Talk:Visa policy of the Schengen Area/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other parts of the U.S. outside the 50 states

People born in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam etc. are U.S. citizens/nationals and have U.S. passports. That is the reason for those territories not being on either list. 87.175.49.35 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but then so are the people born in the Northern Marianas, so why are the Northern Marianas on the list but not the other territories?72.27.77.144 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's very peculiar that the Northern Marianas is on that Annex I list. There may be some historical explanation for it. However, if somebody is travelling on a United States passport, which indicates they are a United States citizen, it is hard to believe that they would be refused entry to the Schengen Area without a visa, because of residence or birthplace in the Northern Marianas. My own view is that the mention of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and US Virgins should be removed because the people there are U.S. Citizens and would travel on U.S. passports. Oh yeah I found this page which says that residents of the Northern Marianas have the choice to become a "national" of the United States but not a U.S. citizen, in which case they could receive a U.S. passport that sets out their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States. Maybe that's what the Annex I reference is talking about? More likely it is just a mistake/historical anomaly. --Mathew5000 (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Other territories' natives have been U.S. citizens for so long that they're virtually all U.S. citizens. The Nothern Marianas natives only became U.S. citizens in November 1986, with a unchallenged 9th Circuit court ruling that those born after January 1978 are also U.S. citizens. Sure some could choose to be a "national but not citizen", but a passport only signifies U.S. nationality, not really citizenship. The possible reason CNMI made the EU list is because it runs its own immigration (but not naturalization) system (for now, maybe not much longer). The CNMI does grant its own "residency" but to my knowledge does not issue these people travel documents for international use (unlike U.S. green card holders who can get a Re-entry Permit). But I agree it's only a confusion for the CNMI to even show up in the EU document. HkCaGu (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone already removed Guam, Puerto Rico and US Virgin islands with the reason "same as mainland". It seems that Northern Marianas is listed because of their special situation regarding immigration (that will end in Nov 2009 and they will become "same as mainland" too?). So, should we also remove American Samoa from the "not listed" list (Northern Marianas to be removed when the EU updates the annex-list)? Alinor (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

British territories

People from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann cannot live or work in mainland EU without a visa/work permit. Even though they have British passports, they have a special stamp in their passport excluding them from these rights. This is because these islands are outside of the EU. ... Seabhcan 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but this article is about visas and whether one needs them to travel (as a temporary visitor), which channel islanders and Manxmen do not need. The right to live and work is a different matter, see Freedom of movement for workers.
BTW, I must get round to filling out the lists for countries which do not need visas for the UK. It has some blatant omissions (Australia, Canada), and somebody took out the USA, which is plain wrong. The reference I found for the UK [1] lists countries which do require a visa, so it is a matter of listing all countries which are not in the referenced list.
Do you have a reference for Ireland? TiffaF 07:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australia and the EU (visas)

Re: "The most notable example here is the United States that does not offer visa-free travel to 14 of the EU members." Australia, strictly speaking, requires visas off everyone who isn't an Australian national (NZ citizens get special visas). However, ETA's are available to citizens of the "richer" EU nations. Citizens of Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia need full-blown tourist visas to enter Australia. So, the US isn't the only one with uneven reciprocity. See Peter1968 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Same with a few other countries. The EU requires visa-free entry for 90 days for all EU citizens, but e.g. South Korea only grants 30 days visa-free for some EU citizens, such as Poles, while other EU citizens, such as Dutch, get 90 days. (Stefan2 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Visa-free travel for EU citizens

The section on visa-free travel for EU citizens doesn't tell for how long you can stay in the country without requiring a visa. For example, the Republic of China and Vietnam allow Swedish citizens to stay in the country without a visa for 14 days, while Japan and the Republic of Korea allow Swedish citizens to stay in the country without a visa for as much as 90 days. This is important information!

It is also unclear what "visa-free travel" means: many countries allow visa-free travel in some cases, but not in other cases. For example, Zambia offers visa-free travel for all EU citizens (as tourists) as long as you book a tour to one of the country's national parks prior to entering the country, while all EU citizens would need a visa in all other cases. Does the Zambian case count as "visa-free travel"? (Stefan2 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

The old visa-free if travelling on package tour rule for Zambia was abolished around a year ago, when they also double visa fees from 25 to 50 USD. Passportguy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Schengen visa-free travel for citizens of Antigua-Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, St. Kitts, Seychelles & Mauritius

Someone added these countries to the visa free list, likely taking their info from here. Howver the Concil has not implemented this draft yet and as of today the only country for which a date of impklementation has been set is Mauritius (see http://ambafrance-mu.org/france_maurice/spip.php?rubrique49). I am therefore removing the other countries from the list for now. Passportguy (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

cool. But as of the 1st June, 2009 , the passport exemptions are in effect for teh republic of Seychelles as well as Mauritius. I have personally traveled to a meeting in Vienna and in transit through CDG i entered visa free. My port of Departure was Manchester Airport UK. see the Link for the French Embassy in Manchester. Hansel

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/As-a-national-from-one-of-the.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.100.154 (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that the info has now been added to the article. Passportguy (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Now fully in effect, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:321:SOM:EN:HTML . —Nightstallion 11:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

various British nationals without the right to abode in UK

According to the current version of the summary table all BN(O)-s have visa-free access to Ireland. Is this corect/source? Also there is no info about the rest of the "without right to abode" types Ireland-entry status. I can't find link for the UK-entry status as well. Alinor (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've changed all these things but unfortunately I couldn't find sources for all types of British citizenship for entry to Ireland. The BN(O)s which can only be Hong Kong residents (see British National (Overseas)) fall according to my opinion under the "British Hong Kong passport" provision in [2] (which is linked in the article as well). The UK-entry statuses come from the linked page [3]. There you can click on "What is your nationality" to find all the British nationalities. The British don't seem to differentiate between the right-of-abode-holders and those without in terms of short-term visit. But, please, double-check all this information as I am not really familiar with the British citizenship complexity (I am German). Thanks. --EBB (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again me. The question seems to be whether the Irish require a British passport (as seems to be the case in [4]) or British citizenship (as seems to be the case in the other Irish-related page linked in the article, [5]). In the former case, that would probably open Ireland to BOTC, BOC, British subject and BPP passport holders; the latte case would make them have to obtain a visa before travelling. So, honestly, I don't have any idea how to solve this. You don't happen to be an Irish Border Protection officer? --EBB (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, not yet :) Alinor (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo - map

I added this: "Kosovo under United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244/99 - annex I[13]" to the sub-section "Territories and citizens of annex I/II states that fall into different category", because the map currently has a ambigous color over Kosovo, but I don't think that this line belongs in this sub-section, because in the adopted EC regulation "Kosovo under UNSCR1244" is listed in annex I under "territories". As both Kosovo-related serbian and kosvar passport holders are required to get a visa to enter Schengen I think that Kosovo/UNSCR1244 should be colored red on the map and removed from the "different category" sub-section (there should remain only the note about serbian directorate passports as they are special case of serbian passports). Alinor (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change proposal (+ a split into more wiki's?)

This wiki is expanding into an encylopedic entry rather than a list. At the same time more and more wiki's appear titled "visa policy of xxx". For both reasons I suggest that the title "Visa policy of the European Union" (maybe better "Visa policy in the European Union" as the EU does not set the policy for UK/Ireland). Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I generally agree with that. Another possibility is to divide the visa policy of the European Union (as it is published as EU regulations) and the visa policies of the UK and Ireland respectively while clearly stating in the former article that the UK and Ireland do not participate in EU visa policies. Maybe even better might be to call the former article "Visa policy of the Schengen Area" as it is (more or less) exactly that. --141.35.14.94 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree! EU does not have visa policy. Visa policy of the Schengen Area (with redirection of Visa policy of Cyprus/Bulgaria/Romania to Visa policy of the Schengen Area#Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania), Visa policy of the United Kingdom, and Visa policy of Republic of Ireland. --Göran S (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments of both of you suggest that "Visa policy of the European Union" is not very correct indeed. Then we have basically 2 options left: 1 article on "visa policy in the European Union" (and lots of redirects) or 2(3?) articles: "visa policy of the Schengen Area"/"visa policy of the UK"/"visa policy of Ireland" (or leave it as it is). I personally like that all EU/EEA are in one article as it makes it enables the comparison and there are quite some general things being addressed (entry/nonstamping of community citizens etc), and therefore would not prefer a split of the wikis... L.tak (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

removal of russian visa info

I have tried to find a current legal basis for Nationals of Russian Fed. can in general use the TWOV facility mentioned above. However, Nationals of Russian Federation arriving directly from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Moldova (Rep. of), Turkey or Ukraine, may only use the TWOV facility mentioned above if holding a valid visa issued by Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Ireland (Rep. of), Japan, Liechtenstein, Romania, USA or United Kingdom, traveling to any non-Schengen country. as it is now in the Schengen visa part. Below my reasoning (as I noticed the part being included and removed in the past weeks)

  • The regulation implementing transit visa is Council regulation 810/2009 which is valid since april 2010
  • which states (art3.2):In urgent cases of mass influx of illegal immigrants, individual Member States may require nationals of third countries other than those referred to in paragraph 1 to hold an airport

transit visa when passing through the international transit areas of airports situated on their territory. Member States shall notify the Commission of such decisions before their entry into force and of withdrawals of such an airport transit visa requirement. -->therefore in principle this is a common policy by the council/parliament and not by the memberstates. If the member states which to apply individual measures, they should notify the council (who I think will publish that...)

  • the list of states to which the transit visa applies shall be as we stated in the article (annex IV of 810/2009). And this new ist is a part of the european union visa lists (539/2001)
  • when searching for exceptions, I checked in eurolex both amendments to 539/2001 and 810/2009, where I found only the proposals for Taiwan, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As there was nothing on russia (not even a proposed regulation), I assume that the info on timatic is a remnant of the (recent?) past and have therefore removed it... Quite a text here, simply because it is hard (if not impossible) to prove a negative... L.tak (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking of removing this myself. If this indeed is true, we need a much better source than Timatic, which is very often out of date. Travelbird (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Common rules for transit visas

After looking into the matter, I am unsure whether the list of countries passed on Apr 1, 2010 is exhaustive. From information posted e.g. here or here it seems that while countries on the EU list require a visa everywhere, this does not preclude individual member states to require additional nationals to have ATVs also. Travelbird (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

good point. Seems that the special cases in which national legislation is allowed are actually used (and not (yet?) in official communications. Your edit is a good start; I expect that list to grow with other countries in time... One of the good things in the 2009 regulation is a common website on visa requirements; looking forward to seeing that implemented! L.tak (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The French list is here: [6]--achp (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added information for most other countries. The three I couldn't immediately find anything on: Latvia, Malta & Slovakia. Travelbird (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

and now I found the complete list the European Commission website on visa policy, which I suppose is relatively reliable. E.g. it is better than the Belgium ref (as that had a previous version of the EC with less countries) and the results are grosso modo equal to what we found. However, clearly some countries having extra requirements didn't post them to EU (or abandoned them). I suggest to take this document as the main document, and only take the national legislation if we have reasons to assume the national policy is more recent and thus accurate (e.g. in the 2 cases where there is nothing on the EU sites...). I have updated the table roughly; however, I assume, some more refs can be removed later... L.tak (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Transit Visa Section

There are many differences between the map and the section. For example, it says that Indians require a transit visa on the map which isn't supported by the list. Most other errors are the other way round. But which ones are correct and incorrect? Talk:MJLRGS

Indeed quite some differences. Contrary to my assumption there were significant errors, mainly in the airport transit visa list. I didn't check in detail all countries, but if there are still errors, this is a good place to state that... L.tak (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In contrast with this list, transit Visas for Turkish Citizens in UK is not enforced. I am a Turkish citizen and I often have a connecting flight in the UK and I am never asked for any visa.

