Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus (cleaner first map) ==
Hello, I propose keeping Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus out of the first map, leaving current Schengen members only in the first map. Considering we have the second map for explanation already.--] (]) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:46, 13 June 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schengen Area article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Schengen Area was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism
The article currently states that "when travelling by air between Schengen countries, or within a single Schengen country, identification (usually passport or national ID card) is requested at the airport check-in counters." This is not true in general; at least on some Swedish SAS routes passengers can travel without being identified. A passenger with checked in their luggage, must however prove that he or she also boards the plan by providing a matching fingerprint scan at check-in and boarding.
The article further states: "Also, the nationals who need a visa for Schengen countries are asked to present it together with a valid passport. Although immigration control is generally not applied at points of departure or arrival (essentially, the flight is classed as 'domestic'), this lower form of border control is performed at airport check-in counters." Here, a reference supporting this claim would be most welcome.
Filur (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. I believe the article is wrong in this section. ID card checking is done by many airlines at check-in and/or boarding. However, I don't think that this is any form of border control, but rather revenue protection of the airlines (so that airline tickets cannot be traded). One airline that does not usually check for ID at all for intra-Schengen travel is Lufthansa; neither at check-in (which could be done online or at a check-in machine anyway) nor at boarding (where most other airlines check ID). I will try to change the article. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And I changed it again to say that this is not a general requirement. If someone does not agree, please discuss here. --SmilingBoy (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, there is the sentence "There are air security rules requiring this for passengers with check-in luggage." - can this be confirmed by any references? I have often checked bags without being checked for ID - I will therefore remove this for now. --SmilingBoy (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
My experience in Sweden is that they always ask for id (I have only flown internationally inside Schengen, the last few years). Anyway, all recommendations say bring a passport or national id, even if it is not always checked, or other identity documents might work. Since most Swedes and all Norwegians do not posess a national id card, the concept of passportless Schengen travel does not work for them, since a passport should be brought anyway. --BIL (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
ID is required as a general requirement (including by Lufthansa) for intra-Schengen travel from (but not to) GReece). As I understand it, the normal rules of ID proof are abolished for countries that, at a particular time, are considered to be a route for smuggling and asylum-seeking. Temporary abandonment of the free movement provision is anyway permitted, but this is a more minor derogation than that. I presume it is permitted in the Border Code. Xenos2008 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No visa required for Moroccans of the Tétouan and Nador regions to enter Ceuta and Melilla?
According to this website Moroccans from Tétouan and Nador are able to enter Ceuta and Melilla without a visa. They nevertheless are not able to travel to any other Spanish or Schengen territory. How is this compatible with Schengen rules? If this is a true story, I think it should be included in the article.
Quote:
Ressortissants marocains de Tétouan ou de Nador
Les ressortissants marocains, qui résident dans les provinces de Tétouan ou de Nador et qui désirent entrer exclusivement sur le territoire des villes de Ceuta et Melilla (les deux enclaves espagnoles en territoire marocain) sont exemptés de visa. Toutefois, l'Espagne maintient des contrôles d'identité et de documents sur les liaisons maritimes et aériennes en provenance de Ceuta et Melilla qui ont pour destination une autre partie du territoire espagnol ou un autre État Schengen.
Has the Schengen exemption for 1st batch of Caribbean countries kicked in?
There was talk that some of the CARIFORUM (Caribbean Community + Dominican Republic) countries that signed on to the Economic Partnership Agreement with the E.U... would be granted Visa free travel to the E.U. area? The last sources I saw said said it should have been approved by the end of March 2009.
, .
Anyone know if this has entered into force as stated? CaribDigita (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I work for the Seychelles Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe the Agreements were signed on thursday 28th May 2009. Seychelles was included along with a few carribean countries. once the legal and practical formalities have been sorted, it should be aright by the end of June. For countries which has done all of these , then it should take effect 1st June.Hansel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.137.155 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've altered the table too. Nobody knows whether Ireland will join. Grouping it with Liechtenstein, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, which are actually putting the scheme in place, makes no sense. --86.25.238.241 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Faroese and Greenlandic visas
It says in this article that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are de facto members of the Schengen Area because of the lack of passport control. But I would say that they only are partially de facto members, because of different immigration rules.
If you're a non-Nordic citizen not needing a visa for the Faroe Islands or Greenland, you must leave the areas within 90 days of arrival unless you get a residence permit.
If you're a non-EEA, non-Swiss citizen not needing a visa for visiting a Schengen country, you must leave the Schengen area within 90 days of arrival unless you get a residence permit.
