Talk:Travel visa/Archive 1

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

British Visa

"As of August 2010, the Henley Visa Restriction Index ranks the United Kingdom Passport as the passport with the most Visa Exemptions by other nations totalling 166, allowing holders of a British Passport to take part in the most visa-free travel globally."

Probably time to update this. People using passports from Denmark, Sweden or Finland can travel to 173 countries. (as of August 2011 according to Henley Visa Restriction Index) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.127.233 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mercosur" missing in this article

some south american countries which belong to the Mercosur group are allowed to enter member countries without a visa. Please include this in this article. thank you. 93.34.52.4 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the full form of VISA

East Africa Visa

"East African Single Tourist Visa may be ready for November 2006", pretty outdated. any news regarding this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.167.215 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

External Link advertising?

It appears that the link to myrussianfiance.com is in essence advertising, as it does not contribute signifigant useful knowledge. I would suggest that this link be removed. --Heh3d 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this article be moved to Visa, and Visa be moved to Visa (disambiguation)?

The Visa credit card is a fairly major use of the name too... Jpatokal 04:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Kuwait does issue tourist visas, to citizens of certain countries, on arrival at Kuwait International Airport. Benblaney

Which Visas can you work with?

Is it only when you have a tourist visa that you are forbidden to work? Can you work with an immigrant's visa? Through what Visas are you allowed to own property and/or live in property in the foreign country?

Thanks, Sogni

That depends on the country, obviously, as different countries have different visa laws. In the US, anyone can own property, but to live and work in the US one needs to have both a visa that permits work (A,E,F,G,H,I,J,L,O,P,Q,R or any resident visa) AND a work permit. In Colombia, you can live indefinitely with a "pensioner's visa" if you have non-work income of $1500USD/mo or more. The most common work visas in the US are the E, H, and L. Hwonder talk contribs 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Visa prolongation

Agree we need a section but is needs to be better written then that suggested. Text below for when I have time to look at this.

Prolonging of tourist visa

Visa Run example

Among long staying tourists (de facto expatriates) do a Visa Run just before the visa expires. Reasons for Visa Runs include no issuing of other visa types to this persons or no possibility for a prolonged visa. A Visa Run is simply done by departing the country (mostly by bus) and return after a very short time (hours or days) to the same country to get another two or three months visa as a tourist. This is common especially in Southeast Asia (Thailand-Malaysia-Thailand being famous for that).

Spartaz 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Visa-free entry stamps

Visas for Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka

Aren't those stamps in the photos from Thailand and Sri Lanka just entry stamps for visa-free travel and not actual visas? FlyerBoy

Yes, I have removed them to the talk page in case anyone can do anything with the image or cares to upload sonme better examples of visas as stamps. --Spartaz 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
...where's the article concerning entry stamps for visa-free travel? - I think, this pic should be implemented again but with another caption, OK Scriberius 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed some country specific external links becausw I think the links on this article should cover more then one country.--Spartaz 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been very pleased with the site I have added to the external links section, http://www.visahq.com is a reliable source for information on visas and US passports. I have used their site to plan a few of my trips and haven't been disappointed yet. --Kbondar 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kbondar. The problem with that link is that a) its a commerical site so linking it could appear advertising and b) It doesn't really add much to the other links that are both comprehensive and much less commercial. I have reverted you but I'd be happy to discuss further. --Spartaz 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, however after reviewing one of the links that is already posted in the article, I found the [removed blacklisted spam site] very disorganized and poorly built. Quoting directly from the site: "Pretty much all countries require a visa, except nationals from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Democratic Republic Sahraoui, Seychelles, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen." Unclear language and poor use of grammar, its just not a site I would trust to tell me whether I will lose $5,000+ in tickets when I get stuck on a border of a country without a visa or not. Also, quoting the External Link policy of Wikipedia, under Links to avoid: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." seeing how there is google ads and other ads on that site makes it fall in that category. It is unfortunate that http://www.visahq.com is removed, also both sites that are attached to the article are lacking specific visa requirements for each different citizen, while there is a commercial aspect to the site the general information I have described, even the application forms are free and accessible to the general public which meets the criteria of "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" also stated by the External Link policy of Wikipedia. Thank you, and I am trully sorry that you have made your decision as such. --Kbondar 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A quick trawl through visaHQ suggests that a lot of the visa information is US specific - the entry on the UK for example just says that US citizens don't need a UK visa. True but somewhat excluding for the citizens of a hundred odd other countries that do require a UK visa. The layout is clearly designed to entice visitors to use the company to get a visa and as such a wikipedia entry will be free advertising for them. Project visa is reasonably well laid out - countries are grouped by region and you get a map to click on that has relatively comprehensive information (though, like all things, its a bit incomplete). There are far too many google ads for my taste but they are not company specific and the site will not be benefiting from free wikipedia advertising. Just so you know, its not my decision. We make decisions based on consensus and no doubt other editots who have this article watchlisted will drive by and offer their 0.02 of whatever their local currency of choice is. --Spartaz 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Spartaz the visahq.com is a commercial site. I am also inclined to agree with Kbondar that [removed blacklisted spam site] is not a great site. The remaining link seems sufficient, and remember, articles are just fine with no external links, so if there's something I'm missing about the remaining one, feel free to delete it too! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Cents eh? Anyway, I removed [removed blacklisted spam site] as well per suggestion. Spartaz 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one irked by a link to a site which is somewhat incomplete with information is removed but a link with information purely for United States citizens remains? I have to say visahq is almost useless for non-americans. Perhaps Wikipedia should be purely for Americans? Where do I get my green card to use wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.116.141 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