I have the same experience traveling with people requiring transit visa. there are simply no checks in the transit area. However, it might be possible that the requirement is checked against passenger lists of planes (no idea). In any way, we would need a reliable source to place this info on the wiki for verifiability purposes, which I didn't find unfortunately... L.tak (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If we just softened the wording slightly (ie. saying that there's a policy, but there might not always be checks) then I wouldn't worry too much about the implicit OR. If we were to flatly state that there are no checks I'd want to see it really well sourced. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Schengen section edits

Regarding this edit [7] with edit-line description "shortening the info on states with limited recognition (no need to have a list here of entities that have passports, but are not on list I/II)".

Currently the article includes a copy of the annex II (white) list.

The first version of the above link contains description of the annex I (black) list - it mentions the special cases of citizens/passport types that require a visa to enter Schengen. In addition it mentions passport types that are not accepted at all - no visa can be attached/issued to them. Finally it mentions the remaining passport types that aren't mentioned in annex I, annex II or "passport not accepted" lists. I assume that these are also not accepted, but I don't have a source for that. The second version removes all that and replaces it with "Ordinary Passport holders of all other nationalities require a visa. This includes all States listed in Annex I ... as well as passports of states with limited recognition." - but this is incorrect - passports of ROC/Taiwan (a state with limited recognition) do not require a visa; a visa can not be issued/attached to passports of SADR/TRNC (also states with limited recognition); there is no source to support a claim that a visa can be attached/issued to "passports of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Transnistria, NKR" (this is implied by the claim that these limited recognition states passports require a visa); UK special citizenship types are neither "states listed in Annex I" nor "passports of states with limited recognition".

Because of the above I will rework somewhat and restore the first version. Alinor (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for specifying that. My main concern is that we are repeating here a list of policitical entities that have their own passports (former russian republics etc); I don't think it is the place to debate here if a document is a passport or a republic is a republic; nor do we do so in other articles on the same subject (although I agree here with the visa-required-list it leaves questions for what's not on it). Could you think of a way to have this info not here, but still have a comprehensive text? Furthermore, the fact whehter a passport is accepted as a travel document seems not to be a Schengen-area expertise, but I could be wrong there. L.tak (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
We only mention special cases of passport types - either mentioned in annex I, annex II, list-of-not-accepted, or lack of information. We don't repeat all passports listed in annex I. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This [8] is a Council regulation that specifies which passport types are not accepted - I think this shows that this is a Schengen expertise... Alinor (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Length of visa-free stay for New Zealanders

I have deleted the following note which used to be in the article:

The New Zealand Government Travel Advisory [9] website lists a number of Schengen countries with which New Zealand had prior bilateral visa waiver agreements. According to the NZ government, New Zealanders can spend up to three months in these countries, without reference to time spent in other Schengen area countries. This position is however not necessarily shared by the EU countries involved, as e.g. the Dutch[1] and French[2] embassies in Wellington state that the 90 day limit applies to visits to the Schengen states as a whole and not to the respective country separately.

The reason is that the European Commission does accept the New Zealand Government's position (see [10]), as well as the fact that the two links to the websites of the Dutch and French embassies do not actually work any more and I haven't been able to find any page on their websites which rejects the NZ Government's position.

Bonus bon (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content

On 3 February, Hammersoft left a tag at the top of the article with the following message:

This article may contain excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. Please review the use of non-free media according to policy and guidelines and correct any violations. The talk page may have details.

However, Hammersoft did not substantiate his exact motives for leaving the tag on the talk page.

If he left the tag because of the images of residence permits which I have recently added to the article (some of which are copyrighted, but qualify for fair use), below are the reasons for which I believe my edits were reasonable:

  • The images of residence permits were not excessive and have been kept to a minimum. In general, Wikipedia guidelines state that 'multiple items of non-free content are not [to be] used if one item can convey equivalent significant information'. However, if the article were simply to have the image of one residence permit in the form of a vignette issued by, say, Malta, another residence permit in the form of a card issued by Poland and finally another residence permit in the form of a biometric card issued by France, this would fail to convey the important differences in the design of residence permits issued by individual Schengen countries. This is because whilst Schengen countries follow the same common model in issuing residence permits, this does not mean that their all their residence permits are exactly the same, with the sole difference of language and coat of arms. For example, Belgium issues a biometric card residence permit, although its actual design (except for the visible RFID chip) follows the common model for non-biometric cards, rather than biometric cards. Another example is that French biometric card residence permits have an RFID chip that looks different to those on Belgian biometric card residence permits, even though they are in the same position on both cards. In addition, the title appears in roughly the same location on biometric card residence permits, though in differing sizes and fonts. For example, whilst for Estonian biometric card residence permits, the title ('Elamisluba') is printed on each individual card together with the other details when issued, for French biometric card residence permits, the title ('Titre de sejour') is integrated into the design of the card and comes on blank cards. The examples given above are just a few of the many important design variations between the residence permits issued by the different Schengen countries, which shows that it is insufficient merely to include one example of the common model for each type of Schengen residence permit, rather it is necessary (and not excessive) to give one image of each type of Schengen residence permit issued by each country to highlight the important differences between them.
  • The images of residence permits were not improperly used. In general, Wikipedia guidelines state that 'Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'. As mentioned above, readers are able to appreciate the important design differences between residence permits issued by different Schengen countries because of the residence permit images. There is not doubt that the images satisfy the criteria for contextual significance.

Bonus bon (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:NFCC policy requires minimal use of non-free content. The extreme use of non-free content on this article has placed it in the top 20 of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usage, or the top 0.0005%. Extreme usage requires extreme justification, which is absent here. This is blatantly obvious from the "purpose of use" statements we find on the non-free rationales on the images; "To show the front and reverse sides of the Belgian residence permit". If all it took to justify non-free content here was a desire to show the content, there'd be absolutely no limit to the amount of non-free content we could have here. This is obviously not the case. The rationales are weak, there is no extreme reason why we must have this content. Pare it down to a bare minimum, perhaps to those where the nature of designs are specifically referenced by secondary sources. As is, there are NO designs whose design features are specifically referenced by such sources. We are not a guide to all visas in Europe. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've never agreed with Wikipedia's rather pig-headed non-free images policy and it's all the more ironic than Wikisource would consider then free images. However I still can't see the point in having all of these images. I just don't see the "important design differences" between. As far as I can see they are all more or less the same. Showing two images could show that residence permits are based on a uniform format but that they are not all identical. It should also be pointed out that this article is primarily about visas and not residence permits. I don't want to delete the section on them but neither do I want it to take over the entire article; free images or not. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a similar opinion to Blue-Haired Lawyer here. Minute differences between the permits aren't exactly the most notable of information. It's just design, and even if we did have to show them, surely we don't need more than one in each category? CMD (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There're multiple reasons in NFCC that make this inappropriate:
  • They are replaceable with free alternatives to provide the same encyclopædic information, as some of the images are free (NFCC 1).
  • There is not minimal usage: there are lots of them, visually near-identical (NFCC 3a).
  • Two of the non-free images were higher-resolution than necessary (NFCC 3b).
  • There is no significant contextual relevance: they are not required for the understanding of the article. The differences between the images noted by Bonus Bon are neither mentioned in the article, nor relevant to the article (NFCC 8).
Even with only free images, there seems little justification for including large numbers of near-identical images. I have thus pared it down to one free image in each category. Pfainuk talk 11:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Albania

I removed "biometric passports only" for Albania because from today, 01/03/2012, biometric passports are the only legal identification documents recognized as valid for leaving the territory of the Republic of Albania, regardless of destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But is it still possible that some Albanian citizens outside Albania might still have non-biometric passports which have not yet expired? When were biometric passports introduced? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A section detailing update/implementation PROCEDURE would enhance this article

The main article accurately reports the Nov. 2012 *recommendation* to add 16 countries to the visa-free list. For the citizens of those countries, the obvious question becomes, How likely is approval, and about how long is it likely to take?

I've scoured the Internet for this information and can't find it anywhere. Surely the wikipedians here who are familiar with EU Parliament procedure and the previous additions of Nevis/St. Kitts etc. must have a good idea of how the process goes, how long it takes, how likely it is to be passed "rubber stamp", vs. what the chances are that some of the recommended nations never get added to the list, etc.

In my opinion, it would be of great value to the citizens of the 16 nations currently pending approval if someone with this knowledge could add a section to this article giving the people of these 16 nations a sense of what to expect, how long it's taken in the past for country additions to be approved, etc. I have to believe this is a simple question for a person who is expert with EU parliamentary procedure, but to my surprise I was unable to find any guidance anywhere on how long it might take for this new recommendation to be approved and implemented. I was also unable to find a bill number or other identifying reference to the legislation to implement this change, so I was therefore unable to track its status through Parliament's website.

Thanks in advance to anyone with the knowledge to add this information! ErikTownsend (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no set procedure. Representatives of the Commission and the respective countries will get together over time (no set time frame) and will discuss visa-free travel and requirements to be met by "applicant" countries. Once that process is complete a treaty will be signed, pursuant to which the Council & Parliament will issue a regulation amending Annex II (the visa-free list).
Whether or not the countries currently being discussed will ever be added is anyone's guess - I personally don't think that there will be too much opposition due to their small size and even smaller numbers of travellers from these countries, but given the remote nature of some of them, actually drawing up the required reciprocity treaties may take some time. Travelbird (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that perspective, Travelbird. It's frustrating that the European officials involved are unwilling to share any progress on this project with the people affected. My e-mails (complete with a copy of my IPA Press credentials) to the press contact in the EC requesting clarification on the status of this initiative have been ignored, and the people of the many countries affected have been left in the dark about what to expect.
I wonder if legislators even realize the value this initiative has to their economies. While you are correct, TravelBird, that the NUMBER of visitors will likely be low, this list of countries includes the most prominent "economic citizenship" programs in the world. There are quite a few centi-millionaires who would like to enter Europe visa-free for the purpose of spending money in the European economy, and investing in European business ventures. But those very high net worth individuals are presently deterred from entering the EU because they hold economic passports from jurisdictions like Nevis/St. Kitts and Dominica, for which the absurd "apply only in your country of legal residence" Shengen visa bureaucracy hassle isn't worth the trouble. Most of those people don't really live in the jurisdictions where their passports are issued, and have no interest making the trip just to satisfy the Eurocrats need to create pointless procedure.
The many relatively poor people of these islands certainly deserve the chance to visit Europe in all its splendor (save for current events) too. But I wonder if the EC and EU even realize that we're not just talking about a bunch of poor islanders here. We're also talking about investors and financiers whom Europe should be bending over backwards to welcome with open arms. Yet instead they discourage such people from visiting Europe by imposing the Shengen visa bureaucracy on them. Very much at odds with the best interests of both the European economies and the European people. ErikTownsend (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The procedure is much the same as for other proposed EU legislation. A draft EU regulation is currently doing the rounds. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that, Blue-Haired. But the link takes me to a page with a pre-lex logo and the words "minitoring of the decision making process between institutions". Other than that, the page is completely blank. I'd love to follow this any way I can - any ideas on why I'm getting a blank page? Thanks in advance! 189.182.26.28 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

