Talk:Visa requirements for Romanian citizens

Australia

Australia is colored as visa free on the map, even though it requires e-visa, and then be approved.

Bolivia

Bolivia should be removed because the source I believe is not reliable enough. Timatic is unpredictable on a number of occasions. If there is a legitimate source for Bolivia that states the Visa on Arrival service then that should be added.Pryde 01 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Found an official source that says that Romanian citizens need a visa to Bolivia : http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/documentos/servicios/d48.htm and http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/documentos/servicios/d42.pdf. The visa is free of charge (maybe somebody who understands Spanish should take a look): http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/documentos/servicios/d50.pdf Ciprian.Enache (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Virdol:. There is no reliable source for this country. At least change the source if you care to leave Bangladesh on. If not the country should be deleted. I stated the reasons for my reluctance of certain Timatic sources being listed. Please respond accordinglyPryde 01 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to http://www.immi.gov.bd/land_permit.php Ciprian.Enache (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition

In additions to the recommendation the length of Visa free/Visa on Arrival should be added for example 3 Months and not just Yes Pryde 01 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and will add to my to do list. Ciprian.Enache (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tokelau

It is sure that the Romanians don't need visa for Tokelau? Here http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/Tokelau/?rc=Formalities#Immigration it is said that romanians need an entry permit from Tokelau Affaire Office from Apia. El Otro (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tokelau is an overseas territory under the complete jurisdiction of New Zealand. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspect external links

Hello.

I have, from firefox the Web of Trust addon, which suggest wich sites are potential harmful or contains viruses, malwares. This is highlighted with a red/yellow/green circles.

In this articles are highlighted with red circles the following external links: 111 report here http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/guineequatoriale-info.net; 133 site report here http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/welcometoswaziland.com, 152 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/goway.com, 175 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/gurtong.net.

With a yellow circle are: the link 35 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/ercanairportnorthcyprus.com, 163 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/marsa-alam-airport.com, 314 http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/dgo.gov.vg.

I consider that this suspicious links should be removed. Any other opinions? At least the ,,red" links should be removed. El Otro (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Solomon

The ,,status" for Solomon islands should be changed in visa/ visitors permit on arrival (from pre-arrival visa). The source is the same with that from the text/article: http://www.commerce.gov.sb/Divisions/Immigration/Immigration_Requirements.htm . Could someone fix it? I don't know to work with tables. El Otro (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Table formatting errors

Can someone, please, check and fix the formatting of the following tables:

• Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA)
• Southern African Customs Union (SACU)
• Part of Southern African Development Community (SADC)
• Asia - Taiwan
• Caribbean Community (CARICOM)- Montserrat
• Melanesian Spearhead Group
• Micronesia El Otro (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Readability improvements

I think we could improve the readability of this article by:

• presenting each continent in a single table (this will solve the problem of having different table sizes in the same section, and will make countries easier to find)
• remove the specific requirements section and add a "specific requirements" column to the visa tables.
• remove the non-ordinary passports table and add a "Diplomatic Passport"/ "Service Passport" column(S) to the visa tables
• simplify the Statistics section by not listing individual countries
• the information presented in the additional continental maps should be merged in the main map (which should be provided as an SVG). The additional maps should then be removed, as they do not present novel information, and their inclusion in the article completely breaks flow.

CultureArchitect (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your first four points, CultureArchitect.

However, I would only favour removing the separate maps for "Eurasia" and "South America" where the territories involved are sufficiently large to show clearly on the first, world map. (BushelCandle.talk) 03:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

BUMP: What do others think? If there are no objections, I may shortly take a hatchet to this article and do some radical pruning. BushelCandle (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the US dollar such a strange and unfamiliar currency

that it needs to be wikilinked at every occurrence in this article?

Personally I think it's unnecessary to have multiple Wikilinks to the world's two most well known currencies - the US dollar and euro. Apart from User:Laurentiu Popa, are there other editors that think that our article on Visa requirements for Romanian citizens should be a special exception to the WP:OVERLINKING sub-section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style?

I think that, especially after User:Laurentiu Popa's efforts, this article is overlinked to both the US dollar and to the euro. The excessive number of links makes it difficult to identify the more relevant links likely to aid the reader's understanding.

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, I do not believe that the following should be internally linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context
• Common units of measurement, e.g. units relating to currency, time, temperature, length, area, or volume (if both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit needs to be linked, because almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit)

In short, the function of internal links is to clarify, not to emphasize; I shall try again to remove multiple links to the two most commonly traded currencies of the world.

I do thoroughly agree with the clear advice in our manual of style:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks.