What are you talking about? VisaHQ.com is the ONLY complete source for ALL nations around the world. Just open your eyes and select ANY nation from drop-down menu. Cheers...

The very first thing I checked on VisaHQ.com was incorrect. It says that South Africans entering the UK require tourist visas. I don't think they have EVER required visas. According to the British High Commission in South Africa: "South African passport holders going to the UK as visitors for less than 6 months do not need visas." (http://www.britishhighcommission.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1024659591624). This link is not only commercial, but unreliable and rubbish too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.80.82 (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


IATA maintains a database from any country, to any country. Unfortunately, it is subscription only. Delta and Continental both make the information freely available on their websites here and here. I think that's about as good as we're going to get to still get the information and to keep it low on spam/commercial. Yes, both of these sites are commercial in nature, but they're not selling visa services. I've added only Continental's to the article because it offers more information and is easier to use. Hwonder talk contribs 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Does this link: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~e116443/visa.htm belong in the External Links section of the article? Its veracity aside, it seems to be more than a little biased...24.115.197.155 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No - its been removed a million times already. I'll take it down. It also requires TK language support to access so its defn a no no. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That same link keeps popping back up time and time again...can't you keep whoever it is off this page?

Only by protecting the page and that would prevent other anon editors contributing. I'll just keep an eye on it and remove it as I see it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Travel requirements" external link is primarily about entry requirements according to the linked webpage. Is there a link that has information beyond entry requirements? --Jagz 23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The website [removed blacklisted spam site] contains a certain amount of information about visa requirements and types. Some of its entry requirements data is not very good, but its the best I can find. The link seems to have been removed during some spam war/links. I will re-add it to external links. If you have a better link please discuss it here. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanebb (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I have also changed the link to the "travel requirements" to a non https site. Https gives me trouble from some locations I travel to. It is exactly the same information just a different site. Shanebb 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

this text from the article:

"Entering a country without a valid visa or visa exemption may result in detention and removal (deportation or exclusion) from the country. Undertaking activities that are not authorized by the status of entry (for example, working while possessing a non-worker tourist status) can result in the individual being deemed removable, in common speech an illegal alien. Such violation is not a violation of a visa, however despite the common misuse of the phrase, but a violation of status hence the term "out of status.""

Is this correct? what is it based on?

It's semantically correct hair-splitting. You can't violate a piece of paper, you can only violate the conditions of your stay granted on entry. Jpatokal 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected

Article semi-protected for a week to counter persistent linkspam by anon-ip. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ProjectVisa Link

