Talk:Non-visa travel restrictions

Labeled section transclusion

Since there seemed to be no objection in the deletion discussion to LST-ifying this template, I went ahead and did so. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, CapitalSasha; this seems to be working well...--BushelCandle 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is "Labeled section transclusion" a more helpful section title?

(Later) I understand that it's very poor etiquette to edit another's words without permission but please understand that the talk page of an article is intended to be read by (and be useful for) all readers and editors. Most non-Wikipedians will find the original title (of WP:LST-ification) somewhat opaque, so please consider reverting this finicky revert you made, Pppery.--BushelCandle 16:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And there's even a link to what LST is in the section header to preemptively solve such confusion. Talk pages are not meant to be primarily for readers, and thus do not need to have non-jargony section headers. No, I am not going self-revert here. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments had this advice:

"Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc."

so I'm rather shocked (as the original author of the article) that you reverted what I genuinely thought was my helpful and polite edit when I (belatedly) thanked CapitalSasha for his elegant and effective solution: Labelled section transclusion rather than my original idea of employing a template. --BushelCandle 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the section title to the less jargony alternative which I hope will resolve this. :) CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fingerprinting

I'm not sold that the fingerprinting section belongs in this article. Do we have reliable sources that say this is actually something that poses a restriction on people's travel? Otherwise I'm not sure how it is different from the usual customs interview, or even from rules in places like Russia or China that require foreigners to register with the police. This article is about which people are allowed to go to which countries -- not about everything that they may be subjected to as part of a border inspection. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I originally thought the same way as you, and only really included it in my original template because I was looking for a way to reduce the tedium of continually updating very similar text and citations in more than 200 similarly formatted articles but still keep them current.

However, it is an impediment for some people that have extreme concerns about privacy and surveillance - albeit somewhat of a restriction that is rather voluntary (a bit like a criminal record in that often one has a choice whether to commit a crime or not)... --BushelCandle 23:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation

User:Reywas92: Thanks for helping to improve our article.

I see from the short biography on your user page that you are both a native speaker of American English (this article is not written in American English) and a member of the Guild of Copyeditors with an interest in punctuation. I've learnt so much from reading and editing Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if I could trouble you to tell me some pointers to where (perhaps in the WP:MoS) I can understand your recent removal of colons introducing a list of countries in prose? --BushelCandle 07:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: I hope you don't mind me replying to this. Check rule 2. No colon is necessary because it forms part of prose. If the word 'including' were omitted, it would necessitate a colon. st170e 10:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind! One of the most exhilarating and helpful things about this project is the sheer helpfulness and knowledge of (many of) its contributors.

Reading your reference, it's obvious that you both you and User:Reywas92 are spot on in interpreting "rule 2". That rule also conforms precisely with our own MoS examples at MOS:COLONS. However, I'm wondering if the rule is rather different (or less vigorously enforced) in non-US flavours of English. Certainly I would leave it out in

"Countries requiring passports valid for at least 4 months on arrival include Micronesia and Zambia." but the sheer length (of what is, technically) one enormous sentence makes me hesitate not to put an introductory colon in the much longer sentence:

"... countries requiring passports to be valid at least 6 months on arrival include Afghanistan, Algeria, Anguilla, Bahrain, Bhutan, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Curaçao, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq (except when arriving at Basra and Erbil or Sulaimaniyah), Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe."

Although my very first language was not English, at the age of 5, I did switch definitively to the non-US varieties of English and, while I can't point to any contrary (non-US variety of English) rule, it just seems jarring without one in such a very long list. Never mind, I need to follow our MoS in this and everything else...

The leading advice in our MoS is "A colon (:) introduces ... a list of items that has just been introduced. The items in such a list may be separated by commas; or, if they are more complex and perhaps themselves contain commas, the items should be separated by semicolons..." --BushelCandle 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A colon isn't required nonetheless. A semicolon is only required if it's a long, complex list where each item is long (ie a list of rules, or in legislation).

You could rephrase it to something like "The following countries require passports valid for 6 months on arrival:"

That is a situation where a colon would be required, but because 'including' joins the two clauses together in this case, a colon isn't required. st170e 12:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Thank you one and all! --BushelCandle 13:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:St170e! That would be the right explanation, and it doesn't change for national variants. You could also use a colon if it were "Countries that require...are/include:

• Afghanistan
• Algeria
• Anguilla"

But when it reads smoothly as a single sentence clause (often when there is an "and" at the end of the list) it is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Passport ranking

A similar template should be created for quicker updates to passport rankings. So for example the template should be a table including country codes, ranking and the number of visa-free destinations so that we can in articles have something like "As of {{Passport Index|date}}, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to {{Passport Index|number=SG}} countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport {{Passport Index|ranking=SG}} in terms of travel freedom according to the Henley Passport Index." to get "As of 10 July 2018, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport 1st in terms of travel freedom according to the Henley Passport Index.". We could even make it entirely automated so articles could just have a {{Passport Index|SG}} for "As of 10 July 2018, Singaporean citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 189 countries and territories, ranking the Singaporean passport 1st in terms of travel freedom according to the Henley Passport Index." as it would eliminate the need to update the reference link as well. Can anyone create the template?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As the creator of the original template (that was subsequently transformed into this article so that it could be subsequently LSTified) I'm obviously in favour of Twofortnights' idea,

Anything that

a) lightens the tedious and constant workload of updating more than 220 articles

b) consequently keeps them up-to-date

is to be welcomed...--BushelCandle 20:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Links

I agree with the edits of Twofortnights in linking all country names in a list if we are going to link some of them. In a long list, a reader would expect consistency in this regard, and moreover, if they are clicking on some of the links to compare different countries, they may want easy access to even the more well-known countries. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the advice at MOS:OVERLINK ???