BushelCandle (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. Agreed. Laurentiu Popa (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Entire page format

I believe that in order to unify Wikipedia's article and article related information, judging from the other "visa requirements for -" pages, the format of this one stands out. To make it assimilate more, I think it would be best for the entire format to be rewritten/redone. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

More important than that is to have true information. And you added information that you copy/pasted from German page including sources. For that reason in your updated version Romanian citizens suddenly were part of the US VWP etc. Please don't do that again. If you want to update the article thoroughly that's fine, but that requires a lot of effort, and not simply copy/pasting another article.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree and will rectify any invalid or incorrect information, to include the one you stated. I do not see how "copy/pasting" simply THE FORMAT of another similar article and changing it to fit the new information is not fine. Also, please quote the place where I stated in my revisions that Romanian citizens "suddenly were part of the US VWP". PLEASE be aware that I took the formatted HTML and ALTERED it to fit the visa requirements for Romanian citizens according to the old wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't copy paste the format, you copy pasted the content. You claim how you altered but you haven't done that, I see at least 20 references which lead directly to a source on visa requirements for German citizens.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's best to rewritten/redone the article to another form, just because "this one stands out". What about "visa requirements for" other citizens, pages who do not exist? Those do not "stands out"? Chadian, Togolese, Transnistrian...--Laurentiu Popa (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your sentences. What exactly do you mean? Next, Transnistria is not a sovereign state. Thus, its inclusion is not needed. I will also work on ones for Chad and Togo, but we must take everything one at a time. Incidentally, please let me know if you at any time wish to converse in a different language (other than English, of course) and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, thank you for notifying me of such pages and your progressive diplomacy. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Just look at the template, you'll see Visa requirement for Transnistrian citizens. Please, mind your language, you are already out of line. Try a more civilized approach. You don't have to be rude.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, listen dude. We will not get along if you are rude. It's not lucrative to undo each other work. As far as I can see, we have opposite point of view. Ok. So now what? I don't think it's lucrative to continue doing so. Do you want to talk point by point?Laurentiu Popa (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be wonderful! Despite, I am unsure how I was "rude" or in another way derogatory in the previous paragraph. May you please elaborate on that? What "language" are you referring to; profanities??? ("Please, mind your language, you are already out of line.") I even complimented you, yet you still claim I said something that offended you. Regardless, once again, Transnistria is not a sovereign state. Therefore, I don't see why it should be added. If you could elucidate me when possible, that would be delightful. Thank you.

Let's stop this issue here. I think it would be best to try to discuss the matter, instead of a pointless ping-pong of "you said"/"but you said".Laurentiu Popa (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say, this page is ridiculously big, and I wonder a. if all this detail is necessary and b. if it cannot be displayed in a simpler way. The article is over 200k; it is crashing my browser. It seems obvious to me that some stuff just needs to be cut since it's excessive and we're not a manual--"migration card issued on arrival, email must be sent 3 days in advance to mfa-rso@mail.ru; the migration card must be registered in Tskhinvali; ask the hotel officials to register you; border with Georgia is closed; obtain a multi-entry visa to Russia, enter and exit from/to Russia" is just, well, excessive. And if this formatting can be brought under control one way or another, you two (User:Laurentiu Popa, User:Twofortnights) would be doing your reader a big service. And keep in mind: if everyone who helped develop this tabular, complicated format suddenly dies, there is no one who can find their way through this complex code. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to talk, as I stated above. Indeed, we're here for the readers, not for our pride. If I was a reader, I'd be confused by the sudden radical changes. I don't care what format is shown, Whatshouldichoose may switch it if he wants so. I will not revert it, during the talks. Perhaps... we'll have a good laugh about this one year later.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am now willing to talk in a "civilized" fashion. I just am not quite sure what to do to reach a consensus as of now.

The questions of formatting and content are largely separate. As for browser crashing, that's only possible if your computer is very old and has too little memory. Get a new computer. It is true that this is the slowest visa article page to load because it's a big article. That's a problem that affects ALL wikipedia articles that are long. If this is considered a serious problem perhaps another page could be created to transfer the detailed information for those interested without just carelessly throwing it away. A fast loading page with basic info and basic map and another detailed page. I don't see the point, though. What would it achieve? Who is in a deep need of loading this page quickly. It strikes me as a bizarre complaint. I won't use derogatory terms because I am truly confused as to why anyone thinks a page on this would have "too much information". Maybe they have a substantive and legitimate reason that I'm not aware of. I wish all the countries had this much visa detail. I've learned about travel rules around the world on this page that I never would have known about from almost any other source.173.35.22.135 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Browser crashing should not be part of the reason, at the least, for why this page should be changed. I also agree that there is no such thing as excessive information. Nonetheless, I believe that information is better presented in a different way. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Formatting IS important and content kind of goes along with it. Let's say you wanted to compare visa requirements for two different countries. If the format would be different for them, like this one's is, would it not be harder to make that comparison? So yes, the content does go along with formatting because readers will not bother to scrutinize the action of comparing two countries in detail if it is not easy and thus they might lose out on information. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let's take it step by step. Why should the territories have their own chapter? I'm not saying that it shouldn't, just asking. Why should the column of fees be eliminated? If we talk, we'll reach a conclusion, no matter how satisfactory that might be.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The territories should have their own chapter because most people only care about the important part of countries. So, making two separate data tables is more organized than one huge one. Since normal countries are more sought after, they should come before the territories. As for the column of fees, I believe that should be eliminated to help integrate this article. HOWEVER, I do believe another table should be added with all the countries' fees. Adding multiple tables rather than trying to input everything into one is a more efficient way of doing things. You can look at the table of contents, go to the section titled "fees" and voila, there they are! Whatshouldichoose (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on separating special territories from international recognized states. I consider that fees are important, thus making a difference between a country accessible by passport only and no fee (such as Turkey) and a country that requires a fee, even if that is a departure fee (such as Palau). They are on different levels of accessibility. Hence, I believe that fees must not dissapear. But here are two sides: 1. should the fees be noted in a separate table because they are not such important (concerning pre-arrival visas or online visas, they are not important, most of the times they are mandatory) 2. But concerning direct access countries, there must be a difference between Turkey and Palau, so in this case, fees should stand in the same table. What do you think on this?