Sorry to bring this up again but why exactly are we including this link? I have been reverting it as linkspam for months and this isn't just because the visa information is hopelessly inaccurate and incomplete. The Delta link is up-to-date, comprehensive and accurate because its the same information as in TIM and TIMATIC - which is used by the airline industry as their reference on visa regulations. I'm loath to include an incomplete and inaccurate resource against this. If its Embassy information, I'm sure we should be able to find another link but I'd like to understand exactly what it is we are asking from the link before I look into this. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this policy be followed Wikipedia:External links. --Jagz 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your answer is delphic to the point of making no sense to me. Would you mind amplifying your comment a bit? EL is a guideline not a policy. I'm well aware that the bar for external links is lower then for reliable sources but I'm concerned that this resource is inaccurate. So please help me (and our readers) by helping me understand why we have the link. It may be possible to find one that does the same but doesn't have the same problems. Its also a link farm with no apparent editorial policy and this seems counter to EL links to be avoided 2 & 10.
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
Your own edits suggest the link is disparaged. Sorry if I sound tetchy but I'm trying to understand why we have the link and your response wasn't helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I was adding the Project Visa link into the article for awhile but have not in quite some time. I don't care if the link is there or not. Recently, when I have seen the link in the article, I was adding a quote from the disclaimer on their website but since then, the website has modified the wording of their disclaimer, possibly as a result of my doing this. I have added information about the disclaimers of both external links to the article and suggest that they remain in the article. We don't want anyone to get bad travel "information and now they'll know not to trust the information 100%. --Jagz 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I remove it again. I randomly checked Iceland, Russian Federation and India against the travel information manual for September issued by IATA and they were incorrect. The resource already present is satisfactory and accurate. This link is not in accordance with EL links to be avoided 2 because its inaccurate and adding a disclaimer does not obviate the fact that the link is to a site with inaccurate information. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
EL links to be avoided states, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material". You have not provided any information that Project Visa used factually inaccurate material, just that some of the requirements have changed and the material has not been updated recently. Do you have examples that information on that website was always factually inaccurate? You also compared the Project Visa information to IATA and not the information from the source, meaning the embassy or consulate. --Jagz 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.

You need the projectvisa link because the IATA link only has airport requirements. Crossing using a land border has different requirements. Take a look at Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Egypt as an example. Secondly the IATA information is not kept up to date the airlines err on the side of caution. Perhaps you should remove the IATA link because its information is bad? the IATA is the representative of the airlines which make it part of multi-billion dollar industry. So go figure. Only 90 percent of airlines are members of the IATA, and a LOT less bother with TIMATIC. I agree that the projectvisa site has some bad information but it is thebest I can find. I have tried updating information on wikipedia and I get "please cite source". Yeah OK, my source was the border guard. Does that count? of course not.

the projectvisa site looks factually acurate to me, it links to the official source when it exists. I can't find a better source for land border crossings or a a site which oultines all the pathetic nonsense you have to deal with at borders with guards who suddenly demands $100 and sticks a gun in your face.

neither site does a complete job,and I don't think anyone ever will. I will change the links. What is this nonsense about a disclaimer? Perhaps wikipedie needs a disclaimer? I read it on the internet it must be true.

I thinkyou guys are comparing apples to oranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.43.210 (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a bad site is worse than adding no site. The bottom line on this site is that its widely inaccurate in many places, you can add Chad and Central African Republic to the not correct entries about and I can't be bothered to look any further. Yes I was referring to TIM to check this but the individual country entries are maintained by the relevant immigration service - for example the UK entry is written by UK Immigration. It is therefore comprehensive and does (for example in some non UK transit sections) deal with persons travelling by land. If the individual immigration authorities are sending TIM incomplete information, you won't find a reliable external source anyway. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and we don't need this link - especially as it isn't inaccordance with the guideline. Its gone again. Please seek consensus (which includes reference to policy) before readding it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Project Visa should be included in the External links along with a link to the website's disclaimer like I had it a few days ago.[removed blacklisted spam site] People can decide for themselves whether to trust the information on the site. I think there should be more than one link. Let's stop policing the links. --Jagz 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I started this discussion genuinely seeking to understand what it was that this link added over the other link and no-one has really addressed this satisfactorily. You said yourself that WP:EL applied. Well, I looked at that as requested, and this link clearly fails #2 of links to be avoided. We wouldn't put up a link to a bio that contained information that we knew to be wrong so why the attachment to this link? Please, I do want to understand why you are so keen to include it and so far, all I can really work out is that someone thinks TIM doesn't cover land borders (well I covered that partially), that people should be presented incorrect information but can make their own mind up about it (well that doesn't wash). Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is some of the information on Project Visa out of date or is was it false from the beginning? I can see how their information might get outdated since it appears that they only have volunteers maintaining the website and there are a lot of countries. I also see where they have updated information recently so it appears that they are maintaining the website. I also see that for each country they have included the date that they last updated that country's information. If someone sees that they have not updated a country's information in a long time, they will know to be especially wary of the information presented. I think Project Visa may include useful information not available on the Delta site. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that have outdated information but I don't think we should keep people from reading those articles; that would be a form of censorship. --Jagz 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think comments like "Adding a bad site is worse than adding no site" is a bit like saying "Adding a bad page to Wikipedia is worse than having no page". If "Wikipedia is not a travel guide and we don't need this link" then perhaps both sites should be deleted? I agree projectvisa could be better but it is the best that I can find and is a useful site for what I need it for. And Spartaz, if you have found data that you know to be incorrect you should cite your source, other than TIMATIC. Looks as though one of the sites is wrong with their information on Somalia, which is it? I don't trust either of them. Also Spartaz while the UK section of timatic is most likely correct and comprehensive perhaps you could check the 200 or so other countries? I personally have been denied boarding an aircraft as the timatic data has been incorrect, being stranded for a week in a shithole of place while begging timatic to update its data is not a pleasurable experience.

