Talk:Visa policy of the Schengen Area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject European Union (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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

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)

Non-Schengen EU member states[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Suggestions[edit]

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)