This page was recently moved to its current location without prior discussion. While the previous name was not ideal either, now the name of the page is factually incorrect, as the Schengen visa policy also includes Switzerland, which is not part of the EEA. The name Visa policy in the European Union was chosen, because editors wanted to encompass both the Visa policy of the European Union (drawn up by the European Commission and applicable to Schengen + CY/RO/BG and soon HR) and the visa policies of the opt-out states UK & IE. Since this inevitably seems to lead to confusion and also due to the fact that the article as such is getting rather large, I would propose that we move the page back to Visa policy of the European Union (the cover the EU rules applicable to Schengen + CY/RO/BG) and split off UK and IE into two new articles, with a small section on the original article explaining that these countries are not covered by EU rules due to their opt-out from Schengen. Travelbird (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the new name is bad. Why not just move it to Visa policy of the Schengen Area? States which are legally obliged to join the Schengen Agreement and which have already unilaterally synchronized their visa policies with the Schengen Area (CY/RO/BG) would still fit under that title. The UK and IE could be split. TDL (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The slight problem with that name is that the EU visa policies applies to all member states (Save the opt-out UK/IE). CY/RO/BG have not unilaterally sychronized their policies, they are bound by their membership in the EU to do so. Any change in the EU regulation also applies to those countries automatically.
There are the following sets of countries:
1) 22 EU countries (Schengen members): 539/2001/EU (and subsequent amendments) applies, Schengen visas issued.
2) CY/BG/RO : 539/2001/EU also applies, countries issue their own visas valid only for their respective countries.
3) NO/IS/CH/LI : Are bound by treaty to apply 539/2001/EU. They don't actually have any say in deciding the policy, as that is a matter for the Commission, Council and Parliament, none of which these countries have any representation in.
4) UK/IE: Have opted out of Schengen (and thus the application of 539/2001/EU) - issue their own visas.
However I agree that the name Visa policy of the Schengen Area is better that the currenty title. Travelbird (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If CY/BG/RO are bound to follow the visa policies of the Schengen Area because they already implement parts of the Schengen acquis, wouldn't that would make their inclusion under my proposed title even more logical? Either way, I completely concur that we should split off UK/IE because this article is WP:TOOLONG. TDL (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that "Visa policy of the European Union" is preferable. The visa policy is adopted by the institutions of the European Union in accordance with the Treaties of the European Union. The British and Irish opt out from these parts of the Treaties and the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland by different agreements do not change the fact that the policy is determined by the institutions of the European Union in accordance with the treaties. Therefore the title should be "Visa policy of the European Union". The Schengen Area is no legal entity. --Glentamara (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but I think it's overly technical. Visa policy is indeed decided by the EU institutions but insofar as that policy refers to a place, it refers to the Schengen Area. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The visa policy decided by the EU does not just apply to Schengen. It applies to CY/BG/RO as well. They are required to issue visas using the exact same lists (Annex I/II) as the countries that have implemented Schengen. And since the main focus of the article is that list (and currently the analog lists of GB & IE), the name should reflect that as well. Travelbird (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree we should rv back to Visa Policy of the European Union. The UK/IE have a opt-out, which means they are unique, and not the norm. THe page should mention that, but that this exception exists should not determine the article title. CMD (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Visa policy of the European Union" ignores that it applies to four of non-EU members. The visa policy determined by the EU is primarily one for the Schengen Area. Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania aren't implementing the visa rules for their own sake but because they in the process of joining Schengen. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't ignore this. It's the policy determined by the EU, whether or not other countries choose to adopt it. Schengen is an EU dominated area. Non-EU countries could presumably withdraw, but EU countries can't without very good reason. CMD (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

← What about "Visa policy in the Schengen Area" with the intro beginning "Visa policy in the Schengen Area is determined by the European Union." — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not my first preference, but it's better than the current title. CMD (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since we can't find any consensus of moving the article, I've moved it back to the old stable title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Article split

Seems to me that this article is very long and given the way it is already divided, is ripe for a split into smaller parts.

I propose:

I don't see any particular reason why the article title "Visa policy in the European Union" means that this has to be the main article even for those areas that do not apply the European Union (Schengen Area) visa policy. We can perfectly well explain the British and Irish position, with reasons and consequences, without feeling the need to give the list of countries whose nationals need TB tests before they can get long term residency in a country that does not apply the EU rules.

I also think that EU status will appear to readers to be a bit of an odd basis on which to decided whether British Overseas Territories and DOM-TOM should be included - particularly bearing in mind that those territories excluded here are not included in any other article, and that (at least so far as I can tell) of all BOTs and DOM-TOM only the British Sovereign Base areas on Cyprus actually use the EU/Schengen requirements. Kahastok talk 14:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral - I suppose this article could be a central article that would simply explain the situation in summary and provide links to visa policies of Schengen area, UK, Ireland and territories. But I don't think it's particularly necessary, therefore I am neutral.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I'm not proposing to split off the data on the Schengen area from the article - that would stay here under this proposal - only those areas that do not in fact apply EU/Schengen Area policy. I don't see a good reason to keep what would normally be three or four articles merged into one. Kahastok talk 16:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well if it's Visa policy in the European Union with only Schengen visa policy as the content then it would be misleading and simply wrong. If the title is Visa policy in the European Union then it should include the UK and Ireland. If the UK and Ireland are separated, then the Schengen visa policy should be separated as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically agree but the size of this article hasn't been helped by the inclusion of off-topic, irrelevant material: large sections on visa reciprocity, on the the visa policy of candidate countries and that of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean (which is outside the EU!).

As it stands the article is about three times the recommended size and almost twice the size where a split is said to be definitely required. (See WP:SIZERULE.)

I'd propose a split/merge into the following articles.

— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't think the reciprocity issue is irrelevant at all. EU Commission pays great deal of attention to this and manages the visa policy based on reciprocity. There are reports published each year and the lack of reciprocity with Canada regarding Czech Republic was an important issue as the reciprocity was initially achieved but then cancelled. Candidate countries section are just short summaries, but they are also important as the EU asks though not requires candidates to balance their visa policies in line with the EU visa policies. That being said, I think any further expansion of that section would be undue weight, it should remain limited as it is right now. As for the British nationals it's complicated as all classes have their own visa requirements and policies. Holders of Falkland Island passports don't have the same visa freedom as the holders of Gibraltar passport. And foreign visitors to Falkland Islands and Gibraltar are not subject to the same procedure. Finally, there is no Common Visa Policy of the European Union externally (only the internal freedom of movement) - there are visa policies of the Schengen area (including Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania), of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. Making the Schengen area visa policy the same thing as some "EU visa policy" that does not even exist would be factually wrong (not to mention the fact it would cover non-EU states that are part of the Schengen area like Switzerland but wouldn't include the actual EU member states like the UK).

If split this article should have an intro explaining the situation, followed by sections on freedom of movement, history, future, reciprocity, candidates and then a list with links to split articles should follow

Visa policies by territories of the EU member states (whether or not they are within the EU themselves):

  • British
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • French

Visa requirements content should be incorporated in reciprocity section.

That is my view.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no real need to divide Schengen visa policy from EU visa policy. The policy in question is determined by the EU for the EU. The fact that there are some non-EU states that have agreed to adopt EU rules, and some EU states that have (through explicit opt-outs in EU rules) chosen not to, is beside the point. But I'm not over-bothered. I am happy with Blue-Haired Lawyer's outline. Kahastok talk 18:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support split of UK/Irish content. The article needs a split badly. Whether this article retains the Schengen visa content, or that is moved to Visa policy of the Schengen Area with this article being a WP:SUMMARY, is not particularly important to me. TDL (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why do the moves before we made a final consensus here, the same day the split was proposed. There could be a dozen other editors out there that wanted to give their input, they might even completely disagree etc.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let them object if they want to, but the case for a split is overwhelming. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's asking for conflict. Why do that, there is not a single reason to provoke any edit wars on this article. Plus it's arrogant, I would never say that case for my view is overwhelming, so I am a bit worried where it will go if someone shows up and objects, will you be able to communicate peacefully with them (given your extremely rude comment about my edit where I specifically said I don't disagree that said "that's the worst edit summary I've ever seen" I can only hope that you will not go a full war with people who actually disagree with you).--Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway as I see you are more interested in the UK/Ireland articles than the things left behind I will go ahead and focus on editing this article to make sure it reflects the outline stated above.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

All I did was split off Ireland and the UK (something which everyone who has expressed an opinion had agreed to) and removed info on non-EU countries and territories. I didn't split off the visa reciprocity stuff which you opposed. (I didn't split off the French overseas departments as I wasn't sure what to call the article.)
You have now gone ahead and split Visa policies in the European Union and Visa policy of the Schengen Area which no one had proposed (except yourself) and which Kahastok had opposed. In the previous naming discussion a move to Visa policy of the Schengen Area was proposed and no consensus was reached on it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe there is consensus at this time in favour of the split to Visa policy of the Schengen Area. I don't believe that there is consensus against, either, but in that situation, no change in this direction is normally made. It is difficult to understand the logic that holds that a split that no-one objects to must be reverted, but a split that is disputed is fine to proceed.
I struggle to see what the benefit is to the encyclopædia in maintaining this redundant article. I see nothing that it adds to Wikipedia that could not equally well be achieved by a single-sentence explanation in the lede of Visa policy of the Schengen Area - a sentence that is already there.
I note that we've been left with a few articles that I don't actually think are the best way of doing things. I was planning on keeping Visa policy of the British Overseas Territories in the UK article (hence the Gibraltar section of that article), and my preferred alternative is to treat them independently. We have Visa policy of Tuvalu, why not Visa policy of Bermuda, given that the policy is determined locally?
Visa policy of the French overseas departments also rather misses the point. I called it "Overseas departments and territories" because that's the name of the article for the concept, based on the standard French abbreviation "DOM-TOM". The article is now in the faintly ridiculous position where the five Overseas Departments are within scope, but the five Overseas Collectivities, New Caledonia, Clipperton Island and the TAAF are out-of-scope. Kahastok talk 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead, otherwise I would still hold the initial view to wait for things to be discussed. But since the fellow editor wouldn't even listen to that proposal I had an option to fight for principles or be pragmatic and take part in editing. I chose the latter. Don't stone me for that :)

I don't see this article as redundant. It is as redundant as Kingdom of the Netherlands. Simply there needs to be an article that has a scope over the entire EU. Visa policy of the European Union that doesn't even mention the UK or Ireland is simply factually incorrect. Those countries are member states of the EU. Factually correct thing to say is that the EU doesn't have a single visa policy nor a single travel area. Just because it's only 2 countries versus 26, doesn't make it any less significant.