If I can prove that some information on timatic is wrong, should I then remove the timatic link. I can do this no problem. I have to agree with Jagz, a disclaimer of some sort needs to be added as some people are a little to trusting of wikipedia (and the internet). Shanebb 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And Spartaz: I'm sorry I am not a huge wikipedia editor so I don't really know how to follow the rules and I freely admit I don't know them, but I am willing to learn. You said; "Well, I looked at that as requested, and this link clearly fails #2 of links to be avoided." this refers to this? yes?; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources I don't really see which section of this you might be referring to. Please would you be so kind as to educate me in what exactly I should be reading here? Thanks for any help or pointers on where to start. I would really like to try and help wikipedia but I feel as though a lot of editors tend to leave rather ridiculous comments in the edit tags which mean nothing and leave me (and I imagine countless others) at an end. I thought the point of wikipedia was to collaborate so we can all move forward together. Shanebb 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what you want Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. This is an external link not a source. I'll comment on the rest later when I have time to look through it properly (I have real life tonight). Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I'm referring to TIM not TIMATIC and since its a) produced by IATA, b) used universally by the airline industry & immigration authorities as a guide to immigration regulations and c) in many cases maintained by the relevant immigration authority, it is a reliable source to check the veracity of project visa. You won't find a better place to look this up. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good Spartaz, thank you. "in many cases maintained by the relevant immigration authority, it is a reliable source to check the veracity of project visa." I doubt that the immigration authorities contribute as much as you may be led to believe.

The immigration authorities use TIM as as a guide to their own regulations? I think you should read what you type. I will stay polite.

And saying that it is the place to check projectvisa is like when I phone an embassy for information and they tell me to refer to the guidebook for the country, the very guidebook I wrote. If I write the wrong information in my guidebook does it mean that it's correct? I don't think so. Shanebb 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From looking through all the rules and regulations about wikipedia I have managed to find the following; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered in case number 4: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. I think projectvisa contains information from knowledgeable sources. Does someone wish to say that information from people who have traveled to a place firsthand are not knowledgeable? Or a site which cites its sources as the official immigrations sites (where possible) is not reliable?

From looking through the wikipedia guidelines (sorry I'm a bit of a noob at this) it would appear that quite a few wikipedia articles refer to projectvisa in respect to visa/entry information. It seems somewhat ironic that on one hand a site can be considered as a reliable site for some articles yet when it comes to an external link it is considered unreliable. While in links to be avoided http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided I fail to find anything under which projectvisa would be relevant that would make it worthy of being avoided.

