Travel and Tourism Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Aviation: Airports Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the airport project.

International relations Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I feel there are some issues with the separation of the Schengen countries from other countries. Now the Schengen countries do not link to a visa policy article but to the country article, which I think is not very helpful. Moreover, several countries follow schengen policy by EU-law (bulgaria et al) and might be better suited there... Shall I try to i) rearrange and iia) non-link the Schengen countries or iib) link all schengen countries to the European Union visa lists page? L.tak (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above listed AfD indicates a growing consensus that the articles in this category are inaccurate. Basket of Puppies 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine the specific page not to be accurate. However,

• the template itself is accurate (no visa info there)
• there is a long history on the validity of this type of article on Talk:passport (archives); I would say that's the venue for discussing accuracy/deletion of these articles
• the general idea that these articles are not accurate is not supported by the discussion on the palestinian visa deletion...

I am therefore removing the tag for now... L.tak (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • L.tak, the template is fine, but the articles is appears on nearly universally incorrect. In an effort to save time and reduce word, I added the factuality tag on the template to indicate that the article is factually incorrect, not the template itself. Do you understand? Basket of Puppies 20:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I don't agree that that is within the scope of the template. Furthermore, as I said this issue has a long history, you have no consensus on the palestinian page, and I think it is not wise to place it now... L.tak (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clearly shaping on the AfD for deletion due to it being non-encyclopedic also factually incorrect. Please be aware that this template will also be subject to deletion as will every single article in the visa by country category if the AfD closes in delete. Basket of Puppies 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens, please at least involve the editors who were in the previous discussions. "Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens" is not the correct forum to justify any mass deletion... L.tak (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L.tak, AfD is the correct forum for any deletion, mass or otherwise. Are you indicating there should be a change in the process? Basket of Puppies 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a very good forum for that indeed ;-). But for a mass-deletion more actors are involved who are currently not aware of the discussion, which is a concern to me as it will not lead to a stable consensus... L.tak (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So by all means drop a note on the project page alerting concerned editors with the deletion discussion, but becareful not to WP:CANVASS. Deletion discussions are done on AfD. Not sure why you want to change the process. Basket of Puppies 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to change the article deletion process and apologize for not making that clear in my previous post. The reason for my involvement: for a mass deletion proposal more is needed than consensus on a single page without seeking broader support. Where that's done, is not important to me, as long as it leads to a stable consensus. L.tak (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you don't understand. I don't know how else to explain it. Basket of Puppies 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to base 1 (just to make sure we are discussing the same thing): was it clear to you, that with this edit you changed the template on all (good or bad) 30 or so "visa policy of" articles? L.tak (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Which is why I am giving up as it appears you just don't understand. Moving along... Basket of Puppies 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel strongly about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens. However, the best way to address that might be to fix that article, rather than applying an accuracy tag to a tangentially-related template. What is inaccurate about this template? bobrayner (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the List of passports and missing passports should be present in the template here (of course without the passport/citizenship-types that do not correspond to a particular territory - SMOM, British National (Overseas), British Subject, etc.)

I recently added Kosovo, but there are others missing. Alinor (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Saint Kitts and Nevis can be established with information from [1]. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Zimbabwe can be established with information from [2]. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Alinor (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of merger is proposed? Merge the templates, or merge the articles too? If the latter, I can only suggest that we retain the "visa policy of country X" articles as these tend to be more complete and readily sourced, whereas the "visa policy for nationals of country X" articles tend to be less complete and suffer from a many-to-many map of sources (the latter problem causes the former). bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a fairly major change, so I'll explain my reasoning. If anyone wants to revert, thats OK. I'm happy to discuss it.

My initial motivation was to remove the hidden links e.g. "Aruba" was a link to Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean, "Germany" and many others linked to Visa policy in the European Union#Visa requirements for the Schengen Area, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Liechtenstein and Romania, and "Honduras" and three others were a link to Central America-4 Border Control Agreement. Hidden links are confusing.

I dont know whether the Dutch Carrabian has any differences in visa policy, so I have unlinked them. I have raised the question at Talk:Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean#When did the standardisation happen.

The EU/Schengen Area countries all share a (mostly) similar visa policy now, however there are three reasons for each member state to have its own page

a) while the EU/Schengen Area rules are extremely detailed, they do not regulate everything. Each member state is allowed to have impose additional visa requirements within some strict exceptions (e.g. airport transit visa requirements for nationals of other countries in urgent cases of mass influx of illegal immigrants), and the treaty does not cover all types of visas (e.g. diplomatic and official visas are not included). Family/spouse visas are still required in some circumstances.

b) the history of visa policy for each member state does not fit within the scope of the article Visa policy in the European Union, which is already long and complicated.

c) policy is a much broader topic than the treaties, laws and regulations that are in place. A member state could maintain compliance with the Schengen Area rules while still making transit more difficult or more simple using other means. e.g. the efficiency in processing (e.g. visa approvals) is a policy aspect; a member nation can make it difficult to obtain a visa by via other means, or may even 'not' comply with certain parts of the agreement at all (see Schengen Area#Controversies).

The other change is for the United States, which previously linked to United States visas instead of a "Visa policy .." article. I think the visa policy series of article should have policy articles, and United States visas is merely a description of the visas. The US more than most countries uses policy rather than law to refuse entry, and that needs a separate article. Also, I have removed the US Visa Waiver Program from the template, as it was the only instance of directly linking to a specific program that is not transnational. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the entries in this template grouped by region? It seems to me that a user would come to this template with a particular country in mind, not a region (with the possible exception of the EU/Schengen area), so a simple alphabetical listing would be more helpful. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall Mount Athos be cited in this template? It is an autonomous special Greek region which has been settled by Greece adhesion to EU. It has a sort of government and requires a Diamonitirion^[1] which can be seen as an entry permit (refused to women and young toddlers). --Bouzinac (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries have territories with additional rules of entrance. Disputed, or Restricted territories If it is political unit, then it has to be in the table. (Hong Kong, Svabald). Rules of visit different for the main country and the political territory. For an example, different rules, you can visit Hong Kong, but you won't be able to visit China, New Caledonia, but not France. Other territories are territories of a country with an additional permissions. You won't be able to visit Athos without visa of Greece. Christmas Island without visa of Australia, Galápagos without visa of Ecuador, Lau Province without visa of Fiji. Did you caught my drift? These territories shouldn't be in the main table. But this information has to be in articles about visa requirements of all countries in a table about Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be a subsection of the Schengen visa policy article.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This website, which is kind of official, says that a Shengen visa is not valid, and even residents of Shengen country (unless they are visa-free) need to get a special Faroese visa. I am sure Greenland has similar requirements, but have not time to search for now, can do it later if needed. I tried Timatik, but it does not seem to provide any info on Faroe Islands.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misconception.Your edits will be reverted. --Norvikk (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reference to the official website of the territory. At the very least, it must be countered by a reference to a different wevsite saying the opposite. So far, you were only edit-warring, and this is why I had to report you to 3RRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is Greenland, for the record, an official site as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]