Also, concerning maximum time, should there remain a column named "length of stay permitted"?

Concerning the column passport/ID, I'm ok with removal. The "ID only" info could be attached to those countries/territories.

Furthermore, if you say that the format must be in line with the other countries' pages, I see that there is not a mandatory pattern. Do you think that if we agree on a pattern, can it be imposed on the other pages?

On Transnistria as of on other non-recognized countries, they are in fact controlling some chunk of territory where those unrecognized (or partial recognized) government enforces a different law than the country it seceded from. For example Northern Cyprus has a different visa regime than Republic of Cyprus. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have different visa policies than Georgia. Also, these states are issuing passports (even if alsmost not usable) and held citizenship. Some people are only Somaliland citizens, not being citizens of Somalia. Taiwanese passports offers different rights of passage than a mainland Chinese one.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, yes, I believe the fees should be noted in a separate table not only because they are relatively not as important, but also because not every country requires a fee. Hence, the corresponding table would likely be expected to be shorter in terms of length. On your second though, my personal opinion is that, yes, they should stand in the same table. If there is a discrepancy (such as between Turkey and Palau: Arrival and Departure respectively), then a "notes" column can be annexed on to the aforementioned table. Despite, this is open for interpretation and discussion.

Secondly, I believe that, yes, a column named "length of stay permitted" should remain as that is vital information. But may I suggest that it be named "allowed stay"? Again, this is not set in stone so if you have an idea, you may disclose it. The wording of "length of stay permitted" is not necessarily bad but I think it could be shortened to be more inclusive.

Thirdly, I agree here as well. Instead of making an entire column for potential ID usage, it could simply be indicated in the "notes" column, where something of the like ("ID card valid") could be included.

Next, no there is not a sole mandatory pattern, and yes, they all do have slight variations, but in general, they look similar and are relatively easy to compare. If we agree on any pattern that diverges from the other "visa requirement" pages, I think it would take a lot of time and effort before it can be imposed on the other pages. Though I am willing to put in that time and effort, the priority is to use this visa requirements page as our first "test" to see if adding more information in a different way works (since we are already discussing this one). Nonetheless, even when we reach an agreement, there will always be editors out there, that when trying to implement a new style will just not understand. Then the process that is happening at this moment will have to be repeated. I am not sure if that is worth it but feel free to express your opinion as well.

Finally, I have researched some more information on dependent, disputed, or restricted territories and found that most do have separate visa regimes integrated. Henceforth, I believe, yes, their visa policy information for Romanian citizens should be included in the "territories" section, if that is what you mean. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1. "Length of stay permitted" can be change into "Maximum stay" (I just searched on travel.state.gov to find the right words). It's short and the reader gets the idea in 2 words, instead of 4. A column is required, we have an agreement here, if we agree on the name.

2. On ID's, we have an agreement: just indicated in the notes of the table, where available.

3. Yes, we can use this page as a test and then impose the new pattern on the other pages, we have an agreement here. As for other editors with other ideas... we'll talk. You never know, perhaps there is a better idea that we are not seeing it now.

4. On territories, I'm ok on having them in a different section. We have an agreement here.

5. Fees: Countries (and territories) that are accessible by ID do not require a fee. So, fees can be placed in notes, there will not be crowded in there. Some require fees, some are accessible by ID only.

6. Columns (so far) for the countries' section: a. Country; b. Visa requirement; c. Allowed stay or Maximum stay; d. Notes. Columns for the territories's section: a. Territory; b. Entry requirement or Visa requirement (some territories are part of recognized states but only have a special requirement, such as Tibet, or have a more relaxed entry regime, such as Phu Quoc or Kish islands, so there is no visa); c. Allowed stay or maximum stay; d. Notes. Tell me what do you think.

7. Colours: visa not required - green, visa required - red. freedom of movement - light green, visa on arrival - yellow, online visa - blue. What's your opinion?

8. Subsections: should the countries and territories sections be classified by continents or not? I say yes, what's your opinion?

9. Other sections: Special passports or non-ordinary passports both names seem ok to me. Passport validity, vaccination, fingerprinting are ok. Rejection of Romanian passports includes also Azerbaijan, whereas Israeli stamps has information only on Arab states. What do you think? Statistics: should or should not be a sumary of countries and territories?