I can fully understand Spartaz's concern but the belief that we all travel across borders by airlines which are IATA airlines comes across as being somewhat elitist. I fully believe and expect wikipedia to be as open as much as possible and in the case of visa information I would really love to see a full and complete site which can be linked to which provides me with the information I need. If useful information is available I would like to see it and expect wikipedia to assist all people with all information. Enough of my rambling, http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIV4KLCmJ98 this explains how I see some wikipedia editors. Shanebb 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb, I'm not sure if what you write accurately expresses what you meant because I'm reading it and seeing a suggestion that I was not telling the truth. I'm offended.
I suggest that you consider that other editors may actually know what they are talking about before you accuse them of lying. I know that immigration officals use TIM because I am one and I use it (3 times today for the record). I know that in many cases immigration authorities maintain their entries in TIM because the editor of TIM (a very nice man who lives in Holland by the way) regularly writes to them to clarify them and because I actually know the person from UK Immigration who maintains the entry for the UK.
There probably is a risk that TIMATIC is airline centric (its a cut down version of TIM for the airline industry after all) and that some information may be out of date but, as TIM is reissued every month to keep it current, I'd say that the risk is significantly less then that posed by linking to a site that we know for a fact is incorrect in 5 of the first 15 entries that I checked against TIM. We have a clear policy of not linking to external sites that contain misleading information and adding a link with a disclaimer that effectively says actually the contents of this site may actually be total bollocks is not only lame but embarressingly unencyclopedic.
This is a project to build an on-line encyclopedia not a travel guide and we do not need to add a link that we cannot trust to be correct. I'm sure there is very good and useful information from that site but its original research in many cases, wrong in others, and alternative links (like the actual government sites) exist for the information that may be correct. It has 23 links from wikipedia and only two or three of them are from actual articles rather then the associated talk pages. Its being used on this article as a source but as it clearly isn't a reliable source I'm going to find a better one and replace it. Aside from that, its quite correct that we do get rid of bad articles (see CAT:CSD and WP:AFD if you don't believe me) rather then tolerate defective, rubbish or inaccurate articles on our servers.
That's not to say that you do not have some valid points so I'm going to sleep on this and revisit this in the morning when I'm less tired and less grouchy. I couldn't however leave uncorrected the suggestion that I had not been truthful in my posts from earlier this evening. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article about resolving disputes Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and this one is about informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --Jagz 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb, I don't get the Knights of Ni link - is there a point to it? If you don't understand some of the comments here or think they aren't useful in moving us towards a better article it would be more helpful if you could be specific. Otherwise someone might think you were just being generally insulting about editors who don't agree with you.
On the projectvisa link - I understand a desire to have a site that covers all points of entry, and if there is a reliable site that does that, linking to it instead of the delta link would be good. However, knowledgeable sources does not generally extend to first hand accounts and opinions by non-experts, especially when fact checking is lacking. So it doesn't clearly fall within the section you linked pointed to above. If the projectvisa site being considered a reliable source for visa requirements on other pages that would seem to be something that needs considering on those pages, not a reason for including it in the external links section here. In general no information is better than unreliable information and I tend to think given Spartaz's fact checking and the lack of provenance for the data on the projectvisa link that we shouldn't be including it. -- SiobhanHansa 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information, and thus don't think it's appropriate to link to. However, objecting to "first hand accounts and opinions by non-experts, especially when fact checking is lacking" in principle is not sensible either — that's a pretty good description of much of Wikipedia (or any other wiki site). Jpatokal 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be common on Wikipedia, but it's not generally in keeping with our policies or guidelines. Although we're a wiki we're also an encyclopedia. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable core policy, and it states that we should represent the significant views of experts and concerned parties that are published in reliable sources. And in most cases non-fact checked first hand accounts and opinions are not reliable sources of factual information. -- SiobhanHansa 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal you state, "I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information" please would you be so kind as to show one site which claims to maintain visa information? I can find visaforu.com which seems to have no information but links of some sort mainly to travel websites. and visahq.com which seems to have an agenda of selling visas. If you check its data for Nepal its states you need a visa, but of course fails to state that one can be had on entry.

Please just one site which maintains visa information in the vast slew.

Spartaz's fact checking doesn't seem to go beyond timatic or a source which appears to be hidden behind a curtain from the rest of us. So to check the validity is near impossible.

I restore links for both sites as they are both useful to a point.Shanebb 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb - you really don't have a consensus on this page to restore the projectvisa link. -- SiobhanHansa 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Shanebb - Timatic stands out from the rest because even if it were inaccurate (which has never happened to me, and I fly a lot), airlines that use it (which is almost all) will not let you on the plane if Timatic says your documents aren't in order. If you Google "visa (country)", I get eg. visahq.com, passportsandvisas.com, traveldocs.com, visaheadquarters.com, willtogo.com, visaworld.co.uk, etc. Why lists yours and not these? Sure, they have agendas, but that's not a disqualifying factor in itself, and so do you -- selling banner ads. Jpatokal 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Who's site? what? The difference with the sites you have listed is they sell visa services rather than present information. None of them seem to present what I would call useful information. The ones with useful information tend to only have information for US and/or UK citizens. Jpatokal you state, "I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information" Please could you elaborate on this? and yes I have been denied boarding on a few occasions as the Timatic data has been incorrect. At least Timatic now has its data on the internet so I can check in advance and not get caught at the airport. And yes it looks like projectvisa has banner ads, is that the problem here? or is the problem that the world has to follow timatic which represents the needs the developed countries of the world and ignores the undeveloped ones? Just because one source suits your needs?