If you're an EEA citizen visiting a Schengen country, you must leave the Schengen country within 90 days of arrival unless you have some kind of financiation and a place where to live. Exceptions: Nordic citizens may stay in other Nordic countries regardless of whether they have some kind of financiation or a place where to live. In the case of Switzerland, some kind of permit is needed for staying longer.
I seem to understand that the 90-day periods for Schengen, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are separate from each other, whereas there is a common 90-day period for all Schengen countries for non-EEA, non-Swiss citizens. So you may stay in Schengen for 90 days, and directly after that you may stay in Greenland for another 90 days.
A visa for the Schengen Area doesn't give access to the Faroe Islands or Greenland. A visa for the Faroe Islands doesn't give access to the Schengen Area (uncertain if it gives access to Greenland). A visa for Greenland doesn't give access to the Schengen Area (uncertain if it gives access to the Faroe Islands).
So there are some differences, and they may cause some trouble to some people, especially if a visa is needed. This doesn't seem to be clearly explained in the article. (130.237.223.128 (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC))
You're partially confusing the Schengen Area with Freedom of Movement. Schengen only means no border controls. It doesn't mean that people have the right to stay in any particular country once they're there. I take your point on visas. Are you sure that going to the Faroe islands is really treated as leaving the Schengen Area, given that such an exit would be unlikely to be marked on a passport? Are there any group of people who wouldn't need a visa to go to a Schengen country, but who would need one to go to the Faroe islands? — Blue-Haired Lawyer12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have a residence permit in either area, but you wish to go to the other area, you need a visa. If you are resident outside of Schengen/FO and plan on visiting both, you seem to need two separate visas. So FO doesn't participate in the Schengen common visa stuff. Visas are required for the same groups of people, though. As far as exiting an area, well, look at the Nordic Passport Union and the Common Travel Area, for example. No border control, but still it counts as if you leave a country (and need another visa). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Liechtenstein
The article states that Liechtenstein will join the Schengen Area by november 2009, but this is not true. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (the biggest opposition party) blocked the Swedish ratification of the agreement between EU and Liechtenstein already in May 2009. Therefore Liechtenstein won't be able to join the Schengen Area until the country cooperate fully with the European Union in economic issues. Source (in Swedish). --Glentamara (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently a date of "2011" is put in the article with no source and sources in the Liechtenstein section (from 2009) point for "Swedish/German block because of lack of tax-evasion cooperation" (or similar). So, we should either have some more recent source about "Sweden/Germany approve Liechtenstein Schengen membership, to happen in 2011" - or we should put one dash "-" for date with a link to the Liechtenstein section where the "Swedish/German block" is explained. Alinor (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Confusing section
In the table I find this confusing comment for Ireland:
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.
This suggests that the UK has implemented the whole treaty and that it has been put into effect. Nowhere close to the comment does it say that only a subset applies to the UK. But how can this be made more clear?
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.
But then it implies that the other parts of Schengen have been implemented in Ireland. Hm...
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council unlike for the UK, where parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council unlike for the UK, where these parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.
List of current Prum signatories (the article currently list only the original signatories)? Also the link Prüm Convention redirects to Schengen Treaty, but the Prum treaty is actualy described in more detail here (Schengen Area) and not there. Alinor (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Status of Ireland
I made a grammatical change to the following:
"Ireland made a carbon-copy request to that submitted by the United Kingdom which was approved by the Council of the European Union on 28 February 2002. However, this has been put into effect, with the result that there is no legal obligation on any other EU member state to cooperate with the Irish police force on matters of Police and Judicial Cooperation."
As you can see, I added "not yet" to the phrase "However, this has been put into effect," as it seemed to me that the references pointed to Ireland having approval to implement these rules, but the country has not done so yet. Furthermore, the use of the word "However" suggests that a negative phrase was expected here, not a positive.
In any case, I welcome the insight of anyone else who has been working this page and subject longer than 'moi'... William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd previously deleted the words "not yet" on the basis that it assumes that Ireland will eventually put these measures into effect, when we don't have any sources that say that will happen. — Blue-Haired Lawyer23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree that "yet" implies to some extent that there is an assumption that Ireland will eventually put these measures into place, but I question (from a long distance) that there are no sources that it will ever happen. Please see the source referenced in this article at :
"Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed."
Here, Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform) states that these requirements "are currently being progressed." Are we talking about two different things here? Or would you prefer just the word "not" as opposed to "not yet"?
You are technically correct that Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Jersey are not part of the U.K. However, given that they are Crown Dependencies, that the UK provides for their defense, that they are located in very close proximity to the Schengen Area, and that most Misplaced Pages readers would have no idea of this subtlety and so would assume that they are part of the UK, leaving their names here is probably a good idea. I'll add to the footnote to clarify this.