10. Continents maps: should there be or not maps for each continent? Is a Maps section required?

11. World map: I have draw a map to include all the islands and some territories with different entry requirements. All the maps can be redrawn. What do you think?

12. I'm ok with the passport and ID card specimen shown up above. But should those pics also be shown in the Passport validity section?Laurentiu Popa (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1. I am perfectly fine with either "Maximum stay" or "Allowed stay".

2. On ID's, yes I do believe we have an agreement that you previously stated.

3. Yes, a good way to do this, might I suggest, would be to get involved in a council on a new WikiProject. This way, there will likely be less disagreements after explaining to everyone and new, potentially better ideas can come in.

4. I believe we have an agreement or countries and territories being in different sections.

5. I agree. I believe that like ID requirements, fees should be placed in the "notes" column.

6. I am also in favor of the columns that you mentioned.

7. Here is where my opinion kind of differs: Yes, this is my opinion, and I will explain why afterwards: visa not required - #22B14C (green); visa required - #ABABAB (solid gray); freedom of movement - #00A2E8 (sky blue); visa on arrival: #B5E61D (A yellowish-green); online visa: #79D343 (lime green). To understand these colors better plug the codes into this website: http://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp . I analyzed the colors of different visa requirements maps with http://html-color-codes.info/colors-from-image/ after uploading and found the codes. Now, here is my reasoning: My opinion is for visa required to be gray. The reason is because people might want to focus more on the color, where they know they will have somewhat of a visa opportunity. Personally, red might confuse them at first. I am not saying it is bad, but gray is like a nullifying color. Besides that, it is much more common on visa related pages. Again, if you would be doing a comparison, it is much easier for your eyes to compare gray to gray, rather than gray to red. Feel free to include you reasoning on red. Further, on freedom of movement, I would select sky blue. The reason is because light green will be used for different purposes that I will state in the next few sentences. Light blue distinguishes from visa not required - green, similar to how right of abode in red does. (However, I believe right of abode is completely unnecessary in the map, at least.) For visa on arrival, I would say the color I mentioned above instead of yellow. As a matter of fact, yellow is kind of close to my color and it is not a bad decision, but more pages on similar topics have the one I mentioned or something to a similar extent. Now, because sky blue in my opinion, would be reserved for freedom of movement, I think just regular blue is too similar to online visa. Instead, I would put a lime green that I have listed above (as a color code). This also helps with unification. What's your take on this?

8. I think that, as someone else suggested before me, on this particular page, I don't think they should be classified by continents, but rather by alphabetical order. However, as someone else suggested, we could, instead of deleting that detailed information, place a redirect link to a different page with more advanced information. That page can have them separated into and by continents. I just believe this one should be somewhat of a more basic one for the average reader. If he/she wants more advanced information separated by continents, we could move and place a link to the other Wiki page that has the format the way you like it.

9. Special passports and non-ordinary passports are both fine by me as well, but I would tend to lean to non-ordinary passports. Why? Because special passports might get confused with service passports. I know it may sound silly but it can happen and we would want to avoid it if possible, not to mention there are also diplomatic and official passports as well as "endorsed for business". Passport validity, vaccination, and fingerprinting are ok. There should also be a section maybe titled "Azerbaijan Entrance" where conflicts between Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh can be mentioned. The State of Israel does not issue passport stamps any more, but rather a card designating entry and exit, so Israeli stamps maybe should not be mentioned. Concerning statistics, I don't know how much they are needed, so we might consider putting them into the more advanced linked page for visa requirements for Romanian citizens mentioned earlier.

10. Once more, my take on this is that a different version of the article where country requirements are listed by separate continents should be made for more advanced readers. Therefore, I believe there should be a map for each continent included on that other page. I don't really see how a "maps" section is that useful but feel free to express your own opinion.

11. On this topic, I don't believe a separate map for the territories is needed on either the basic or advanced version of the page (that we may end up creating). You say that "all the maps can be redrawn". This arises a new question. What tool/website do you use to make these maps, particularly with the style found on the other visa requirements pages?

12. I agree. A passport and ID card specimen helps to add "flavor" to the page, as well as its introduction. In response to your question, I say no, because then we might as well put picture specimens in every section, and I don't see how that is necessary or beneficial to the reader's understanding of those particular section or the "passport validity" section.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long message and I hope to hear from you soon! Whatshouldichoose (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1. I vote for "Maximum stay". But I'm not a strong supporter. I saw on other similar pages "Allowed stay", but "Max." seems more comprehensible.

2. Agreement reached.

3. You have a very good idea! This way we'll have a broader opinion and perhaps a pattern will be imposed.

4. Agreement reached.

5. Agreement reached.

6. Agreement almost reached: have your say on "Visa requirement" vs. "Entry requirement" in the Territories' table.

7. Sorry, but unfortunately I haven't used the right words. I was talking about the colours in the table. About the colours on the map, yes gray is the way for visa required. I've found red to show the country of origin (Romania, on this page) on other pages, but other could fit in just as well. I chose black for "entry not permited" or "special permits required", but if another colour is best for this, give it a go. Green for "visa not required" as it is identified with the "green to go" traffic light. For "freedom of movement" I chose light green because is somewhat similar to "visa not required" with a plus of not having maximum time. For "online visa" or "visa on arrival", I am ok with whatever colour is not too close to the others. Blue, yellow, strong orange, whatever... Just to be clealry distinctive from another colour already picked. I'll subscribe to whatever you say'll on this two.