If so, what do you think is wrong with the rationale expounded there, Twofortnights and CapitalSasha ? Exactly why do you think that you are entitled to disregard generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow?

I have would have less problem with useful piped links such as <code>[[Visa policy of Japan|Japan]]</code>, but how is a simple link to a well known country article anything other than a low value distraction leading to a 'sea of blue' ?

--BushelCandle 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not something I feel strongly about but MOS:LINK doesn't address the specific case of links in lists of items, which I think makes it a somewhat different case. It's one thing to not link a single country in prose if it is likely to be well-known to readers of the article. It's a different matter to have a long list of countries and explicitly divide them into "well-known" and "less-well-known" categories. Making that distinction seems jarring in my opinion, and as I said I'm not sure that the MOS takes precedence because it doesn't consider the circumstance of a long prose list. CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iris image

Only ONE country, the UAE, requires an iris scan, and only for those who need a visa. Yet this article is transcluded to hundreds of countries' articles. No not everything here applies to all of them, but this image is not necessary at all. Moreover it's just a generic image of an eye and does not specifically illustrate iris scanning or what people would need to know about entry to countries; Iris recognition is already linked. If anything, a picture of a fingerprint like File:Fingerprint detail on male finger in Třebíč, Třebíč District.jpg would be more applicable! It also runs over the section and pushes boxes in the following section in a transcluded article down, like at Visa_requirements_for_Albanian_citizens#Fingerprinting (and most other pages, depending on screen size). This image should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Relative image sizing means that the majority of readers (all those readers who have not logged on or logged on users that have not changed their image size from the default setting) will not experience the problem with the Albania article you complain of. So that we can understand what you are seeing, could you post a screenshot of the problematic view you are experiencing?

However, I have done two things which should ameliorate things for you: I've reduced the image size by 30% and added additional relevant text. --BushelCandle 23:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the image is not needed. Readers of visa restrictions do not need to see a picture of an eye that is only related to one country. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily weaken your argument much but, as a matter of fact, it is not just the UAE that uses iris scanning at border entry (and exit).

On a broader point, it is not compulsory to transclude this article into "Visa requirements for blahblahtistan citizen" articles. If you feel strongly about the Albania article and are willing to perform the necessary individual updates and maintenance you could not include the "Fingerprinting" section at all. See Help:Labeled section transclusion for the syntax to exclude particular sections from being included in an individual article. --BushelCandle 02:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol that's only available for Qatari residents and has literally nothing to do with visa requirements for anyone, the idea this image is needed or useful is absurd. It's not just Albania, a huge portion of countries have boxes to portals in the see also section that can be pushed down by this. Reywas92^Talk 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To make progress it would be helpful if you addressed the specific points I've raised:

1) I really can not see why it is important or relevant (either aesthetically or semantically) if 'boxes to portals in the "see also" section are pushed down'. Please post a screenshot of this catastrophic effect to help me understand the alleged problem here.

2) If this really is such a huge deal in some articles, why can you not exclude the specific transcluded sub-section containing the (objectionable) image using the relevant mark-up code and then add (or not, as you think best) your own customised section? --BushelCandle 05:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what it looks like extending into the next section, not as bad with the additional text. But my god that's just a minor secondary comment! Readers know what eyes look like – they do not need a picture of an eye to understand the linked concept, which only applies to certain people going to just one country. I do not need to remove this whole section from 100+ countries' articles, just the pointless picture. Comment requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to put in File:161129-Dulles-OFO-Ops-GF-129 (31197598472).jpg, which actually depicts the non-visa travel restriction of biometric collection and which applies to many more countries. Reywas92^Talk 06:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know some sections can be excluded from this article when invoked in other articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Armenian ethnicity restrictions

Back in 2017, when I created the series of templates that developed into this article it was with a view to making maintenance of up-to-date information by our editors easier and our visa articles more consistent and up to date.

Because all (or relevant) sections of this article are now transcluded into more than 200 separate articles, it is important that edits are made carefully and judiciously.

With regards to non-Visa travel restrictions consequent on travellers being perceived as having Armenian ethnicity (despite not travelling on an Armenian passport) this is slightly different to the problems faced by travellers to some Muslim countries when having evidence of travel to Israel in their passport. Passports can be changed but it is very difficult to change your perceived ethnicity (as, perhaps, evidenced by a characteristically Armenian name ending) !

Unfortunately hatred of particular nationalities and ethnicities is common in the world and did not end with the Nazis, but Azerbaijan seems to be almost unique in current blatant border discrimination according to a particular (Armenian) ethnic origin: [1]

However, if and when it is only holders of Armenian passports - rather than passport holders of ALL nationalities with perceived Armenian ethnicity - that face difficulties entering Azerbaijan, this specific sub-section should be removed from general transclusion.

Until then, no editor should be changing the sub-section title without very reliable sourcing that this ethnic discrimination by Azeris has ended. --BushelCandle 06:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems this subsection title has been recently changed. Just to clarify for those who are not familiar, Azerbaijan will systematically deny entry to persons of Armenian heritage, even if they are not Armenian citizens. This is a common issue for American or Russian citizens of Armenian descent as well as ethnically Armenian citizens of other countries. People will be denied entry without having visited Nagorno Karabakh at all, only because they appear to be of Armenian heritage. 2001:4450:81B5:DF00:7969:5BD6:B7F7:BCE (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed this issue now. It seems the person who removed the subsection title username "Randam", takes a keen interest in various articles relating to Turkey and may have a biased viewpoint. 2001:4450:81B5:DF00:7969:5BD6:B7F7:BCE (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)