are not going to rip the article apart just because a single editor is hell bent to fight over something which is considered irrelevant per documentation.

Your claim is not justified. The restoration of white spaces is automated, so there is no need to worry that article would be "ripped apart" whatever it might mean. My previous edits had not caused any issues whatsoever, either.

No process, including DRN, is going to resolve the issue, which is irrelevant, so what is left is the issue of presumed consensus, and that question was already resolved for you by the unofficial 3O of Chattenoir.

DRN is one of the outlets for achieving consensus. I already told you chattenoir or IP had not provided any 3O whatsoever, other than to "achieve consensus". Which is what I'm doing. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

These are two years and three months during which many new sources were added without spaces, and during which many editors other than me edited the article and did not object to having no extra spaces in the citation, which established presumed consensus. Restoration of spaces might be automated if you edit the article in a lousy way, but there are many other ways to avoid that which you could have used. I have been editing for a decade now, and I have never encountered an automated way of restoring spaces, and many other editors do that as well. Make a change which you intend to make; you do not need to disrupt other parts of the article, and yes, the template documentation says spacing is irrelevant so unless you get the template docs changed, the spacing will stay irrelevant, only consensus will matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Make a change which you intend to make; you do not need to disrupt other parts of the article

Once again, please give a read to WP:AGF. There has been zero disruption on my part. It's your insistence on removal of spaces which is being a hurdle here. You have still not addressed the issues it is causing. I don't agree with your claim of that there is any "presumed consensus" about it here, regardless DRN is one of the ways to achieve it. I don't have JavaScript installed, can you enlist the dispute at DRN? Sutyarashi (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The changes you intend to make are already largely present in the article. You did not need to add the spaces, and there are ways to avoid doing so which you could have applied. I have already addressed the issue they are causing; they are unnecessary and increase the length of the Bibliography section for manual editors. There is no hurdle from my side here; you are focusing on something irrelevant. It does not matter whether you agree with the presumed consensus or not, as Wikipedia policies are not dependent on your agreement. As for filing a DRN, I am sorry, but I am not going to assist with that. If you wish to pursue this matter further, you can find a way to file a DRN yourself. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Filed, please make further replies there. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

For further clarification: the present dispute is strictly regarding the removal of white spaces. Please do not attempt to characterise it as "misstated" on my part at DRN. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change t Adideshpande (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Pakistan is considered part of the middle east as of July 1, 2025 according to the world bank. Please do add that! ~2026-23898-47 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Regardless please provide source. Chattenoir (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/country/pakistan "It is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East" would be a better definition. Also classified as "mena" (middle east and north africa) https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/region/mena same goes for Afghanistan.

More on the reclassification: https://x.com/pageblank/status/2045186672409866499 ~2026-23898-47 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

This isnt what the source says, it says MENAAP in the second source you gave, the AP stands for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chattenoir (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Pakistan is not in the south asia label anymore in the world bank: https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/region/sar Random luv to edit (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

https://thursdaytimes.com/2026/04/17/news/world-bank-places-pakistan-in-mena-ending-south-asia-classification/ source Random luv to edit (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: We are not going to change the article's statement that Pakistan is in South Asia based solely on how the World Bank divides up development regions. Day Creature (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not based on how the World Bank divides economic region but a greater push and overall more accurate geographic and cultural depiction. Including both the greater middle east region and south asia would probably be the most appropriate. Not sure where the hesitation is coming from, it's a benign addition/change that would accurately reflect the area Dkassis3160 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country in the greater Middle East region and South Asia.

https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/region/mena https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/20/pakistan-global-standing-mediator-us-iran-talks-middle-east

This is the most appropriate designation at this time. Dkassis3160 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Should Asim Munir be mentioned in the infobox in the leader's section in some capacity, perhaps as Chief of Defence Forces? I know Wikipedia country infoboxes almost never include leaders of military institutions, but Pakistan seems to be a very unique case where the leader of the military is widely seen as more powerful than the nominal civilian government. Many reliable sources refer to Munir as Pakistan's "strongman" or leader" or as the most powerful person in the country. The Account 2 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

kindly change "Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country in South Asia." to "Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country in Middle East."

It has been moved from South Asian Category to Middle East by World bank 2026 Middle Eastern update dated report April 2026. reference: https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/mena/publication/middle-east-north-africa-afghanistan-and-pakistan-economic-update)

Along with several articles (https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/29/pakistan-world-bank-imf-middle-east-saudi-arabia-india-south-asia/) reporting on this change. Jon Doher001 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Those sources say Middle East and Pakistan. CMD (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Want to add following to the article: Counterterrorism and countering violent extremism approaches have resulted in some reduction in terrorism.[Gap analysis of Pakistan's non-kinetic responses to violent extremism, Cogent Social Sciences, 2023] HudecEmil (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown HudecEmil (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This is unnecessary and non-encyclopedic content. It does not belong in the country article. The article was trimmed from 16,000 words to 10,000 words, and we are not going to start adding bloat again. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Want to add GDP per capita growth value to article. 1.5% in 2024 per World Bank HudecEmil (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The IMF has GDP per capita data for 2025. I do not mind adding it if it is not already there. I think it was already there, but we can double-check it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Want to do the following updations

• About Zikri muslim community
• About Hinglaj Mata pilgrimage which is the largest in Pakistan

Weichan123 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think these minor communities belong in the country article. There are separate main articles for this purpose, and this content can go there if it is not already there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Pakistana has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 15 § Pakistán until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)