8. That is also a great idea! Yes indeed, there can be a page for more details.

9. Agreement on almost everything. Israel stamps: Israeli customs no loger uses stamps and replace them with some kind of tickets (pink for entrance and blue for departure) but only on airports (Tel Aviv Ben-Gurion has most of international flights and Eilat few flights). But on land borders (to Egypt and Jordan) there is another situation: departure is without stamps (a white leaflet) but on entrance there is a stamp, a horizontal hexagonal one. Beside that, the Arab Leage boycott mentions that border officers of the boycotting countries must check the foreigner passport also for entry stamps from Egypt and Jordan, stamped on Egyptian-Israeli or Jordanian-Israeli crossing points. Some might exit Israel on a land border to Egypt and then reach Libya or Sudan by land; in that particular passport there will be no Israeli stamp (incoming flight got him a pink ticket and exiting by Eilat/Taba border got him a whote leaflet) but an Egyptian entry stamp where "Taba land border control" is stated. So... "Aha! There is the proof! will say and Sudanese or Libya border officer. Same thing for going from Israel to Jordan and from there to Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Also, for exiting Israel to Egypt or Jordan, flying elsewhere and some years later trying to enter - let's say - Algeria. That passport has a Jordanian or Egyptian entry stamp. I myself went from Bucharest to Tel Aviv on a low cost flight (Wizz Air), by bus from Tel Aviv to the border and entered finally Jordan to spend the holiday there (that route was a lot cheaper than a Tarom direct flight Bucharest-Amman or Bucharest-Istanbul-Aqaba, on another holiday). On our return, we went to the border, entered Israel (hexagonal stamp in passport), went to the airport to fly back home. So yes, I believe that Israel should have some info here. On statistics: yes, put them on the other page, the "more info" one.

10. Agreement reached.

11. I have drawn a map to include some of the island nations that are discarded from the other type of maps. I have also highlighted the dependent territories, non-recognized states and so on. So, a map including at least the island nations (Pacific...) should provide more information. Since we alrdeay have a great conversation, I will gladly help you if you want to create maps. I have searched a lot, so to spare you from weeks of searching (as I did) here are the steps: a. The type of file is .svg so search of google or Wikimedia Commons for the blank map or an already coloured map. You will find a lot of .png and .jpg, but look closely for .svg's. b. Install Inkscape (it's a free .svg editor and I think the best, I have tried others and uninstalled them). c. Open the .svg map with Inkscape and edit it as you like. Here are the colour codes: grey (179/179/179), red (255/0/0), green (0/128/0), light green (0/255/0), blue (55/113/200), yellow (255/255/0), black (0/0/0). The last code, for "transparent" is always 255. d. After you opened the file, from the upper menu, click on "Object" and the first command "Fill and Stroke".

12. Agreement reached.

13. Links. My opinion is to have as many links as possible (only those which lead to a relevant information) because: some of the info will change over time, some links will be dead (site suspended... usually in African countries from my experience) or some sites contain complementary information and the relevant information is not on a single site but spread across sometimes even five sites. I search for information on Ministry of Foreign Affairs, embassies, Immigration offices, official travel/tourism sites and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' site (which is not up to date on entry requirements on about 75% of the countries). How could I forgot about timaticweb...

Thank you for having such a great conversation. Sorry for writing too much on too many details, but I want to have a strong consensus, without leaks that might lead to future reverts. I believe I made you angry on some occasions and I apologize for that. You made me angry too on some occasions, but that's water under the bridge now. By working together we'll achieve something worthy, by fighting without talking we'll be stuck on the same spot. Sorry again if I caused you any trouble by not being able to focus enough on your job or personal life just because you were upset by the edit war.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Both "maximum stay" and "allowed stay" are good options. I don't know if the difference is significant enough for me to express my side. Anyway, I would be ok with either, but would lean toward "allowed stay". The reason being is because "maximum stay" is more of implying how long the traveler wants to stay there. The word "allowed", at least to me, evokes some sort of authority that imposes restrictions on the duration of stay. I'm not a strong supporter either as this can easily be changed at any time we decide otherwise.

6. I am not really sure about this. Normally, I would say "Visa requirement", in order to keep it more consistent with everything else. Don't hesitate to tell me your opinion on this.