I had a look a the table you are discussing here. It uses different background colors for some rows. There is no legend for this coloring scheme, and it is also not clear to me how such a legend would look like. If no clear definitions can be given, I would remove the colors. Tomeasy T C21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if any great description for the colors need to be given: the white background is clearly for countries that have fully implemented it, the beige/tan background is for the country that has partially implemented it, and the grey backgrounds are for countries that have not (yet) implemented it.
To me, this is obvious from a quick look at the table, and further clarification isn't needed.
Obvious? The table has four colors, not just three. That is, I can't even decipher which of the four colors your three explanations refer to. Conclusion: it's not obvious at all.
In general, it is a bad idea to use a color code without definition. It might be obvious to some (especially when not looking critically), but it might also appear be arbitrary to others. Most importantly, it is not verifiable. Tomeasy T C07:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see that there is a pale tan, which I didn't notice at first (blame my monitor, which doesn't reproduce it well, so it looks a lot like white when you're scrolling through the table)...and I agree that the purpose of that color is not as clear - they are full implementations but have footnotes.
You are correct that it is poor style to communicate content solely through color - because the visually impaired might not be able to read the color properly. But the colors here clearly were only meant to augment the textual content, not provide independent content.
In this case, for me, the various colored backgrounds really serve more to help read across the line, rather than convey any information...you know, the way that "green bar" computer paper would alternate between green and white lines so that it would be easier for the eye to read to the right a long distance across the page.
So, I invite you to do one of three things: (1) create a color legend (as soon as you figure out what the pale tan is for), (2) delete all the colors all together, or (3) delete these colors and just have each row be a white background alternating with a very pale grey background, for ease of reading in a long table...
@JLogan. I see that you have reintroduced the colors, but unfortunately your legend does not work - at least not on my sytem. Tomeasy T C01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
@Logan. I endorse your recent changes to split the table up in two: Members and future members. Somewhat critical I find the listing of the UK and especially Ireland in the table for members. I mean, Ireland explicitly opts out of Schengen.
The other thing I do not like is your edition to the map in this section. Basically, we have now the map from the infobox repeated here with a very bad formatting (e.g., Ireland written in blue on green background). The style of the previous map was much better, I find. it cleanly showed the Schengen area as one zone. I also do not understand why the map needs to have clickable labels for all countries. I want to go back to the old map, and correct its errors. Tomeasy T C18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, okay sorry for not writing on here sooner. First thing, Ireland in blue? It is defiantly in green and I've no clue why it would show up differently. What browser are you using? Tried refreshing? Second issue. It wasn't su much clickable I was going more, more labeled. Having a massive blue zone isn't helpful for saying who the member are - some people won't know countries well by names and seeing them helps understanding. The old map only really told you what countries weren't in. As for duplication, I'm going to change the infobox map for the old one. - J.Logan`: 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Please try to understand: "Ireland written in blue on green background" That is, the map uses a blue font on green background. This is just very badly implemented. See also the purple font for Germany on blue background or Poland written in light blue on blue background. This is almost not readable and looks more than awful, and why is Poland treated differently than Germany in this context here anyway. Tomeasy T C19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh right, now that is odd. The font code is meant to over-write the natural link colour. Could you just refresh, I did some clean up a few minutes ago on that code, is it still like that right now? And again, what browser are you using?- J.Logan`: 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, much better now, since all labels use white font. Have you tried using black font? In that case you might be able to avoid the awkward backgrounds?
Black doesn't look so good on those colours and backgrounds are best as going over the borders and different colours can make it look unreadable in areas. Best to be consistent.
Bloody IE! Okay I haven't a clue about that, I'm going to have to ask SSJ if he knows what I've done wrong.- J.Logan`: 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"However, according to the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), this use of “due to” as a compound preposition “is now widely current” in spite of H.W. Fowler’s objection to it in his 1926 book, Modern English Usage, that “due to” was “often used by the illiterate as though it had passed like ‘owing to’ into a mere compound preposition”. "
and
" The online American Heritage Dictionary (2000) and Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary express a similar opinion, with the latter saying:
“‘Due to’ is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognised as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid ‘due to’.” "
So, rather than start an edit war, can we just acknowledge that going through Misplaced Pages article by article changing "due to" to "owing to" is not really a productive exercise, when there are so many other far worse issues to address?