The reason why we have Visa policy of Tuvalu but not Visa policy of Bermuda is simple, the first is an independent country, UN member state, while the second one is a British Overseas Territory. They can't be compared really. The right comparison would be with Visa policy of Tokelau.

I agree the the French article needs renaming. Could you please do that?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"There needs to be an article that has a scope over the entire EU". Why?
And are you seriously arguing that the Schengen Area is a single independent country?
If you see a fundamental difference between independent states and territories (and I see no reason to, when the territories independently apply their own visa policies) why did you not include Bermuda in the UK article? Are you saying that the British Overseas Territories are a different independent state from the United Kingdom? Kahastok talk 20:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Why? Well an encyclopedia is not supposed to be superficial. Don't know how else to explain it. If you omit that information for no reason then the article is not thorough enough, it has pieces missing.
"And are you seriously arguing that the Schengen Area is a single independent country?" - excuse me how did you get an idea that I was arguing anything of sorts? Schengen Area is absolutely not a country, it is an area that consists of 22 countries that are EU member states, 4 countries that are EFTA member states, and it extends in certain regard to another 8 countries that are not currently part of the Schengen Area but the rules apply to them, those are 4 EU member states that haven't fulfilled all criteria to become full members of Schengen Area and 4 micro-states. I hope I cleared this confusion up now.
One could look at it that way, but I placed them in a separate article per Dutch Caribbean visa policy precedent. That's all, I was just following what we already had. But yes your argument that the fact they have a separate visa policy makes them similar to independent countries in this regard is valid and if you propose to split the article on visa policies of overseas territories I might even support it.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how "the article is not thorough enough" if we don't have an article with scope over the entire EU.
Let me be clear that I am not necessarily objecting to the move of the article at Visa policy of the Schengen Area - though I believe we should be upfront and call it an article move. I am asking why we both an article on the Schengen area and an article on the EU as a whole.
If there is no EU-wide visa policy, then the whole thing belongs at Schengen and there is no reason to keep this article. If there is and there are just some countries and areas that don't apply it, then the whole thing belongs at Visa policy of the European Union and we don't need the Schengen article. I don't understand is how either view leads us to have two articles.
On the BOTs, I view the Dutch precedent as different largely because there is a common policy. I would suggest that, given the choice, we would be better off splitting up the BOTs. I'll propose this here rather than on the article because this seems to be where the interested parties are. Kahastok talk 21:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
"I don't see how "the article is not thorough enough" if we don't have an article with scope over the entire EU." - because it misses that part of the EU. Simple.
We have two articles because those are two different things. Visa policy in the EU can mean either - Schengen visa policy, UK visa policy or Irish visa policy. It doesn't mean just the Schengen visa policy. You can't say that the EU visa policy is the same thing as the Schengen visa policy just because it covers the most member states. It would be wrong to choose to ignore the UK and Ireland which are member states just as much as Germany or France are.
"If there is no EU-wide visa policy, then the whole thing belongs at Schengen" - how so? Why doesn't it all belong to the UK visa policy article? What is the rationale? As for the other suggestion that we don't need split articles, well I said we should discuss things first before splitting, but no one would listen. However my view is that if we do split them, then we should do it properly and not partially.
If you are willing to split those articles and edit everything to make them in accordance with other articles (sections, flags for countries, neat tables, categories, links) then sure. I've done a lot of work on filling that article with up to date information. Now it's cosmetics.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you've quite understood my point. Why do we have this article? What, in your view, would be wrong with the position we would be in if we deleted this article outright and had no article at all for EU visa policy, leaving only articles for Schengen, the UK and Ireland (plus whatever division of other territories)? Kahastok talk 21:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
On the BOTs, I may have a go tomorrow, if I get time and no-one beats me to it. I'm having a go at the French DOM-TOM article at the moment. Thanks for your effort in bringing in the information, by the way. Kahastok talk 21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I think there is no harm in having an overview article. On contrary, where else could one find out what types of visa policies are there in the EU? It's a complicated subject and it's good to have an overview really, just like it's good to have an overview on Dutch administrative divisions. It's not absolutely required by any rule, but it's much easier for a reader who is new to this subject to grasp it. Otherwise he could get confused, just try to think on this issue as if you knew nothing about it. You'd start asking questions, do the Schengen visas apply in the UK, do the UK visas apply in the whole EU, is there any third region (while we are at it there is actually, Nordic Passport Union has some effect on some third nationals and their maximum stay in the EU as well as some effect on Faroe and Greenland) or maybe a fourth region and a plethora of similar confusion. This article should hopefully make a newbie to this subject grasp it much easier without such questions in their heads.
OK thanks. Btw please take a look at the article on French DOM-TOM, I am not sure what happened, some sentence got cut in half, I am not sure how to fix it ie. what it's supposed to say.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support split, Blue-haired lawyers split/minor move looks reasonable. Schengen is related to EU law so it makes sense to keep that on this page. Its policies are the visa policies of the EU. The Common Travel Area is not related to the EU, and should not nearly get the prominence it gets on this page. It's probably not even worth mentioning in the lead, being merely how the UK and Ireland carry out their particular travel policies. What should be in here is a note of the creation of an opt-out, noting its independent visa policy. I also agree that there's no reason to have the non-EU territories/areas in detail on this page, especially not non-Schengen ascension countries. Blue-haired lawyers split looks reasonable. CMD (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Note that the article is called Visa policies in the European Union and not Visa policies of the European Union so the Common Travel Area is very much related to the EU as it's an objective phenomenon within the EU borders just like Schengen Area or Mount Athos.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hence why I supported BHL's minor move to "of" rather than "in". CMD (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what are you referring to as there was no move in that regard. It's forever been "in" and not "of".--Twofortnights (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to in BHL's proposal "Visa policy of the European Union (No longer in. Limited to the Common Visa Policy. References to the other visa policies should be limited to a table.)". CMD (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The only problem is that there is no common visa policy for the whole EU.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There is. It's just one in which the UK and Ireland don't participate. It is an EU policy because it is formulated by EU institutions following legislative mechanisms set out in the treaties. The non-member Schengen states are consulted but the EU-members take the decisions. Four EU members are also bound to implement the common visa policy even though they're outside the Schengen Area. I admit that Visa policy of the European Union is not a perfect title, but its better than Visa policy of the Schengen Area which implies that the Schengen Area has a policy making capacity of its own when it doesn't really and it omits mention of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Analogous perhaps is the Euro being the currency of the EU, despite the fact some EU states have an opt out, and some non-EU states use it. CMD (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is a visa policy that doesn't have all member states participating in, then it's not common. For the word common to be used it needs to be, well, common. Visa policy of the Schengen Area does not imply that the Schengen Area has a policy making capacity of its own but that this is the visa policy applied in Schengen Area. As for the Euro analogy, it would work only if the Euro article was called Currency of the European Union. But even then, the matter is too complicated to be compared with another complicated matter of visa policies. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania are mentioned within the article. The only reason why the article isn't called Visa policy of Schengen Area, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania is technical, it's too long.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Some countries having opt-outs doesn't change the fact that there is one set of visa policies under EU directive (and one currency strongly supported by the EU). If we take this page as not covering the policies implemented by the EU (and thus not cover Schengen) then there's no reason for this page to exist, as it'd be even more baseless than a page on all the BOTs. CMD (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes but are we going to ignore the reality? Should we not mention what is de facto, just de jure? I don't think so. And I don't know why do you think this article doesn't cover the policies implemented by the EU, it's exactly the opposite, but in reality there are other policies and that should be noted.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We are not going to ignore reality. It will be made clear in the lead that the EU's visa policy does not apply to Ireland and the UK. Not all EU policies apply to all member states and they don't apply to all the territories of the member states. It is still called the single currency even though there are other currencies in use in the EU. I'm going to re-merge the EU and Schengen article. There was never consensus on the split. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
There was never consensus to split UK and Ireland either, unless you think 2 editors form a consensus for the article that was formed 7 years ago. If you re-merge them I will re-merge the UK and Ireland articles and will demand for the proper consensus forming procedure to be carried out. I will demand for all contributors to this article to be notified, then to wait for their response, at least 10 contributors should weigh in, then to discuss issues until a consensus is reached, vote if necessary etc. It's your call, if you choose to refer to consensus it will have to be regarding all articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've put the article back to the pre-all split version. The proper procedures for consensus are outlined at WP:DR. There is no requirement for some arbitrary level of contributors Twofortnights, although you are of course free to neutrally notify people if you wish. As for your desire for a vote (although wikipedia doesn't work through votes), it's 4:1 to remove the UK/Ireland info at the moment, which suggests at least slight consensus in one direction. CMD (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Page split discussion summary and break

To summarise for those who have yet to join us: we are currently discussing whether Visa policy of Ireland, Visa policy of the United Kingdom, (part) Visa policy of the French overseas departments and territories and Visa policy of the Schengen Area should be merged back to this article.

The status quo (link to article as was) was that all these articles were part of this article (save for the non-EU French overseas territories) which was called Visa policy in the European Union. They should all be merged back unless there is consensus for the changes.

Including myself five editors have taken part in the discussion.

  • Four support splitting the Irish and UK policies off into their own articles: Kahastok, me, CMD and TDL. Twofortnights originally said he was neutral but he now appears to be against.[clarification needed]
    • I am not against, I am just for the same approach to all three visa policies without calling the Schengen visa policy the EU visa policy. Schengen, British and Irish visa policy articles in my view should be on the same level. So split the Irisih and UK policies as you suggest BUT also split the Schengen visa policy and have this article as a pivot article. As it was done initially, the UK and Ireland weren't even mentioned after the split in this article. That is absolutely wrong. Not everyone across the world knows that those two countries have separate visa policies, but they might know they are the EU member states, and they would be left pretty confused after reading such an article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • EU/Schengen visa policy includes 4 non-EU members and excludes 2 members who have opt-outs.
  • The policy is formulated adopted by the EU.
  • The Schengen Area excludes four EU-members who have to implement the visa policy without the benefits of mutual visa or leave recognition.

I hope I have not misrepresented anyone's position. I'd welcome any ideas or suggestions. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that while I would prefer the page covering Schengen policy to by this page with the "of" rather than the "in", as it more clearly identifies the governing body, I can see reasoning behind this information being at a page whose title has Schengen Area. What is entirely pointless is having both pages exist, as one would necessarily be either duplication or a non-topic. CMD (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarifying my position slightly. "Weak support" is for referring to the merged article as Visa policy of the European Union. I prefer "Visa policy of the European Union" to "Visa policy of the Schengen Area", as I believe it more accurately describes the situation, but I can live with either. It's just plain "support" for the merge in that I don't see any need for an additional article that doesn't actually contain any significant information. Kahastok talk 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As I've explained above, the article called Visa policies in the European Union should cover exactly that - Visa policies in the European Union. Those are

  • the visa policy of the Schengen Area
  • the visa policy of the United Kingdom
  • the visa policy of the Republic of Ireland
  • In a wider view it also touches the international subjects with some connection to the EU and those are the special territories of EU member states and recognised candidate states as well as the restricted zones within the EU such as Mount Athos.

Implying that there is only one visa policy in the European Union is factually incorrect. There is no argument to back this up. There are simply more visa policies within the European Union.