Timatic suits my needs for the most part but is not helpful for the rest. Perhaps someone has a better link or a solution of where I can get my data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanebb (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually TIM isn't veiled - its a publication its ISSN is 01689665. Not every reliable source is available on the internet - indeed most are not. Are you doubting my veracity again? You seem very keen to assume bad faith on the part of other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

If the external links keep getting changed back and forth I plan to request mediation. Here is an article about resolving disputes Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and this one is about informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --Jagz 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be the only way to solve this issue, perhaps they can look up the definition of visa as well. I don't think this is going to go away but I think we should give Spartaz the chance to give his opinion on both issues before asking for mediation. Shanebb 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, since you prefer to throw allegations of bad faith around rather than comply with core policies and source your edits, I have asked the good people of Editor Assistance to have a look at this. Since you are accusing me of misconduct they are more suited then WP:3O which is better at adjudicating pure content disputes. Mediation is a very cumbersome process and to be avoided unless a final resort. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The IATA database is used by every airline for boarding purposes and is accessed to check over 60m passengers per year. There is an entire team dedicated to collecting and publishing this information.

The below may well be an error (although governments are notorious for publishing incorrect information), but it is of such low importance that no one has ever reported it to IATA. As such, is it appropriate to state that the information may not be up to date and the link removed? I think not! Its a bit like saying that if a child takes a lolly from the supermarket, that they belong to a large mafia crime family... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.59.66 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IATA Link

The IATA link information for Myanmar/Burma states $200 must be changed at the airport on arrival, the data is three or four years out. For the pixies in my head. http://www.asterism.info/info/index.html "Update January 2004 Both FIT and Package visa holders are now not required to exchange US$ into FEC money upon arrival airports in Myanmar. " http://www.travelmyanmar.com/myanmarvisainformation.html "Now things have improved, and neither kind of visa need to exchange any money upon arrival.."

Can a warning be attached to the link or the link be removed please?123.243.218.53 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a visa to go abroad?

Would they accept a Mastercard instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.171.149 (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries want to know what kind of people that visit their country. Visitors can be from "reliable" countries or "unreliable" countries. A person from an "unreliable" country need a visa in advance, a proof that the person is checked, and also a warranty towards the vistior to be allowed to enter so a prebooked and prepayed trip would be destroyed. --BIL (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No moral character

Can someone cite "does not have a good moral character" as a reason to be denied a visa? I'm not saying it's impossible, especially in certain countries (like the communist ones), but anyone reading that will think it's a joke, so it must be properly cited, along with a realistic example. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then the USA must be a certain country like the communist one because their visa application form is the only I know of to include the word "moral".--77.232.15.45 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

International travel without visa

Where can I find a list or map about international travel with visa exemption? Maybe there is even a page within wikipedia?--92.229.66.88 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be very difficult to list or map, as there are 200+ countries and each can have 200+ different entry requirements for others' citizens... Jpatokal (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Exit Visa

Information given is incorrect. "Exit visa" is only required if the passport with the valid entry visa was lost or stolen - the only difference of "exit visa" is that it is issued in Russia. The process is common to the procedure most of countries execute in such situations (also known as visa prolongation). Person who exits Russia without visa is deemed deported and will be denied to re-enter this country. I am deleting this paragraph in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.16.137.12 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Come up with a reliable source backing your claims. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

picture

One of the picture contains the full passport details of somebody. Should be obscured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.246.226 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is done with the permission of this person.Gaz v pol (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pitty that.....

Not many researches have been done in this area http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Immigration+law+visa&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.210.7 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: history

I would really love to learn when immigrant visa have first been introduced to the U.S. This must have been before the 1930ies, since at that time so many jews in Germany were struggling to get one. And the legal foundation must be an immigration law. Does anybody know anything precise? --Stilfehler (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Common visa policy/passport article list view

Currently there are the List_of_passports articles, where is listed for each passport type (citizenship type) where it can go visa-free. Then, there are the Template:Visa_policy_by_country and [1] articles, where it is listed what passports/citizens can enter each country visa-free. I think that it would be good to make such lists with common designs such as the Lists of diplomatic missions to and from each country. Alinor (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to base things on a single template like the diplomatic missions! We might also consider this for template:identity cards (where a similar discussion existed but a very poor name choice and no discussion made it not go anywhere). Two questions: do we also have a standard worldwide template and how flexible are we to customize grouping (e.g. Schengen area, or countries with multiple visa systems like China?) L.tak (talk)