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above about how Sweden blocked the ratification of the accession of Liechtenstein to the Switzerland treaty, I've been trying to find more recent information but it is difficult. What I infer is that under the Treaty of Lisbon (in force December 2009), unanimous consent of EU members is no longer necessary for treaties of this sort, and therefore Sweden's parliament will no longer be able to prevent Liechtenstein from joining the Schengen Area. Is that correct? It looks like on April 26, 2010, the Council of the European Union released two draft decisions on this matter and sent them to the European Parliament for its consent. However, from those pdfs (the second is a corrigendum) it is hard to tell whether they are draft decisions or true decisions. —Mathew5000 (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
French Overseas Departments and Territories
It states on the table that these are not part of Schengen, however, nothing is mentioned in the article about this. Additionally, they are not specially coloured/mentioned in the schengen visa map, something that surely should apply if they are not part of Schengen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood the colours:
Blue: the country/territory is part of the European Union, so a person holding citizenship in this country/territory doesn't need entry/exit stamps when entering/exiting the Schengen Area. Blue is used for all EU countries, including Schengen non-members such as the UK. People from many of these locations may use a national ID instead of a passport to enter/exit Schengen from/to certain other locations.
Light blue: the country/territory is not part of the European Union, but a person holding citizenship in this country/territory still doesn't need entry/exit stamps when entering/exiting the Schengen Area. This colour is used for both Schengen Area locations (e.g. Switzerland) and for other locations (e.g. Liechtenstein). People from many of these locations may use a national ID instead of a passport to enter/exit Schengen from/to certain other locations.
Green: not part of EU, no visa needed to enter the European Union, but the person will get entry and exit stamps. Apart from the Croatian exception mentioned in this article, entry requires a passport (national ID doesn't work).
Red: not part of EU, entry requires a visa.
Additionally, "blue" and "light blue" passport holders may use the priority queue available at some border crossings, whereas the "green" and "red" passports holders have to use the slower "all passports" variant. (213.100.156.114 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
I do not see in how far the IPs response addresses the issue raised by Davis. I agree that the article does not answer questions related to these territories, e.g., as a holder of a Schengen visa, can you enter? Tomeasy T C16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
As it abundantly clear from the legend on this article the red-ish coloured states are states which cooperate with the Schengen rules by implementing certain part of the Schengen acquis. The UK does this and Ireland doesn't, so the UK should be coloured red and Ireland should be coloured grey. — Blue-Haired Lawyer13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you add a couple of sources to this statement please? I find it hard to believe that the UK and Ireland would implement different schengen stuff, they being themselves a smaller version of schengen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Checking the note for ireland, it appears that Ireland has applied for the same cooperation as the UK, mainly police and judicial. I recommend adding a clarification to the pictures subtitle than changing the map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have read the discussions page, and I'm not the only one on there who disagrees with it. Cooperating with Schengen doesn'tmean the same as full engagement, nor does it require ratification of the treaty. UK and Ireland are in Common Travel Area which agrees with Schengen. You are the one who is wrong. Fry1989 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Minister's statement (12/2009) says that Ireland hadn't yet completed all the prerequisites fo acceptance into the system: In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed., so BHL may still have a point. --Red King (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, he may have a point. I do think though that they are obviously doing their best to help schengen, and being part of the common travel area with the UK, they must be already at least partially fulfilling their role in a de facto if not official sense. The problem here is that it is a map, which usually presents things in black and white. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As there are different levels of cooperation perhaps it would be best just to colour the UK+ROI as "not members" or "opted out of Schengen zone" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ireland is an EU member and consequently participates in lots of programmes which concern criminal and civil law. These are fairly wide ranging and include stuff like prisoner transfer, the European arrest warrant, choice of law in contract law, tort and family law, rules on the processing of asylum and subsidiary protection applications. However these areas do not form part of the Schengen acquis. They formed part of the EU's former third pillar which can be traced back to the Maastricht Treaty before Schengen was integrated into the EU.
Parts of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 were enacted facilitate Ireland's participation in the Schengen acquis but I can't see how these can be functioning when the decision on Ireland's participate in the Schengen acquis has not yet been brought into force. This seems reasonably apparent from the Act itself:
'14 (3) The following provisions of this Act give effect to Council Decision (2002/192/EC) of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, in so far as those provisions relate to mutual assistance in criminal matters:
(a) paragraph (c) of the definition of "criminal proceedings" in subsection (1);
(b) subsections (1) and (2) of sections 74 and 75;
(c) section 82(1)(b).'
The Common Travel Area is not what Fry appears to think it is. There are no common rules. It does not exist as an entity separate from the UK and Ireland. I'm not even sure if he realises that there are systematic border controls between the Schengen Area and the Common Travel Area.