7. Now I understand. So you were referencing the colors in the table. My take is that all the colors on the world map should match the colors in the table except for visa required (which in the table should be red and the world map, gray). I'm not so sure if there needs to be a color for right of abode as Romania is in the EU (UE) and freedom of movement is ensured. I notice this on other EU countries pages as well (a missing color for right of abode). I agree, black would probably be the best color for that purpose. I kind of personally think that a light green for freedom of movement indicates less rights in those countries, since it looks more like a lime green instead. That is my reason for why I chose sky blue. As for online visa and visa on arrival, I believe I said what colors they should probably be earlier in another comment. My opinion is that the fewer main color types (blue, green, yellow, red) used, the better the world map will look. This is because there is not a drastic difference between visa free, visa on arrival, and online visa. So we only need to discuss the freedom of movement color for this section.

9. Yes, I agree with you here. It is more inclusive, and thus better to include Israeli stamps and where your travel will be refused than to omit it. As for statistics, as you said, we shall put them on the detailed page.

11. I would think we should put a dot to highlight the smaller countries (ex. Pacific). However, because territories are disputed, we should probably make a separate map that only shows the dependent territories and place it on the more detailed page. Thanks for the information on how to make maps. It really does help!

13. Yes, I am on board. I also believe that the more links, the better. Nonetheless, that is not our main concern at the moment, but I do not just want to disregard it, so we will have this as a reminder after resolving the other five issues at hand.

No, thank you for having such a great conversation! It has been going really well so far and hope it will be further advanced as time passes. Writing a lot on many details in my opinion is a very good thing to do, with myself being meticulous in my work and all. That is how more ideas for improvement arise. There's no need to apologize for anything. I should be the one apologizing. Incidentally, no you have not in the least caused me any troubles in my other life. As you said, by now that is like looking at why Earth formed the way it did. Otherwise, I noticed something bizarre on Wikipedia: In your replies, when you used the British spelling "colours", it underlined it red as if it didn't understand. Why should Wikipedia be fine with the American spellings but not the British. But this is beside the point. Thank you for cooperating with me all this way. We really did get quite far! Whatshouldichoose (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Let's go with "Allowed stay". The reader will easily get the point and it sounds like a shorter version of "Maximum allowed stay".

6. My point of view is that some territories are part of some state, I mean legally part of some state, so a foreigner requires a visa when entering the country, but to access that particular territory some permit is required. Somewhere, might be required a visa for outside the capital (Eritrea, Sudan and Bhutan). That's why I say "Entry requirement".

7. Colours. If the map has EU member states outlined, the right of abode is required for Romania's territory. If the map has EU as a single territory, the right of abode is not present on the map. The whole EU territory (Romania included) will have the colour of "freedom of movement". Here are my proposals:

7a. Special permit required / restricted access / unclear / undefined visa regime: black (on map), red (in table).

7b. Visa required: grey (on map), red (in table).

7c. Online (stite or email) visa (or online prior clearance): some other colours; I say yellow for the table, because it's the colour of the "partial" option in the Wiki table colour code. This is a higher beaurocracy level than entrance by fee or no visa required, because the travellers must do something before arrival (buy online visa or waiting for email confirmation).

7d. Entry/departure by paying a fee: some other colour (map), can be same colour in table. It's a bit higher level of bureaucracy than "visa-free", because you don't just show the passport for a stamp, there is a time of waiting, filling in the blanks on a form, paying at another desk, retrieving passport from another desk. Even if is a straighforward pay-and-go procedure, there is something extra than a free stamp.

7e Visa-free: green (map), green (table).

7f. Freedom of movement or no controls: blue might work, yes.

7g. Right of abode (Romania only): it might not be outlined. If it is outlined, well, something else. I'm open to all suggestions on each on every sub-point.

9. Agreement reached.

11. That was the reason why I consider that the other map is a downgrade: less countries. I'm ok with the absence of special territories part of countries (Aland, Tibet), but the territories not conterminous part of the metropolis should have their own territory included (Gibraltar, Falkland, Mayotte). I'm not sure about the unrecognized (or partially recognized) states. Taiwan is a aprtially recognized, technically same situation as South Korea (a Communist regime occupies part of its country, even if in the Chinese affairs, the Communists are in control of over 95% of the country, while in the Korean Peninsula, the Communist regime has about 60% of the country). But Abkhazia, Somaliland... they control a chunk of land from a recognized country and impose a different visa regime. Also, Crimea! Without trying to held the Russian part, but for a foreign traveller, entry into Crimea requires a different visa requirement than the rest of Ukraine. That is the geopolitical reality on ground, no matter what the international law says. Same for Golan Heights. What do you think?

13. Postponed.

I truly hope we'll have a good laugh one year from now :)Laurentiu Popa (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Agreed; I was thinking of maximum allowed stay as well, and I agree that it sounds like a better shorter version.

6. I also agree here; entry requirement seems more appropriate and fitting.

7. I believe that it would be best to have the EU as a single territory with no borders. This is to help the reader understand what freedom of movement is entitling Romanian citizens to.

7a. Agreed

7b. Agreed

7c. Yes, particularly, as a suggestion for the shade of yellow: #79D343 for evisa if that's fine.

7d. Yes, particularly, as a suggestion for the color: #B5E61D for visa on arrival if that's fine.

7e. Agreed

7f. Agreed

7g. If we agree on what I mentioned in "7." then there won't be an outline.