When it comes to changing this article from in the European Union to of the European Union I also disagree. As stated above, overview article can't harm anyone. There is no argument to back up the notion that we must delete it. At least we haven't heard a single one "we must delete the overview article dealing with all visa policies within the EU because..." Because what? I've explained in detail above why I think such an article should exist, but there hasn't been any response as to why it should absolutely not exist.

Overall my proposal is to have an article called Visa policies in the EU that would further link to specific de facto policies on the ground - Schengen, UK and Irish with mention of special territories, candidate states and restricted zones. The fact that de jure there is an EU visa policy doesn't change anything, there is also de jure one visa policy in China yet we have an article on Taiwan because there simply is another visa policy in reality.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Blue-Haired Lawyer, I've noticed an earlier discussion on this page when you said that "Visa policy is indeed decided by the EU institutions but insofar as that policy refers to a place, it refers to the Schengen Area." And I couldn't agree more, we are back to de facto vs. de jure. The policy might be decided by the EU but it doesn't apply to the whole EU, and it's factually incorrect not to even mention this in the article. As you stated ""Visa policy of the European Union" ignores that it applies to four of non-EU members." which is the number one issue, and the number two issue is that such a title ignores that it doesn't apply to two EU members. So the title Visa policy of the European Union is problematic for two reasions, ignoring non-EU member states where the Schengen visa policy applies and ignoring EU member states where it doesn't apply. Naming the article Visa policy of the Schengen Area overcomes both issues. And after you have articles called visa policy of the Schengen Area, UK vp, and Irish vp it's nice, although not an absolute necessity, to have an overview article linking them all in one place.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that without a focus on a page about the EU on subjects regulated/specifically associated with the EU, there is no reason for this article to exist. We could make as many "Visa policies in X" where X could be any geographic or political body, but unless that body somehow coordinates those policies there's no reason for the article to exist. There's no Visa policy of China and Taiwan or Visa policies of United China or Visa policies of the two Chinas or any variation (at least I hope there's not), as there's no special link between the two. Similarly, there's no special link between Schengen policies and CTA policies that would justify a page linking the two. De jure and de facto there's no link between the CTA and the EU; that's the point of the opt-out. There's no notability/point to an overview article, because there's no links to overview. CMD (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"there's no special link between Schengen policies and CTA policies" - except the European Union as a common link. I think it is pretty significant.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course we do have Currencies of the European Union. But then maybe it's a great example of an article which shouldn't exist. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and even that page gives prominence to the Euro. CMD (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Prominence or not, it exists. It is a perfect example of what I am looking for here, Currencies of the European Union = Visa policies in the European Union in my proposal. Just like Currencies of the European Union links to Euro and Pound Sterling and other currencies, the Visa policies in the European Union should in the same manner link to Visa policy of the Schengen Area, Visa policy of the United Kingdom and Visa policy of Ireland.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So you want this page to be focused on the Schengen area, mention other visa areas in a single table line, have a section on opt-outs, a section on EU institutions supporting Schengen, and a paragraph on the future enlargement of the Schengen area? (Can't think of a viable match to the historic currency list.) Sure, we can do that. It's basically what's been proposed (in fact, what's been proposed would give more detail to non-Schengen areas than the Currencies article gives to the other currencies). CMD (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well no I think this should be a short overview page, on the example of currencies that would be Currencies of the European Union = Visa policies in the European Union and Euro = Visa policy of the Schengen Area.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I was merely elucidating how the set up here would equal the setup of Currencies of the European Union, if Currencies of the European Union = Visa policies in the European Union. CMD (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I think that is an entirely appropriate comparison.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have ground to a halt. It seems a pity that we have (or at least appear to have) consensus in principle to create separate sections for the UK and Ireland - a much-needed change - but cannot proceed because we can't agree on how to deal with the Schengen zone. If we cannot agree, how about we go to RFC and get some outside input? Kahastok talk 11:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What is it that bothers you the most about the overview article? Would you perhaps agree to have a template instead that would link them all Schengen, UK, Ireland, CTA, overseas, candidates etc. + mention of other systems in the lead section of all three articles? Something like Template:Visa policies and requirements in Greater China?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal:--Twofortnights (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the overview article is that it wouldn't overview anything. It would cover two completely separate topics that link up only in that one is not included in the other, which, well, could be said for all visa regimes. Probably worth doing an RfC if we can't even agree to split the UK and Ireland from this page. CMD (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be the same as Currencies of the European Union. Your argument that there is nothing to overview is bogus, then that article overviews nothing, the only link is the pound is not included in the Eurozone. Anyway, I proposed a compromise in form of a template. If that is also unacceptable and you think there must be no mention of an overview anywhere, that this information about several systems in the EU must be banished from Wikipedia and that all marks of its existence must be cut off then I guess we will have to go to RfC. But there is one problem, RfC is not magic, it also requires willingness to compromise, if you are not willing to step a single inch away from your position then it won't bring any results, status-quo agony will continue until we can all find a solution that will be satisfactory to everyone.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, and you apparently agreed, Currencies of the European Union is an article that completely focuses on the Euro, and how it is used in the EU. That is a very different situation to what you created editing this page, when you just had a paragraph on Schengen and displayed the UK&Ireland's common travel area as equal with regards to the EU. The word "pound" doesn't even appear in prose in the Currencies article.
As for the template, I haven't objected to it at all. However, the template's existence doesn't by itself solve the problem of this article's structure. It could exist on various article structures. As for your assertion that I want to "banish" "information about several systems in the EU", neither I nor anyone else in this conversation has suggested this. In fact, any good article on Schengen visa policy would mention areas not included, either as they haven't acceded, or as they have opted out. CMD (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that the template is worked up as a replacement for the second page, and the fact that template is marked up with a page at Visa policy of the European Union reinforces this view. If this is the case, then I'm quite happy for it to be included. Kahastok talk 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Extra stay by New Zealanders etc

Hi,

There seems to be some confusion as to the extension of stay due to bilateral visa agreements. The article currently states that certain national may stay "an extra" 90 days regardless of any stay under the 90 day Schengen rule. That is not correct. It is not an extra 90 days, it a total of 90 days in each country. E. g.: NZ citizens stays in Poland Jan 1 - March 31, he would then be able to travel to Denmark on March 31 and stay for a full 90 days. However it doesn't work the other way around: If he travels to Denmark first and stays 90 days, he cannot then travel to Poland, since he's used up his 90 Schengen days. He could travel to Germany, since that country also has a separate treaty with NZ. He cannot however spend 90 days in Germany as a Schengen guest end then add another 90 "national" days. I'# try and clarify the text in the article. Travelbird (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another section break

I can't decide whether this Talk: page is a satire of the EU or of Wikipedia. Is it part of the satire that "Schengen Area" is wikilinked 19 (nineteen) times in the article, including once in each of the first four sentences?

If the debate is still ongoing: I strongly favour separate articles Visa policy of the Schengen area, Visa policy of the United Kingdom, Visa policy of the Republic of Ireland. Whether there is a need for a parent article Visa policies in the European Union I don't know. I don't think anything useful would be lost by deleting the present article after the split. It's not an overview, but merely a concatenation, like the London Olympics article. jnestorius(talk) 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Any move needs to stem from consensus. We have more or less agreed on what should be done but modalities, some of which you have mentioned yourself, need to be agreed upon as well. Unilateral decisions won't take us anywhere. If we talk things through here on the talk page the transition will be smooth. If we don't we'll just have a dozen undos until we get stuck in status quo, hopefully no one is looking for that.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Right then. If the blockage still remains as before, I suggest we go direct to RFC to try and get some traction on the best way to resolve this. Kahastok talk 09:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed RFC question.

  • Should this article be split into separate articles for the Schengen Area, UK and Ireland?
  • If so:
    • What should the Schengen area article be called? (Suggestions are Visa policy of the Schengen Area and Visa policy of the European Union)
    • Should a residual page remain at Visa policies in the European Union?

Does this adequately sum up the issues here? Kahastok talk 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Moldova and Iceland

Iceland sent a notification to IATA that reads "The visa exemption for holders of biometric passports issued to nationals of Moldova (Rep.) has not been introduced in Iceland."[11] There is no further information, whether this is permanent or temporary and I can't find any information elsewhere. I don't even see how is this legally possible, Iceland is obliged to apply the same laws.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what happened here and why they made this notification, but they have now added Moldova to the visa-free list on the Foreign Ministry website so I updated the article accordingly.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose deleting section on visa policy in candidate countries

I'd like to propose deleting the section on the Visa policy of candidate states. This article is meant to be about policy in the EU and already more that large enough without including info from candidate countries whose visa policies are completely independent from EU policy making. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The EU requires candidate states to adopt the Community acquis before accession. Part of which is the Schengen visa policy. For this reason I believe monitoring how much of a common visa policy have the candidate states adopted is useful, however I also think this section should be kept short as it is. Any expansion would be WP:UNDUE.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I support deletion. This is not Future enlargement of the European Union. The Schengen visa policy tends to be pretty much the last thing to get adopted - for example, Croatia did not align its rules until 1 April 2013, three months before accession and 16 months after the Treaty of Accession 2011 was signed. Any candidate that adopts the Schengen rules wholesale as part of the accession process can be merged into the article when appropriate, but beyond that, see also links are sufficient. Kahastok talk 09:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I reckon condense it down to a sentence or so in the Schengen area saying "Candidate countries generally align visa policies with Schengen." That is of course if there's a source for such a thing. If not it's OR. CMD (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
A quick read of the section on Turkish visa policy will dispel any notion that the visa policies are aligned. Any similarity in visa policy appears to be completely at the discretion of the applicant. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Turkish EU accession is quite inactive. I agree with Chipmunkdavis but not completely, this is exactly why this paragraph needs to include more than one sentence, it should say how much it differs so it should be one or two sentences per candidate country but it might be placed under one paragraph though.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Croatia applied for EU membership in 2003. It became an official candidate in 2004, singed an accession treaty in 2011 which entered into force in 1 July 2013. That's a nine year candidacy. It's adoption of the EU's visa rules on 1 April 2013 cannot be described as "during the accession process". For 98% of the time it was a candidate state, Croatia choose its own visa policy. It changed its rules to ensure that once it became a member no visa national could be in Croatia as of 1 July without a visa. For example, a Russian who entered visa free on 31 March 2013 would have had to leave at the end of his three month permitted stay before 1 July. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Important part of the Croatian GDP is tourism, so holding off the visa regime for tourist producing countries such as Russia until the last moment makes sense. Nonetheless three months before accession also falls under the category of "during the accession process", there is no objective measurement that would say it isn't.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You have no source for the assertion that acceding member states are "obliged to adopt the same visa policy prior to acceding." All you have is an unfounded wp:synthesis. And as far as consensus is concerned you haven't even found one editor who agrees with you. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to have a fruitful discussion here maybe you should stop branding input of other editors as nonsense. Holding yourself in such high regard can irritate others.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
As for the specific issue, it couldn't be clearer than "Croatia was required to align its visa system with that of the European Union no later than three months before accession. Since Croatia is scheduled to join the EU on July 1, its visa system has to be in line with the EU's by April 1.". Next time try reading the source past the first paragraph before commencing an attack.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC on splitting article

On the three questions
  • Consensus was reached for an article split.
  • There is consensus for Visa policy of the Schengen Area because both editors that favoured Visa policy of the European Union indicated acceptance of Visa policy of the Schengen Area. This consensus should not be taken as ruling out an WP:RM in the short term in the interest of attracting more outside opinion.
  • There is no clear consensus for or against the separate article. As part of this close, no fourth article will be created, but this does not prevent any such article from being created and any future WP:AFD should be argued on the merits of the article in question rather than based on this close. Kahastok talk 20:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be split into separate articles for the Schengen Area, UK and Ireland?