"Cooperating states" as a map label is vague and unhelpful. What we have sources for is that the UK participates in the police and judicial cooperation aspects of Schengen, while Ireland doesn't.
I think I'm leaning toward BritishWatcher's thinking here. Cooperation or not, neither Ireland nor the UK are part of the Schengen Area, nor are they likely to be any time soon. Having them coloured in is more likely to mislead than to inform. — Blue-Haired Lawyer15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe change the label to opt-out? That way the map shows the expansions limits, as it already shows the future members (in green). I don't think there are any other EU states with optouts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noting here at the end for anyone new that the map has been replaced by one which doesn't mention the UK or Ireland. They could possibly be included later, when the complicated bureaucracy of ireland allows it! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually what I've done was to have one map (the one in the info box) just showing the Schengen Area (and countries joining in the near future). And another more detailed and clickable map which Ireland and the UK shown as non-Schengen EU members. I don't propose to change this even if Ireland implements police and judicial cooperation.
Colouring in Ireland and the UK on the main map may have given some users the misleading impression that those countries participate in the Schengen Area or had open borders with it. In reality, police and judicial cooperation is not hugely significant and not all Schengen members participate in it.
I am still at a loss to explain why Fry1989 wouldn't let me show that while Britain had implemented police and judicial cooperation, Ireland hadn't. But the current set-up appears to be acceptable anyway. — Blue-Haired Lawyer14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The "date of first implementation" header in one of the tables isn't accurate. Many countries joined Schengen in three steps:
Schengen visa whitelist and blacklist implemented
Schengen visas issued & border controls removed from land borders
Border controls removed from air borders
The countries joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 implemented the first step immediately upon joining (so that was the "first implementation") and later implemented the other things ("second implementation" and "third implementation"). However, the table shows the dates of the "second implementation" for these countries. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC))
Ireland PJC implementation
A somewhat confusing notes were added to the UK/Ireland PJC implementation table:
Ireland: "Signed by President 17 Oct, 2009. Legal effect: 01 Dec, 2009.; Upon the entering into legal Force of the Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) amending the treaties of the European Union &c., being the same one the Irish Republic voted on twice, as a "Nation" (once again?)"
What is this supposed to mean? Some discussion about the two ToLisbon referendums, "once again" question marks, etc.???
Anyway, I am not sure that ToL ratification has anything to do with PJC implementation. The link supplied gives the following relevant info: "Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed." So, it applied in 2002, adopted requirements, the Council is currently evaluating the adoption - and eventually will take a decision for PJC implementation with Ireland.
I will remove the mumbo-jumbo from the table as there is no Council final decision for the implementation (in contrast to the UK). Anyway here is some material added simoultanously with the table changes, that was subsequently removed:
"Unfortunately, the name used by the Irish Republican government for the 'Schengen Implementing Convention on Police & Security' is not the same name as that which every other member-state of the Union refers to it. Namely, the Irish government cites this entry to the law register as: “ Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam ”. This had the effect that the Irish government neglected to communicate the passing in the House of Legislature of this request (for the evaluation of a de-facto operating participation). Nine months following the laying of the document requesting the necessary evaluation according to the Law, attorneys for the European Commission who deal specifically with this area of the law and with the Irish Republic in this specific matter were still no made aware the request being made the previous April, in the Irish Houses of Parliament. " Alinor (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
To avoid confusion due to incorrect terminology, readers may need to know that the Irish Republic legally ceased to exist when the Irish Parliament ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. So when Alinor refers to "Irish Republic" or "Irish Republican government", he means "Ireland" and "the Irish Government". --Red King (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The Western Balkan states
I think this section should be updated. Today (8 November) the EU interior ministers decided to lift visa requirements for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Piasoft (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a border between Gibraltar and Spain. The border guards should check your passport (or ID Card for EU nationals). Gibraltar BorderCiprian.Enache (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There's actually 3 border posts going from Spain to Gibraltar: first you meet Guardia Civil (Spanish military police/gendarmerie) that can check goods and passports, then Policia Nacional that checks passports and finally UK Border Agency for entry into Gibraltar. Going Gibraltar to Spain you have Policia Nacional checking passports and Guardia Civil checking passports and goods.
Accession of Liechtenstein — sourcing
The current version of the article is citing a 2009 Forbes article for the statement "In 2010 Liechtenstein has begun revealing information about assets of EU citizens." It goes on to make the unsourced statement "This should speed up the Schengen process."
