Talk:Gwadar Port

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gwadar Port article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Pakistan: Balochistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan (assessed as High-importance).

Comment

I provided a map showing where Gwadar was -- for those of us who didn't know.

Someone removed it -- without leaving an explanation here on the talk page.

I am going to re-instate it. If you are going to remove it, please explain your objection here.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:5rupees back.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:5rupees back.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84 Coatrack

@Willard84: You had a long section on "Comparison with Chabahar Port" in the CPEC article, to which Ghatus and I have complained, listing various reasons. Now you have copied the same material here again. This is just duplicating stuff about Chabahar Port that rightly belongs in its article, and is already there. What comparison are you making? The entire section hardly mentions Gwadar Port once, and there is no comparison being made. This is just a huge WP:COATRACK.

It seems that you are just trying to put everything you know about Chabahar Port in every article that can possibly contain it, and you haven't really absorbed anything I took pains to write in the Chabahar Port article. If you are comparing two ports, what would you compare?

Capacities? Shipping volumes? Ship sizes?
Trading routes?
Strategic issues?

There is none of that in your sections. It is just bean-counting. Highly disappointing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints about the Chabahar comparison were largely based on the assumption that no such comparison has been drawn (False, look it up), and that the scope of the two projects cannot be compared ie a port versus a huge project like CPEC. This comparison is frequently made by Indian analysts themselves who state this project is a counterweight to CPEC.

To clarify, the initial comparison was based primarily on strategic value, but I've added investment figures. I don't have the stats of Chabahar port to compare capacities, etc.

Willard84 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I mean by bean-counting. Ports are ports. They have a purpose. They should not be treated as bean-counting devices. You say there are sources that do comparisons and that I should look them up. But I a not writing that section at the moment, you are. So you need to look them up and state what they say. Otherwise, the entire section is undue and COATRACK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gwadar Port. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwadar Port. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523230439/http://www.gwadarport.gov.pk/about%20us.html to http://www.gwadarport.gov.pk/about%20us.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psagwadar.com.pk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social studies

Name import and export traded gawader port 154.80.26.23 (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should go to the store 2600:1700:9A90:77A0:E42E:4F3B:CDDF:86E8 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]