Transit visa

What is the point of transit visa if the person does not pass through immigration control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.137.76 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

To minimize risks of persons from high-risk countries arriving at immigration control and seeking asylum.--77.232.15.45 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocity

From december 28th on, in Argentina will apply the reciprocity criteria with the citizens of countries than requiere visa for the argentines citizens,like United States, Canada or Australia. http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/12/26/um/m-02108238.htm (spanish) --Gonzaloges (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles

Just a general heads up. The above proposal may be of interest to regular editors at this page. RashersDogRusty (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template Visa policy by country

For Template:Visa policy by country (see also here:

Citation Cleanup

The same link is cited over 100 times, can somebody who knows how to do it properly have it consolidated into one reference? 2601:547:F01:3C6C:4C44:2F19:130B:B0FC (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The 8th citation (at the moment of writing this comment) has become a 404 Page Not Found. (this one: U.S. Department of State, K-1 Fiancée Visa) Does somebody know which page it refers to? Could have been moved or deleted. sheep0x (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Visa (document). 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 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: 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 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ranking Systems

This seems to originate from the sources mentioned, but the fact that the two final tables (Visa Restriction Index, weighted visa score) use different systems of ranking (the former uses rank as "the possible scores" and then mentions which countries reach that level, while the latter uses rank as in e.g. most sports as "number of those ahead plus 1") is somewhat confusing. I wonder whether that can be cleared up (personally I would prefer the latter way) without falling afoul of WP:OR --131.169.89.168 (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Timaticweb.com External Links

Links to TimaticWeb.com are all down (ie https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?FullText=1&COUNTRY=SS&SECTION=VI&SUBSECTION=00&user=GF&subuser=GFB2C ). There's no copy of these pages on archive.org due to robots.txt. Anyone want to volunteer and replace all these dead links with another source? CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Informal request for comment

There is a discussion at talk:Passports of the European Union#Passport rankings table should be deleted ... that could do with some fresh eyes, please. --Red King (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No History

I have learn nothing about history from the history section on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.222.50.212 (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New Section: Visa Restrictions & Visa Restrictions Index