If so:

  • What should the Schengen area article be called? (Suggestions are Visa policy of the Schengen Area and Visa policy of the European Union)
  • Should a residual page remain at Visa policies in the European Union?

Kahastok talk 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey (split)

  • Yes AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Kahastok talk 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As per WP:TOOLONG. This has been discussed to death above and as far as I can see no one has objected. TDL (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - the article is too large for its own good. Moreover it arguably contains unrelated information under a single banner in the lines of "Visa policy of North America". — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - split should be done only if we are clear on all aspects. There should be no TBD points at the moment we decide to split the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes This is extremely long and unfocused. Some info needs to be moved. CMD (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey (Schengen area article name)

  • Visa policy of the Schengen Area AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Visa policy of the European Union, but am reasonably happy with both. Kahastok talk 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Visa policy of the Schengen Area - This more accurately describes the subject of the article since Iceland/Norway/Switzerland/Liechtenstein are not in the EU. TDL (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Visa policy of the European Union. The policy is decided by the EU and applied to four EU members which are not part of the Schengen Area. While the Schengen Area includes non-EU members, so do lots of other EU policies like the internal market (EEA + CH) and the European Union Customs Union (Turkey). I'll accept Visa policy of the Schengen Area if more editors prefer that. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Visa policy of the Schengen Area - oddly per the same reasoning Blue-Haired Lawyer used above for an opposite view. Basically Visa policy of the European Union would be doubly wrong as it wouldn't refer to the non-Schengen EU states - the UK and Ireland but it would refer to non-EU states.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • if you split the article, what about Rom, Bul, Cro and Cyprus? you will have to make separate articles with the same content? I'm for keeping it together, just delete candidate countries, I don't get that. --Göran S (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Candidate countries have now been reduced to a more appropriate level. CMD (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey (residual page)

  • Yes AIRcorn (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, see my comment under discussion. Kahastok talk 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think some sort of disambiguation page would be necessary, but there is no need for a full article as it would just be a WP:CFORK repeating content found elsewhere. TDL (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak no If someone wants to write an article let them but I don't think it's necessary. A paragraph explain that two member states have opt-outs. (Admittedly this makes more sense if Visa policy of the European Union is chosen as the article title.) — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes as per Currencies of the European Union. It is not a "residual page" though but rather a general overview article. Bare minimum would be to have the template I proposed above.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No Such an article would be redundant, and covering a topic which isn't actually a topic. The only relation the CTA has to the Schengen is that it is an opt-out, easily covered by a single sentence in each article. CMD (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Seems common sense. We have a large article with some natural splitting points. Keep this as an overview article and a place to mention the non-Schengen Areas in the EU. And fix the WP:Overlinking. I did one section that was particularly bad, but it is really a drop in the sea of blue. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My view on the last question is that there is little benefit in an overview article when there is no substantive connection between the things being connected. The UK and Ireland have opt-outs from Schengen area, and their policy is basically completely separate from the common EU one. I see little non-duplicate information that could be included in such an article, particularly given that the lede of the Schengen article would (no doubt) mention the opt-outs pretty early. Kahastok talk 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. TDL (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome on points 2 and 3, there is clear consensus for a split. A dispute over what to call the article or what to do with the rump article shouldn't be used to stonewall the desperately needed split. TDL (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion (or possibility of) with regards to the residual page bit. If we have the Schengen area page named "Visa policies of the European Union" or some similar configuration, then the residual page makes no sense at all. It is only a question worth considering if the Schengen page doesn't have European Union in the title. User:Kahastok can you clarify that in the bullet point questions at the start? "If the Schengen Area article does not have the words European Union in the title, then should a residual page remain at Visa policies in the European Union?" or something. CMD (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case. It depends on what the scope of the Schengen page is. It could either be an all encompassing overview page with some bits only summarized (ie UK/IE/overseas territories), or it could focus exclusively on the Schengen policy. Note that the proposed title is a singular "visa". If as those who support "Visa policy of the European Union" are arguing this title is a synonym for "Visa policy of the Schengen Area", then the visa policy of UK/IE/etc wouldn't fall within the scope of that article. In that case, I think a separate disambiguation page listing all the various visa polices in the EU would still be helpful, regardless of the new article's title. If the new article is just going to cover ALL visa policies in the EU, then we aren't really creating a new article, just retitling this one and selectively splitting some content. TDL (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So to clarify, you're saying that even if the Schengen page was titled "Visa policy of the European Union", you'd want another disambiguation page?
Personally, I see no great issue with just retitling this one and selectively splitting content. It to me seems the simplest solution. CMD (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just saying that somewhere on a "European Union" visa policy page we need to explain that there are multiple visa policies in the EU and why and link to the UK/IE/etc. pages. That could be accomplished by just retitling this article and retaining a brief summary of IE/UK, or by having one article exclusively on Schengen and a second disambiguation page. Either option is fine with me, but my point is that the necessity of a second article depends more on the scope of the first article rather than the title. TDL (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Any article on the Schengen zone/EU visa policy would be very incomplete without mentioning the opt-outs and candidates. Together, that covers every policy in the EU. CMD (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you're assuming that the article should cover "every policy in the EU". I don't believe that's what Twofortnights is advocating for. That's the issue in dispute, regardless of what the Schengen article is titled. As an analogy, euro (aka currency of the European Union) doesn't cover all the currencies of the EU. It focuses exclusively on the euro and doesn't even mention the złoty. Currencies of the European Union functions as the overview article. If euro covered all EU currencies, then currencies of the EU wouldn't be necessary. But since it doesn't, it is. That doesn't make euro incomplete, it just gives it a narrower scope. A discussion on all the exceptions (ie opt-outs/overseas territories/candidates) could be a distraction for an article focused on Schengen. I'm not advocating for either setup, just pointing out that it is a question of scope, not title. But if the Schengen article is going to cover all visa policies in the EU, then I don't see any reason for a re-title from the plural "policies" to singular "policy". TDL (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I do agree with CMD, we should have all aspects covered if we want a complete article. And the currencies article actually does mention zloty and all the other currencies, that is the whole point.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you've not understood my point. euro doesn't mention the złoty. Only currencies of the European Union mentions the złoty. The question is, do you think that a split Visa policy of the Schengen Area should still give an overview of the visa policies of the UK/IE/overseas territories? TDL (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well no, that would be the same thing as this article. Of course it can say in the first paragraph that there are other policies in the EU but that's about it. Overview should go to the overview article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I think I'd start by saying that the Visa policy of the European Union as a whole is the Schengen policy.
The basis for this is, Schengen is incorporated into the European Union treaties. It is the common agreed policy of the EU, that all EU member states without opt-outs are legally required to adopt, whether they are actually part of the Schengen open border area or not. Four EU member states have had to adopt the Schengen visa policy but aren't in the open border area - Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia. It's also followed by EEA states and Switzerland - in the same way as the same list of countries follow EU law in other ways (i.e. they get the choice between adopting the EU policy without any say in what it is, or erecting border posts).
The UK and Ireland have explicitly agreed opt-outs from the EU policy, but that doesn't that the policy is any less the EU policy. IMO, a page Visa policy of the European Union should not cover the UK and Ireland, except insofar as it should make it clear in the lede that the UK and Ireland have opt-outs, and link the relevant articles. That is sufficient to then remove any need for an additional EU-wide article. But I would do exactly the same thing in a page Visa policy of the Schengen area.
Based on the above, it seems clear to me that some believe that with this scope there is an argument for to maintain this article even if we use the title Visa policy of the European Union, so on that basis I would probably keep the intro as-is. Kahastok talk 21:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
On one hand that is true, but on the other, for Wikipedia readers, it could be misleading to have an article called Visa policy of the European Union that includes Norway but does not include the United Kingdom and Ireland. For as long as there is another option, which is less likely to confuse any readers we should go with it.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but if the visa-territory has a more informative and common name, why not use it? TDL (talk)
Well simply because for an example someone might not realize the place to find information on visa policy of Norway is the visa policy of the European Union article. If such issues can easily be avoided why wouldn't we avoid them?--Twofortnights (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My comment was is response to Kahastok's, not yours. I support using Schengen in the title. TDL (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The answer to Twofortnights' point is that exactly the same problem applies to names using "Schengen", in that Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia are not part of the Schengen Zone but do apply the EU's visa policies.
I would argue that "Schengen Area" isn't necessarily better known than "European Union". I think those people not aware of European conventions and treaties may not have a clue what Schengen is but might well understand that the EU has a common visa policy, and if redirected to a page called Visa policy of the European Union when looking for Visa policy of Norway, they would not have much difficulty when the scope of the policy is explained in the lede.
But for me, this isn't a deal-breaker. As my vote above says, I'm fairly happy with a name involving "Schengen". But I think "Visa policy of the European Union" is better. Kahastok talk 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I would argue that this isn't a problem because Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia do partially apply the Schengen acquis. While they have a derogation from common borders, they apply the harmonized Schengen visa policy, which is precisely why they are lumped together with the Schengen states. Thus it would be natural to included them in an article entitled "Schengen". Schengen visa policy, as I suggested below, might make this clearer since it is more all-encompasing and doesn't refer to the "Area". TDL (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What about Schengen visa policy or just Schengen visa as a compromise title? That wins on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISEness and naturalness, though is less consistent with other visa policy pages. TDL (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Overview article format

Let's share ideas on how an overview article could look like.

For me a perfect overview article IMO would have an intro saying in first paragraph that within the EU there are three visa policies - Schengen, British and Irsh and two travel zones - Schengen and CTA. In the 2nd paragraph of the lead it should mention how the freedom of movement applies instead of a visa policy to EU/EEA/CH nationals.

Then the article itself should contain a section on visa policies with four subsections - first on common visa policy, second on opt-outs, third for EU member state special territories and fourth for the candidate states. All should be as short as possible, no longer than a paragraph, and linking to the main article using template "main".

For an example for Schengen visa policy it should just say that the Schengen visa policy is applied by all Schengen Treaty states which includes the non EU countries of EEA/CH and also by non Schengen EU countries BG, HR, CY and RO which do not issue Schengen visas but do have the same visa list and accept Schengen visas. Special territories section should say that Several EU member states have special territories and that some of these territories are within and some outside of the European Union, and that many of them maintain independent visa policies - with links to Main articles: Visa policy of the British Overseas Territories, Visa policy of the French overseas departments, and Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean. Candidate states section should mention that candidate states are expected to align their visa policies with that of the EU and that they have no right to opt-outs with links to main articles that are in this case the visa policies of current candidate states.