I don't think Liechtenstein is a member of the Schengen Area, yet. According to this official source the procotol on the accession of Liechtenstein to the Schengen Area has yet to enter into force. It will enter into force on 7 April 2011.Glentamara (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, europolitics is not an official source and you cannot trust everything they write. The approval of the accession and the accession are not the same thing! --Glentamara (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Liechtenstein protocol was ratified on the 7th of March 2011 by the EU Council of Ministers on behalf of the European Community and the EU itself (press release: ). Apparently the protocol will enter into force on the 7th of April 2011, as mentioned in this link (which Glentamara provided above), which agrees with this Liechtenstein govt press release ("die Protokolle werden voraussichtlich am 7. April 2011 in Kraft treten") (alternate source for press release: ). However, Liechtenstein won't become part of the Schengen Area until completion of an evaluation process in the areas of data protection, police cooperation, and SIS/SIRENE. The government anticipates this in the second half of 2011. —Mathew5000 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2009-06-09.160.0 (Minister of State (Government Chief Whip), Department of An Taoiseach; Minister of State, Department of Defence; Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure, 'a proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis'. A copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 2 April 2009.
Please fix the dead link "Stories from Schengen: Smuggling cigarettes in Schengen Slovakia". The link for "Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union, Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC" no longer appears to connect to the correct page and also needs to be updated. Done – – Plarem 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There are sections where lists are used and prose would be preferable. For example, the "The Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention" section, the "European Union Regulations" section and the "Legal basis of the Schengen rules" could be rewritten as prose. Done
Similarly, the frequent use of sub-headings impedes the readability of the article by presenting the information in a choppy fashion. I'd recommend reducing or entirely removing subheadings in the Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area, Status of the European microstates, Regulation of internal borders, and Police and judicial co-operation sections. Done but I can't sign myself here, because I did not do it.
The table showing current Schengen area countries could be revised to remove the largely unpopulated "exempted territories" column, shifting that information to the footer section. The information in those footers might look better in a separate Notes section at the bottom of the article. Done – Plarem 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is not adequately cited. I'd recommend a reference at the end of each paragraph at minimum (and this only when that reference supports all the preceding information in the paragraph up to the previous ref provided). Done all the tags. – Plarem 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It would have taken you less time to just improve the article by removing the spaces and bringing it into compliance with the MOS than by arguing with me. Do you care more about the quality of the article or having a little GA symbol at the top of it? Nobody said I'm going to fail the article if you don't comply with my suggestions, but frankly when you argue back with me about every little suggestion it makes me not want to bother volunteering my time to review them. Please understand that the review process is voluntary for the nominator and reviewer alike, and is meant to strengthen the quality of the content on Misplaced Pages. Most nominators are eager to make improvements to the article under review regardless of whether it's GA or FA. Your cooperation when the requests are not unreasonable helps to keep this voluntary system operating to improve the quality of articles on Misplaced Pages. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
From WP:WIAGA: 6: Illustrated, if possible, by images. Done
Your version: "Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?"
Please don't get hung up on the phrasing of that point in this template (which another very experienced reviewer created and which is frequently copied and used by myself and others on this site). I'm an experienced reviewer and editor here and know that a lack of images is no reason to fail an article when no relevant images are available. And you have images, anyway, so you don't need to be concerned about that. But I may tweak the wording in this template to avoid arousing concerns in the future. Thank you for bringing your observation to my attention. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What you need to do is let me know whether the page is truly dead, in which case the link can be kept. However, in the case where the url has merely changed, it simply needs to be updated and archived. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You said that the page is in a choppy fashion. Would you like it if all the page were one long, boring page without sub-headings?
I'm telling you that at times it's not easy to read as written because the text is broken up quite a lot. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the purpose of a peer review is to get an outside opinion on whether the article meets the standards of GA. I'm providing you that feedback here so that the article can communicate the information as effectively as possible to a wide audience, which I'm sure you want. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Here I can agree with you. I was incorrect to ask for references to back up all the content of the article, although doing so would enable your readers to educate themselves more completely about this topic you are clearly so interested in. But for GA, Misplaced Pages has set a low minimum standard for citations, which you certainly have the right to meet and not exceed at this stage. I'm sure you'll do it well if/when you decide to take this article to FA. All that being said, the article is still inadequately referenced per the GA criteria. I've provided indications where a citation is needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules. – Plarem 09:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Because all statistics need to be cited, even per GA's minimum standards. I indicated where there was a statistic that needed to be cited using the tag. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, what would be helpful is if you could tell me how you approached the citations in this article. And did you provide most/all of them, or were many added by other reviewers? There's a certain lack of consistency and if that wasn't your intention we could look at it together. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually didn't do any significant work on this article, just a spelling mistake from time to time; all the work was done by other reviewers, I just nominated it. – Plarem 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That explains a lot. Normally the primary contributor nominates the article. You'll want to identify that person and leave him or her a note on his/her talk page to notify that the article is under review. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And don't say that this is not official. This was in WP:WIAGA#See also.