11. Oh, I see what you mean. I just compared the two side by side. But like I stated way back, we could include a map like this on the more detailed page and place a note under a simpler version on this simpler page. However, I believe sovereign states should be allocated to the world map on the basic site only. For example, Somaliland: the State of Somalia will triumph the information over to Somaliland. But this information will be clarified on the more advanced page. We can just insert notes under the world map for clarification and redirects to the other page. Anyway, there are a few things that needed to be fixed with the map I chose during the edit war. For instance, French Guiana was colored as "visa free", green, instead of "freedom of movement", blue. I will fix these issues and more with Inkscape. It's a nice program, really.

13. Agreed

Funny you say. After a year, I probably will have forgotten I even edited this page at all or had an interest...Please tell me your thoughts on especially 7,7c,7d,7g,11. Thanks! Whatshouldichoose (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Agreement reached.

6. Agreement reached.

7. I'm equally supporting both maps (EU as a single territory and each EU country outlined on its own). If you believe "EU single territory" map, I'll tag along.

7a. Agreement reached.

7b. Agreement reached.

7c. Can it be a little closer to yellow? 7d colour might work fine.

7d. The 7c coulor. A switch between them, as stated by you.

7e. Agreement reached.

7f. Agreement reached.

7g. Depending on 7. If there is no outline for Romania, 7g does not exists.

11. I agree on placing notes and adding info on the advanced page.

13. Postponed. Laurentiu Popa (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

7. I believe "EU single territory" if you don't mind. The reason for this I stated before. (It will not only look more like the others but it will help to visually convey the advantages of freedom of movement.)

7c. Agreement reached. (We will use #B5E61D(the 7d one)).

7d. Agreement reached. (We will use #79D343(the 7c one)).

7g. Agreement reached. It does not exist anymore.

11. Agreement reached.

13. Agreement reached. No action will be taken indefinitely until further discussion. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I just want to let you know to please respond when you can because until then I will not work on this page without your confirmation on the decisions we have made. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

13. This is the only issue that remains unsolved. I believe in more links, because the reader must have access to the original information, as posted online, no matter the site. Also, in some cases, sites dissapear, some are updated only once a year or even three of five. Some information is scattered around some sites. If there are only one or two left, one might be outdated in a couple of months and the other might be dead. What's your call on this?

Sorry for a late answer, I've been busy the past couple of days.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe we should have multiple references as you said for each piece of important information. Three is optimal and should be enough since we can't help the quality of other websites. However, as we agreed before, we should leave this for the end, after the page has been fully integrated. We can resume conversation then. It is no problem. I understand. I am quite busy as well. Anyway, just to confirm, I will start working on the website without further ado. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, and to make sure our ideas are the same after all this, what is our first step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what will be the first step, the result is all that matters.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Centering

For many of the table columns, centering their text is unnecessary and leads to strange and misleading effects. Please change this to the normal left justified. BushelCandle (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Implementation of discussed revisions

I have completed all the necessary changes Laurentiu_Popa suggested. The aforementioned changes were properly attributed to discussion after an unfortunate edit war occurred. All conflict is resolved now. Laurentiu_Popa, is this what you were expecting it to look like? I am sorry for not being able to add another Wikipedia page with more detailed information. So, I just included it as a new title at the bottom. I hope you are fine with this. If you have any further suggestions, comments, or complaints, please feel free to message me; kindly below this line. Thank you in advance! Whatshouldichoose (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this page is much better at a "peace edit", rather than a really unfortunate edit war. We have reached a consensus, as follows:

1. "Length of stay permitted" is changed into "Allowed stay".

2. Use of ID as a travel document (where available) is indicated in the "Notes" column.

3. The format of this page can be considered a test. It will be presented as a new WikiProject. If it is a success, with further improvements done as a WikiProject, this format will be used for all "Visa requirements for X citinzens" pages.

4. Territories, special territories, dependencies and unrecognized states and all other forms of administration that are not internationally recognized as independent states have their own separate section.

5. Fees are placed in the "Notes" column.

6. Columns for the countries' section:

6a1. Country;

6b1. Visa requirement;

6c1. Maximum stay;

6d1. Notes.

Columns for the territories's section:

6a2. Territory;

6b2. Entry requirement;

6c2. Maximum stay;

6d2. Notes.

7. Colours used in the table and on the map:

7a. Special permit required / restricted access / unclear / undefined visa regime: black (on map), red (in table);

7b. Visa required: grey (on map), red (in table);

7c. Online visa (bought on a website or prior clearance on email): #B5E61D;

7d. Entry/departure by paying a fee: #79D343;

7e. Visa-free: green;

7f. Freedom of movement or no controls: sky blue.

7g. Right of abode: the EU will have a single territory on the map, not splitted in member states, therefore Romania will not be outlined on the map. In table, Romania (if mentioned) will be have the "Freedom of movement" coulour (sky blue).

8. The countries will be classified by alphabetical order, not by continents. A new page will be created and all the detailed and more information for advanced readers will be placed there. That page can have the information classified by continents.