The current sections called Freedom of movement and Visa-free summary could be kept.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing in your description that does not duplicate the information that would be in the split articles. None of these articles could be complete without a some basic description of EU freedom of movement, for example, as this is an integral part of the visa policies of each of these areas. There's no need for a common article to also belabour the point. Similarly, you want to keep the very-long-and-mostly-unreadable-yet-incomplete table at the end of the article (incomplete because it excludes Gibraltar). I would suggest that it adds very little and is unneeded. Why would we have this and not Visa policies of North America, or some similar arbitrary connection of different policies to include a similar table? I see no reason.
I note that raising the CTA to the level of Schengen - where the latter is EU policy and the former is not - misunderstands basically the relationship between the two. I also note that there are not three but at least eight visa policies in the EU (including the French territories and Gibraltar). Kahastok talk 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It's called overview article for a reason. It's not duplication but overview, that's the whole point. You can't have an overview article containing something that the detailed articles do not contain. As for "Why would we have this and not Visa policies of North America", I am not sure if that is a real question or what because North America is not any kind of legal entity let alone the only supranational organization that the European Union is. No one is proposing an article called Visa policies of Europe where we would cover everything from Russia to Iceland. --Twofortnights (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Visa policies of the African Union. Visa policies of UNASUR. Visa policies of ASEAN. All are appropriate by your suggestion. The point remains the same. The fact that I picked a continent instead of a supranational organisation does not invalidate the point. Why do we need an overview article of these policies? What does it add? From what I can see, it adds nothing at all. Kahastok talk 18:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
None of these are cohesive supranational organizations, sorry. So no they are not appropriate by my suggestion and the point is lost. Here is one analysis [12] The European Union is a sui generis supranational entity and it's not in any way comparable to simple regional organizations such as ASEAN let alone geographic terms such as North America.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I find you conflate two different things here.
It does indeed act as a single supranational organisation - at the level of Schengen. And for that reason nobody is arguing for separate articles at Visa policy of Germany or Visa policy of Slovenia.
But that does not imply that we need a wider article than that. Your argument seems to me that it doesn't just act as a supranational organisation at the level of Schengen, but at a full-EU level as well. It does not. The visa policy of the UK, and the policy of Ireland, are entirely separate from the EU policy as a whole.
Trying to draw a line at the edge of the EU gives curious results, that imply that the EU cannot be taken as a cohesive supranational organisation in this regard. You split the Schengen open border area 22-7. You split three Crown Dependencies from the rest of the CTA. Saint Martin is included, but Saint-Barthélemy is not - even though the visa policies are the same. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, which applies its own rules and has its own visas, is included. The British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which uses the Schengen rules and maintains an open border with EU member state Cyprus, is not.
Yes there is a cohesive supranational bit - that's Schengen. The only connection between the visa policies in the EU beyond Schengen is that the territories in question happen to be part of the EU - in exactly the same way as the only connection between the visa policies in ASEAN is that the territories in question happen to be part of the ASEAN. So I believe the comparison stands. Kahastok talk 20:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well the same thing goes for Currencies of the European Union, it exists even if only the Euro is a true "cohesive supranational bit". It's for a simple reason that within this entity, called the EU, there are two policies and several currencies and this should be noted in one place. Why? For practical overview reasons, nothing more than that. As you've perfectly pointed out with your examples the situation is not straightforward and simple so this is why a reader should be able to find an overview in one place. I as a reader might not be interested in particular details of visa policies (such as visa-free countries or details of reciprocity or airside transit visa nationalities) but I would definitely be interested to read what exists within the EU in terms of visa policies. Again in one place, because if the information is spread out, you can never be sure if it you've managed to read it all.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It already will be noted in more than one place. It would be astonishing if the lede of any of the three articles did not mention the fact that there is a common EU policy called Schengen and that the UK and Ireland have opt-outs from it and form the Common Travel Area. It would be astonishing if each lede did not link to the other two articles.
You say "the situation is not straightforward". It seems to me that is only not straightforward if we make it not straightforward. Drawing a line in the sand at the EU border - even where that line is separating areas that use the same visa policy - makes it not straightforward, because it tries to make reality fit a pattern that does not actually exist. Instead, we are better drawing the borders where they actually lie: Schengen, UK, Ireland, and then the overseas territories that have different policies separately, without irrelevant consideration of EU status.
Personally, I rather doubt that there's a major cadre of readers wanting to read all the EU visa policies at once - and particularly that there's a cadre of readers who want the line drawn at the EU border. If someone wants EU visa policy, chances are they want Schengen. But if they do want all the policies, the links will be there. Kahastok talk 20:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
By that logic any article on visa policies that includes the words European Union in the title should not exist. However as already explained the EU is not yet another organization nor equals to the continent of Europe. There is a European Union citizenship, European Union member states delegate a good part of their sovereignty to the European Union institutions, it has a legislative, executive and judicial power etc. Therefore I don't think it is drawing a made-up line, the policies within the EU is a very much real issue. As for the readership base, although I disagree with you, even if that was true the English Wikipedia has 4.5 million articles, you will find plenty of them of interest to a very limited number of people. Yet it does not mean these articles are pointless and shouldn't exist.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree: we can perfectly well have an article on the European Union's visa policy - i.e. Schengen - and refer to it as the European Union's visa policy. But this is not about that article, this is about a second - wider - article. The fact is that, while there are certainly areas where the external EU border is significant (such as EU citizenship), visa policy is not one of them. It does not reflect any real-life division in visa policy, so it's not a good place to try and draw a distinction.
But you know my view and I know yours. I suggest this may be a good point to break off this discussion and allow other editors to consider those positions. Kahastok talk 19:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"It does not reflect any real-life division in visa policy" - I don't see how this is the case when it's clear foreign visitors to the EU don't face the same visa policy. From the Moldovan or Namibian perspective this external issue is very much significant as they might be able to visit only portions (different portions) of the EU without a visa. Yes, let's hope more editors decide to take part in this discussion.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that the RFC is meant to be debating whether to have an overview article, discussing what it might look like appears to to be putting the cart before the horse. Fundamentally I agree with Kahastok, saying that there three plus visa policies in the EU misunderstands the point. The EU only has one visa policy. When the newspapers say that the "EU courts Moldova with visa-free travel from Monday", that's the one they're talking about. The EU sets the policy and uses it as an extension of its foreign policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Close

The 30 days for the RFC are now expired. Are people happy for me to close this, or do you want to ask at WP:ANRFC Kahastok talk 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess it closed by itself, don't see the reason for some solemn closure.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved this into what I think is the intended section. If you object, then please accept my apologies and by all means move it and my response back.
I think it's pretty clear that there's consensus for change here. At some stage, we have to turn around and accept that and enact the change. Now, as I say, I'm quite happy to do the close and make the consequential change, but if people see me as biased then there are ways of doing it that don't involve me and I'm quite happy to use them. Kahastok talk 18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd say there's a clear consensus for the split, but the other questions seem pretty divided. That tends to be the problem when there are multiple issues mixed up in a single debate.
My suggestion would be to do this step by step. First restore the split for which there is a consensus and start a WP:RM on what the title of the new article should be. (RMs tend to get more outside attention.) A decision on what the title of the new article is going to be will help clarify (at least for me) whether there should be a rump article. This article could then go to WP:AFD if people think it shouldn't exist. TDL (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I've said I support the split but only if we agree on other points. Why should we think that if an agreement hasn't been made now it will be made tomorrow? We need to work towards ironing out all issues before we implement any changes. Only that will secure smooth transmission without conflicts. I am pretty sure this is a sensible thing to do, and we don't seem far away from that point where we agree on all issues, we just need to agree on a few more details.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The point of RFC was to get consensus of outside editors - unfortunately we didn't get as many outside editors as I was hoping for. But WP:RM and WP:AFD would also help attract outside editors to determine this.
I think consensus is clear for the split. I think consensus is for the split now. If we all have to agree on those details before we can split this effectively means no split at all in the short term. It's been nearly five months since I first proposed a split and we're still here, and I don't think we're any closer to agreement between those of us who were discussing it in January.
I am going to close this based on my reading of consensus - and I'm going to write it in such a way as not to preclude further discussion. If you wish to challenge that close, then I am happy for you to request a close at WP:ANRFC or otherwise in the normal way, and for my judgement to be replaced with that of an uninvolved admin. I suggest you cite this message in any request. Kahastok talk 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fix the article please

I understand the urgent need to separate the United Kingdom article from this one, but if this feeling lasted for 5 months then I think at least the actual move didn't have to be so hasty. I am not talking about doubling the content, I am talking about multiple missing notes and references. Can this be fixed please?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll continue fixing up bits when I notice them, but you're welcome to help.
Frankly, the split has been active for barely an hour, and it shouldn't be very surprising that it takes a little while to catch everything. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
To add, there are bots that generally fix orphaned refs from old revisions as needed. Kahastok talk 21:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Errors in the map

The old map indicates that Svalbard is part of the Schengen Area when it isn't and indicates that Greenland is part of the EU when it's not. It list a set of countries that no one or almost no one recognises as having an unknown visa status when it is quite clear that no Schengen state would affix a visa to a passport of an unrecognised authority. (See pages 32 and 39 of this Commission document.)