And last, but not least... From the intro of WP:WIAGA:
A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
This is to be a Good article, not a Featured article.
I hope that this will help you and change your comments.
Oh, and also, please use the GA review cheat sheet for easier reading and leave ANY comments in the comments section. Remember that you leave your comments after my ones. User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet for the GA review cheat sheet.
Also, this cheat sheet help info is not official. I personally use the cheat sheet, but not the helping info in it.
Now, since we got most of the stuff cleared up, I have to ask, is everything on this page REALLY neutral? – Plarem 15:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Second opinion
Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.
Ok, that is fine, it will leave us, (me and primary contributor) less work to do at a time... – Plarem 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
History -
The first paragraph is vague. It states at the start: "The Schengen Area came in existence on 26 March 1995 when the Schengen Agreement along with its implementing convention was implemented by the five original signatories ..." "along with Portugal and Spain who signed subsequently" and then "Italy and Austria joined during 1997". So when did Portugal and Spain sign? Done – Plarem 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the first sentence is unnecessarily vague. The statement "With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the agreement became part of the acquis communautaire of the EU in 1999." is followed by "After the accession of Greece in 2000, the countries comprising the Nordic Passport Union...followed in 2001.". This appears to suggest that: (1) the Nordic Passport Union followed Greece into the EU, (2) Greece joined the acquis communautaire in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001, (3) Greece joined the Schengen Area in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001. Who did what, when and let's have a reference for the claims?
I seem to have reviewed the version that existed on 13 September 2011. This shows the changes that have occurred since then. I tend to review corrective actions using Firefox (Windows works as well, but I don't use it) with at least three tabs open: the version of the article that I reviewed, the /GA1 page, the current version of the article and often the reference open (if its a web page). Reviewing is not particularly easy if it is done in any depth, but that is not a valid reason for not reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a comment in the first paragraph: "De facto, the Schengen Area also includes several microstates that maintain open or semi-open borders with Schengen countries.". This needs an explanation and, as its not obvious, a citation is needed. - Note this is covered later in the article so perhaps a note to that effect might be sufficient. Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Done Cited and all, so no problems with that one – Plarem 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph is unreferenced. Done – One sentence paragraph, so one reference needed. – Plarem 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Current - Done
Looks OK.
Prospective -
This subsection has an outdated box dated September 2011.
Ref 9, used twice, states that Cyprus will not join before 2010. Well we are now three quarters the way through 2011. Did they join and if not, what's the situation?
There is an abbreviation, non-EEA nations, that is undefined. Presumably there is an EEA, it should be defined? Done – Plarem 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
A citation is needed for the claim: "France also has several territories which are neither part of the EU nor the Schengen Area.". Done – Plarem 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the final paragraph fully reflects the complexity of "VAT". Europe does not appear to have imposed standardised rates of VAT, so for instance there are limits within the EU for the quantities of alcohol and tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, etc) that can be brought across the boarders of some internal countries. Any person bringing significantly more than the "so-called limit for personal consumption" into the UK (from Europe and/or from outside Europe) would be likely to face criminal charges for smuggling and evasion of tax. A company moving these items for commercial/retail sale would need the correct documentation, as would transfers between Europe and EFTA countries. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that this issue belongs into the article, as it does not have anything to do with Schengen internal or external borders. This does not have too much to do with borders and border control, but rather with taxation, which is not regulated by Schengen rules (although by EU law). It is correct that different VAT rates may be imposed by the EU Member States, albeit the general VAT rules are harmonized. For intra-EU movements, the rule of thumb is that commercial purchases are Value Added Taxed in the state of the recipient, while private purchases (with the notable exemption of new cars) are taxed in the state of purchase. The same applies to other taxes, as on spirits, beer, or tobacco products. In case of a commercial purchase, the supplier has to know the VAT ID of the recipient, has to report the transaction with that ID to his own state's tax agency, and the commercial purchaser has to declare the purchase and pay VAT in his own state. The transaction reports are regularly exchanged between the EU Member States through a central data exchange maintained by the EU, while private purchases remain anonymous. Nothing at all will be handled at the border. The only purpose of the "limit for personal consumption" is to separate the two sets of cases and procedures by shifting the burden of proof. To take your example - if a UK consumer can provide proof that he takes a huge amount - beyond the limit for private consumption - of beer and wine from France to the UK for personal purposes, e.g. to host 3,000 guests in his home at a garden party, he would still only have to pay French and not UK taxes. Nevertheless, there are no instituted taxation procedures established at any EU internal border. At manned borders, as at the Channel Tunnel, security and other officials, of course, are not obliged to turn a blind eye on suspicious movements of goods, and may well file reports to taxation authorities, or even seize goods if the have reason to believe that taxes are being evaded. From a practical perspective, it would be advisable for the said UK citizen to notifiy the taxation authorities of the planned import in advance of the actual movement of goods, to convince them that the import will be private, and to carry some official letter in order to convince security staff at the border that the movement is not carried out in a clandestine manner, and that some competent authority is dealing with it, whatever would be the outcome. However, any search, control, and seizure of goods at an internal EU border is no ordinary procedure connected with crossing a border, but a procedure which any constable would have to initiate on the same suspicion in the heart of London, as well. --DanSchultz (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Controversies -
Danish customs controls -
Ref 49 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed.