I just found out that many countries and visa pages within Wikipedia reference to the Henley & Partners Visa Restriction Index with a hard-reference as a PDF, mostly outdated links from 2012, 2013 and also 2014. Therefore I thought of creating an article about Henley & Partners (still in progress, please help me if you can). Then I started replacing some references and point them to: Henley & Partners Visa Restriction Index, until I was re-thinking of my action and decided to add this topic to this Visa (document) article, which covers the topic Visa in general and also specifically with some subtopics. Therefore I added the category Visa Restrictions, and the sub-category Visa Restrictions Index. I'm now trying to figuring out to link all the articles to this place instead of linking them to the company article (which could be the goal of this visa restriction index anyway, looks like everyone likes to use this index as a reference in their articles (but only a few have reference to the valid report). Hope that my actions are in the favour of the community and we can update this section with the valid link to the report on a single place, rather than updating gazillions of pages which reference sooner or later to outdated PDF links. (so please be careful when editing the category name, thanks) My 2 cents :) --Never stop exploring (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this happened before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henley Visa Restrictions Index, although in 2008. Also I see you've edited a few articles to state how according to and then a link to this article, but it's questionable according to whom it is since H&P only assembles IATA provided data as the report says.--User:Twofortnights (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you User:Twofortnights, will read it now, always open to learn something new. So that was in 2008, now we have 2015 which is 7 years later and I just found out that they publish this report since 2006, which gives them an overall coverage of 9 years in the market. I also searched for alternative visa restrictions indexes, but didn't found any. I wonder how an article which was deleted in 2008 can end up having around 500 WP-Articles referencing to it? I mean, looks like instead of having one article where they reference to their PDF document, they installed (not saying themselves) so many cross-references inside Wikipedia. Not sure if this is maybe spam? Will use my time now for something else until I have a clear head about this. Keep on editing! --Never stop exploring (talk), 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So my key questions are: How can I make the articles accepted by the community? And if people agree, that all that cross-referencing to an outdated PDF does not really makes sense and we agree on keeping the article with reference to the PDF up2date: Is there a mass editing tool, where I can do a search&replace in the specific 50 WP articles or do we have to edit that manualy? Awaiting further instructions/inputs. (talk), 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Huggi, I am not saying the index is not relevant, I am just giving you heads up if the same user who put it up for deletion back then decides to do it again. Personally I'd vote for it to stay, there are dozens of various indexes around the world and if all of them can have an article then I don't see why the visa restriction index shouldn't be here. So that's why I guess I can't tell you how to get it accepted, I would vote "keep", but there are many users around Wikipedia who devote most of their time on deleting and removing other people's work. As for the index itself, I am just saying, it's not their independent research, they base it on IATA information which in turn takes info from national governments. Also I am not sure if we should mention that it is a dense ranking or not. As for the outdated PDF I agree it should be updated but given that they publish these reports in May I don't see the point in doing it now when we are going to change it in a month again. I think you can request that someone runs a bot to replace these, but I've seen people asking for bot assistance and no one would even reply to them so it had to be done manually.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Twofortnights, thanks.
Today I learnt that http://www.traveller.com.au/what-is-the-best-passport-in-the-world-for-travellers-1mm7zl?eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0013-optim-nnn%3Anonpaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-smh-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook there is another Index and they are also starting to add their links directly to Wikipedia, therefore I try to threat them the same as the guys from the Visa Restrictions Index, created Passport Index so far they are only listed in two korean articles, but they gonna enter the same market soon. I think I stepped into a big load of... but whatever, best conditions to learn something new. For the records: The editor who did both edits on the korean sites was: User:Xjaybaby.
Let's stick to established indexes that are frequently cited by main stream media over an extended period of time. Either way no true index can give different numbers if they base their info on IATA which gets information from national governments. So if this other index is legitimate they should show exactly the same numbers as the VRI. This other index doesn't even mention methodology. I will go ahead and remove it.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, in the meantime I just finished replacing all the referenced articles with the new section here (so far no single nation article was reverted, which gives me a little bit hope that I'm doing the right thing here. About the dense ranking I found out, that Ireland and Canada was mentioned it next to the link to the index, all the other nations just used the report as a reference, but I'm sure we can add the meaning of dense ranking to the article as well. --Never stop exploring (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

History of Visas?

How about writing something about when visas (or forms of) have first started to be used? I a pretty sure 100 years ago no one has heard of visas, the passports were just a sheet of paper with a stamp.

Capricornis (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Visa (document) was created some 50-100 years ago, with purpose to 'kick out' tourists/visitors coming from less developed countries, and the reason is "these tourists/visitors have no money, why the hell allow them to visit us?" So, instead of naming it as 'Kick out the poor peoples document', they called it Visa. 118.100.41.140 (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, TRAVEL VISA was created not long ago to welcome only rich tourists. The best way to hide the truth is to not tell the truth and NO HISTORY is the best way to hide the truth. -- Jack William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.45.184 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The visas came together with passports and were a way of their legalization with foreign authorities before an international practice of mutual recognition of passports evolved. For example, a Russian noble wished to travel to France. He got a passport for his family and servants from the imperial authorities. To be legally recognized in France (as well as other countries on his way), his passport had to be endorsed by a French (Prussian etc.) representative in the Russian Empire, who had this document (charta) seen (visa) and provided its translation into French (German) language. Alternatively he could obtain a passport directly from the French embassy.--77.232.15.45 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
European countries mostly introduced visas with breakup of WW I in order to protect themselves from spies.--77.232.15.45 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
As of the US, their consular system was founded by the Immigration Act of 1924. However, the early prototype of immigrant visas may be found in Page Act of 1875 which demanded each Chinese female coming to the US to be interviewed by the US consul in Hong Kong.--77.232.15.45 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Visa processing and why it takes so long and Visa relevance requested

I would be very interested to see an explanation of what the High Commission, Immigration Office,Embassy or issuing authority actually does in order to approve or deny an Visa. For instance I need to get a Visa for travel to India. I am required to send a completed form, a photo of a given size, my passport and money. It takes a minimum of 10 days to process. What are they doing all that time? What do they do with the photo? Why can they not use the passport photo? What are they trying to establish. I am also wondering if in this age of digitized passport and immigration records & databases, Visas actually serve an real purpose other than employing bureaucrats around th world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudcrabwiki (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody put in the lists of health conditions that forbid someone from getting a visa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.220.152 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Travel_visa/Archive_1&oldid=1142780736"