The only recognised entity which was originally missing from the new map was Barbados which has now been fixed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I will correct the PNG map.
As for the SVG map - very superficial approach.
I have notified you on your talk page on at least one (and there are more) country missing from the .svg map. I don't know if you haven't read what I wrote, or you just think it's not important to have all the UN member states on the map, but either way it's not acceptable.
I have asked you to investigate the transit visa requirements by the countries missing in the article. Have you done it?
Then there is the issue of extremely sloppy editing of that .svg file. Due to many missing punctuation signs, the rendering is wrong.
And then finally, the issue of non-recognised entities. Visas may not be affixed to TRNC passport but it may be issued on a separate paper. For an example Greece issued visas to Macedonian passport holders in such manner. There is information on visa obtaining procedure for the North Cyprus citizens on German embassy website. And there is a specific visa information on the UK Government website which regardless of the fact that the UK is not part of Schengen proves the article on TRNC passport based on a dead link is not wrong at all. But for you the UK Government is a doubtful source. Anyway let's first at least try to settle the issues mentioned before.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
An svg is probably preferable to a png. When you talk about punctuation, do you mean in the CSS file? We shouldn't really be discussing the image directly here, the image should reflect the article. The map shouldn't mention Northern Cyprus as all our article says is that visa's aren't enclosed in it. What is currently in the article that is not reflected on the map? CMD (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Punctuation is a technical error that causes some countries not to be marked correctly on the map (wrong color) even though they were mentioned in css. But without punctuation they won't be triggered. In addition to that, there are several UN member states missing, it's pretty easy to notice them for anyone with basic geography knowledge. If you can't notice them just compare them to the PNG map that certainly has all couuntries on it. The problem with transit visa persists - not all countries register their transit visa requirement with the EU as the article suggest for Estonia, Hungary and Lithuania. What needs to be done before air transit visa is added back to the map is investigate all the missing member states such as Latvia and see if they also have a non-registered list.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You really should reconsider what you feel to be "basic geography knowledge", as knowing every UN state is a very high bar. The map does need to be remade from scratch from an updated svg, say File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg (which is no great shakes CSS-wise either, it needs to be itself remade by a good CSS writer), but it's not awful in its current stance. From a quick glance at both maps, the svg is missing South Sudan, the Marshalls, and Kiribati in comparison to the png, and Puerto Rico is a different colour. What else, to clarify for others?
Again, problems with the article should be dealt there first. We can't have the picture showing something the article doesn't. Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania are the same colour on both maps, both of which discuss transit, so they're not a reason for or against either map. CMD (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's completely unacceptable to use a map that misses all those UN member states as "correct" instead of a map that has all those countries showing. It would be absurd when it's obvious the map with missing countries is incorrect at the very beginning, let alone the issues further in. I'd understand if the issue was whether to include places like Palestine or not. But missing out regular recognised countries is a serious error, plain and simple.
I don't think you understand the issue with transit countries. It's not about the color of destination countries in the EU, of course Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania are the same colour. The issue is with other countries and the map that tries to also show the "Additional nationals required to have an ATV" information from the table in Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Area#Airport_transit. So if we use that table we would for an example paint North Korea in a different colour because Lithuania requires an ATV from North Korean citizens. But if you look carefully next to Lithuania it says "None of these countries has been registered with the EU.", they simply don't appear on the EC list "List of third countries whose nationals are required to be in possession of an airport transit visa visa when passing through the international transit area of airports situated on the territory of one/some Member States", but we got the list from the Migration Department of Lithuania instead. And now if you take a look at that table you will see that we don't have any information on several member states - Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden. And not to mention that the article says countries like Austria or Denmark don't use these provisions and then just a few lines below you find them in a table that lists countries that do. My suggestion is not to include the ATV data on the map until we are sure that the information we have is complete, that is quite a lot of missing states and the possibility of an error is pretty high. Not to mention that the current ones need to be reexamined as well, Estonia is sourced with "Eesti Holiday Navigator" which is unacceptable, Hungary is sourced with a honorary consulate in New Zealand whose website looks pretty outdated and finally Lithuania link just takes you to the main page of the Lithuanian Migration Department.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll state again that both maps try to address transit. A problem for one is a problem for both. CMD (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the PNG map does not address the national ATV requirements, only the Schengen wide rules.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
And is thus equally misleading as it implies there are no national variations, and that blanket rules apply to all Schengen. CMD (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well OK, but what do you propose? Is it removing transit information altogether or something else?--Twofortnights (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The image should directly reflect the article, and issues you find should be addressed in the article. After that the picture can just copy them. CMD (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Image does not have to reflect everything in the article. It would be especially ignorant to knowingly include things that we know are not clear. There are many things that could be shown on the map that exist in the article but that aren't shown on the map - for an example adopted but not yet implemented visa waivers, biometric passport requirement, non-ordinary passport visa-free access, paid activity within visa-free stay etc. So not including ATV until we are sure that the article reflects reality is not a big deal. It's also questionable if national visa policies should be reflected on a map that is essentially a Schengen policy map. Those national ATV rules are local.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but again, that's a problem with both. I'd be more than happy for the image to not include transit visas, simplifying focus is often useful. CMD (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes for an example the Canadian visa policy, at first I added the transit visa waiver to the map but then realized it might be undue and that the focus should be simplified.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

All ASEAN travel to Schengen Area to visa-free in 2016

2016 I think to When Schengen Area plans to introduce visa-free travel for citizens of all ASEAN nations? I wait to Schengen Area plans to introduce visa-free for all ASEAN. please to call me to answer --Sutthiphat Borworncharuphat (Talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not even deliberated let alone planned.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Visa policy of the Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy toward the non-EU Crown Dependencies

The article does not explain the policy of the Schengen zone toward holders of passports issued by the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Some clarification of this should be added.

Some of these passports currently confer full EU freedom of movement and some do not - see Guernsey passport etc.

I was under the impression that the item in Annex II - United Kingdom British nationals who are not nationals of the United Kingdom for the purposes of European Union law, generally referred to citizens of Hong Kong, and not the Crown Dependencies.

And if Crown Dep. citizens are now treated the same as UK citizens for visa-free access to the Schengen zone, I do not see how the EU is going to revoke access to the Schengen zone to Britons (after Brexit ends reciprocal freedom of movement) without also revoking it for these other states which were never in the EU in the first place?! Surely they must be treated like those from Serbia (not the EU) or Ireland (still in the EU and CTA), rather than as equivalent to UK citizens?

--Elmeter (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-Schengen EU member states

The first sentence of the current article reads:

The visa policy of the Schengen Area (...) applies to the Schengen Area and to other EU member states without the opt-outs enjoyed by Ireland and the UK.

Is this really correct? According to the website of the European Commission, the non-Schengen EU member states Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania are outside the common visa policy. This is also confirmed if one checks the accession treaties. Only a small fraction of the visa policy, including the uniform design of the visa, is applying on the abovementioned states. Most parts are not. In particular, these states cannot issue Schengen visa as I understand it. Therefore, the introduction of the article should be corrected. --Glentamara (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the statement is that whoever is visa-free to Shengen area is visa-free to these states and vice versa.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
But this is something different. The visa policy does not apply to Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania. The Visa code for instance does not apply for these states. The statement in the article is incorrect. --Glentamara (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul of the article

Hi everyone. I was going through this article today and I think it could to do with some serious changes/improvements. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a step-by-step guide and this is essentially what a large chunk of this article is. I propose simplifying the section 'Obtaining a visa' to one paragraph, two at the most, because it includes way too much information. It looks as if the information was copied directly from the Schengen guidebook for embassies.

I'm also proposing a shortening of the section 'Changes in the last 5 years' and future visa-waiver travel (specifically, a shortening of the section on Indonesia). People are coming to this article to find information, and what they're finding is too much. Do we really need the section 'means of subsistence'? That doesn't exist on other visa policy articles. I know the Schengen Area rules and regulations are difficult and complex but this article is complicating things even further.

Also, if we are to keep the section on 'visa waivers maintained exclusively for diplomatic passports... by member state' - can we put it into a collapsible box? I'd be willing to start off this mammoth task, but I'd like to see the views of other editors here before I start going through the article. st170e 21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is with the Obtaining a visa section. All of the information is relevant but the presentation resembles a guide. Instead it should be shrunken down to a more encyclopedic tone. The Schengen concept of the "main destination" is very relevant given that this is a visa scheme encompassing so many countries and something that is what confuses people quite a bit but it needs to be presented in a different way as this is not only about the obtaining of a visa but also about the terms of use. "appointment in advance" part is irrelevant and should be removed. "external service provider" is something that should remain but in one sentence. Fourth point should be removed in entirety except perhaps for the part on "the application cannot be submitted more than three months before the date of intended travel" which should be incorporated in one of the other sentences in the paragraph. "biometric identifiers" point should remain as this is something that is becoming more and more of concern globally and it needs to be even expanded with more information on Visa Information System. "travel insurance" point is typical guide point and needs to be removed. Regarding the point on visa decision deadlines, I am not sure, depends on the length of the new paragraph, it's not crucial to keep the information but also it's not a typical guide point either. Application fee info should be removed especially since it is largely outdated, it lists examples where application fee is reduced but almost all of those countries don't even require a Schengen visa anymore. The point on non-discrimination is bland and not very relevant, it only adds to the overall clutter so it should be removed. Point on non-Schengen EU member states needs to stay but don't think it should be in this section. The "At the border" information is relevant but in general what we need is a section listing all types of Schengen visas that are issued so C,D,A visas with basic explanation what they are for. The amount of info in this section exceeds the need. The new section would also include sections found below - Visas with limited territorial validity, Airport transit and Stays exceeding 90 days. Unrecognised travel documents is relevant but perhaps no need for a bullet point list with flags, it could be cut down to a sentence or two. Statistics section is extremely relevant and needs to stay. Visa facilitation agreements section likewise.
Changes in the last five years section does not seem to be excessively long and there is nothing that is guide-like about it. It's quite relevant info for anyone who is researching Schengen visa policy.
Future changes section is one of the most relevant sections and needs to stay. This is especially regarding ETIAS, RTP and EES. Regarding future changes of the Annex II the information should be kept but I absolutely agree the section on Indonesia contains loads of irrelevant information. Most of it should be moved to the Indonesia–European Union relations article.
Means of subsistence information is very relevant in my opinion. The fact that there is no such info in articles on other policies means that the information is either unavailable or those countries don't have such rules, but this is quite relevant for the Schengen visa policy as the "Means of subsistence" shows that the simple status of an Annex II citizen does not grant entry if the "Means of subsistence" rules are not met and the table is there because the "Means of subsistence" rules are not unified across the EU which is also interesting for anyone who wants to find out more.
Didn't quite catch the suggestion regarding the diplomatic passports. I don't think the question on whether this information should be kept should even be posed. It's the core article info, if for example we were to cut down the article by 90% it would still remain in the article.
That's my view.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree wholly with everything you've said with regards to the obtaining a visa section. With regards to changes in the last five years, it's already outdated. Unless we change the name to 'Recent developments' or something?
Future changes - I was more referring to Indonesia rather than anything else. ETIAS etc is vital for the article.
Diplomatic passports - I should've phrased that better. Is there a better way to layout the diplomatic passports section? It just looks extremely untidy and cluttered with information.
Anyway, I'll start with the 'obtaining a visa' section soon. st170e 22:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I've re-written the Obtaining a visa section - can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? st170e 14:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've looked into it and it seems good. If I What I would propose now is merging the "At the border", "Visas with limited territorial validity", "Airport transit" and "Stays exceeding 90 days" into a new section called "Visa types" or something similar. The Community Code on Visas envisages the following visa types - airport transit visas, uniform visa and a visa with limited territorial validity, visas issued at the external borders and visas issued to seafarers in transit. We also need information on visa extension based on Article 33 explaining that unlike in many other countries the visa extension is only in cases of force majeure or humanitarian reasons preventing timely leaving. And then there is info on long term stay (residence permits) and longer term visas for nationals of certain countries. Most of this is already in the article, just needs to be rearranged.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No credible sources on the "Visa-free stays involving paid activity" section

The section on "Visa-free stays involving paid activity" does indeed point to an official EU document listing out exemptions for Annex II individuals, however it doesn't have any links to the respective national laws.

Could we delete this section altogether? It might be very harmful if someone actually tries to go work in those countries and it turns out the article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.12.2 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to a collapsed table under the visa exemptions, and added a sentence clarifying that the information is according to a table compiled by the European Commission. Heitordp (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

In an effort to clean the article up and make it more accessible, I'm proposing the following two changes:

1. Remove the section 'Visa policies of Ireland, United Kingdom and overseas territories'

This is trivial because the article is the Visa policy of the Schengen Area. Yes, it does compare visa policies, but that shouldn't take place on this article.

2. Remove 'means of subsistence'

Largely unreferenced and contravenes WP:NOTTRAVEL.

Let me know what you think. st170e 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no article called for example Visa policies in the EU, so I don't know in which article the comparison should take place? As for the means of subsistence, I disagree, it's well referenced and very relevant as that is an entry requirement regardless of visa requirement.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.netherlandsembassy.co.nz/wa.asp?idWebPage=24561&idDetails=164
  2. ^ http://dev.ambafrance-nz.org/spip.php?article1624&var_mode=calcul
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Area/Archive_1&oldid=1221893430"