9. Other sections: Non-ordinary passports, Passport validity, Vaccination, Fingerprinting, Israel stamps issue, Azerbaijan entrance issue. Statistics are included in the more detailed page.

10. Detailed maps for each continent will be included in the more detailed page for advanced readers.

11. World map will be redrawn so all the internationally recognized independent states will be noted (even small island nations).

12. The passport and the ID card specimens are shown up above the page.

13. Each country/territory will have links leading to the original information.

Any other fresh ideas will not be disregarded. Laurentiu Popa (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've just noticed this entire discussion sub-section.

The reason that I've just noticed it is that you, Whatshouldichoose, started it in the wrong place (at the top instead of at the bottom of this page)!

If you go away and read carefully Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, you'll read at WP:TALKNEW the following:

*Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page.

And, no, it's absolutely NOT fine with adding your experimental stuff, in duplicate, at the bottom! "...sorry for not being able to add another Wikipedia page with more detailed information. So, I just included it as a new title at the bottom. I hope you are fine with this."

You have your own sandpit now at User:Whatshouldichoose/Visa requirements for Romanian citizens where you can play around at your heart's content and demonstrate what it is you think this article should look like. BushelCandle (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle Just a little something, I know Wikipedia states that but darn that's stupid! New/recent stuff should be placed at the top not at the bottom! But I see where you're coming from too. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think that our policies at the English Wikipedia are stupid, you can lobby to change them or start your own English language Encyclopedia; you should not continue to flout them. BushelCandle (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just removed entire duplicate sections

This edit of mine removed entire duplicate sections without prejudice to some of the material that I deleted that was included within the duplicate sections further down the article actually being individually unique and useful and worthy of inclusion or amending earlier sections with identical section titles. BushelCandle (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now discovered that this edit from two days ago bloated our article by several thousand bytes and duplicated entire sections.

Whatshouldichoose and others: I have created a sandbox of our article at User:Whatshouldichoose/Visa requirements for Romanian citizens and would encourage further experimentation to take place there rather than in mainspace... BushelCandle (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but your edit is disgraceful to this article. The thing at the bottom which you called a duplicate was meant to be like another article describing the visa requirements more in depth. People could refer to that section if they wanted more advanced information or the top part if they wanted basic information. Please respond; for now I will have to undo but please don't start an edit war until you read and respond to my word. Thank you!

Reference to BushelCandle Whatshouldichoose (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss to understand what NEW information you added. You've just duplicated existing content - even down to using the same section headings.

Now please go to User:Whatshouldichoose/Visa requirements for Romanian citizens and demonstrate what it is you think this article should look like and come back and tell us when you've finished. BushelCandle (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, hello, BushelCandle, the repetitive part after the advanced visa requirements is meant to be a new page! For now, I will leave it here, but as soon as I can, I will move it to a new page to avoid the duplicate. Please review the talks I have been having with Laurentiu_Popa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No, your duplicate and bloating text will NOT be parked here. I have removed it again, Whatshouldichoose.

Please do NOT continue to experiment here at this live article in article main space. You have your own sandpit now at User:Whatshouldichoose/Visa requirements for Romanian citizens where you can play around at your heart's content and demonstrate what it is you think this article should look like. Any more nonsensical reverts or experimentation at this article will probably result in sanctions being applied to your account, Whatshouldichoose. You will not get a further warning from me before I take appropriate action in the event you ignore this last warning. BushelCandle (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me! Am I being threatened?! Yes! YOU are the one who should be reported. I will move all the duplicate text to a new page that I am creating. What do you mean? I only reverted once! Get your facts straight before you bloat this nonsense. Wikipedia is a SHARED encyclopedia. It is not simply reserved just for you. BushelCandle Whatshouldichoose (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does our article need TWO "Visa requirements" sections and maps ?

Why does our article need TWO "Visa requirements" sections and maps:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Romanian_citizens&oldid=708664857#Visa_requirements_map
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Romanian_citizens&oldid=708664857#Visa_requirements_map_2

?

Is this the result of previous edit warring and an overly complex article structure or genuinely informative and vitally necessary? BushelCandle (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't. This "article" is a nightmare and should be dynamited.  — Scott • talk 13:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Visa requirements for Romanian citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426085021/http://as.and.nic.in/TourismAND/TCorner/ForeignersNew.htm to http://as.and.nic.in/TourismAND/TCorner/ForeignersNew.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031132558/http://environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/ashmore/activities.html to http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/ashmore/activities.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150914194731/http://www.americansamoa.travel/travel--transportation to http://www.americansamoa.travel/travel--transportation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017211743/http://www.fws.gov/bakerisland/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/bakerisland/visit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017212340/http://www.fws.gov/howlandisland/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/howlandisland/visit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607120346/http://www.fws.gov/johnstonisland/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/johnstonisland/visit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131017212056/http://www.fws.gov/kingmanreef/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/kingmanreef/visit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140128062001/http://www.fws.gov/midway/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/midway/visit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130522074332/http://www.fws.gov:80/palmyraatoll/visit.html to http://www.fws.gov/palmyraatoll/visit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)