Ref 51. Blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources, however this is a blog by a Commissioner of the EEC on an EEC web site. As such it is not properly cited: only the date and title is given. The author and publisher are missing.
Same comments apply to refs 52 & 53.
These points cannot be fulfilled it the author/publisher/date are not listed on the page. Just noting. – Plarem 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please bear in mind the date of my review: work has been done on the article so the ref numbers have changed. Ref 49 is now 55, 51 is now 58, etc (see my comment above in History). The "missing" information is provided on the four web sites, it's just that the editor(s) who added the references did not correctly reference the four citations.
The issues identified by Pyrotec above have not been resolved. The editor(s) will need to fix the citations here before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Here it states: "Border guards are required to stamp the travel documents of third-country nationals ..... , aircraft crew members or seamen are exempt from this requirement and their travel documents should not be stamped.. What the reference actually states: (Not to stamp) pilot's licences or the certificates of aircraft crew members, travel documents of seamen who are present in the territory of a member state only when the ship calls in and in the area of the port of call, to the travel documents of crew and passengers of cruise ships who are not subject to boarder checks in those cases provided for in Point 2, Section IV." This is Not a particularly accurate summary, i.e. what is claimed in the article is not fully supported by the citation.
Most of this section, five subsection out of seven, is unreferenced and is therefore unverifiable.
I agree that additional citations would strengthen the article and particularly to enable readers and reviewers to verify the contents. Much of the content of this article lies outside the realm of "common sense" and so could be considered debatable content requiring additional referencing. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Legal basis of the Schengen rules - Done
The text looks OK, however since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.
I will clarify/re-phrase my comment: words used in the article's title should not be used in the section titles unless (there is a get out clause: it's clearer) (See WP:HEAD. "Schengen" appears in the article's title so it should not appear in the section titles (unless it's clearer). The section could be titled "Legal basis", "Legal basis of rules". You can object if you like but "it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' –" is not a valid basis for objecting. The only valid objection is that the section title is clear when Schengen appears in the section title. Decision for lead reviewer, to take. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. Arguably, it does both. Its possibly a bit "thin" as a summary but not sufficiency so to raise a corrective action.
Thank you, Pyrotec. I'm in the process of moving overseas in the next few days and things have been a little hectic. Your detailed comments will be a great help in improving this article and moving the review toward completion. I'll check back in a day or so to see whether the nominator has addressed these points. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lemurbaby, I hope the move overseas goes well. I'm in Europe with no computer access, rather the the UK, for much of what is left of September so I'm trying to close off in the next few days two GANs reviews that I'm placed On Hold. That's why I was intending to leave the decision on pass/fail/hold to you as lead reviewer (it's your call anyway), but I will be back on wikipedia in October. Pyrotec (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The edits to the prose have created some new problems in terms of style, clarity and grammar. I'd like to see this article undergo a copy edit by a neutral third party. I'd also like to see the nominator address the remaining points Pyrotec raised above, particularly in regards to the sections where no citations are provided. Since this information does not fall into the "common sense" category and could be contested by a reader, providing a source to allow readers to verify will contribute to the quality of the article. I will put the article on hold until the copy edit and remaining revisions above can be completed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
In light of the non-action of editors in line with the suggestions identified above over the past two weeks, I cannot award GA at this time. Much hard work has been done in this review process and I thank you both, Pyrotec and Plarem, for your contributions to improving the article. I hope it will be renominated once it's gone through a copy edit, ideally a peer review as well, and the issues identified above have been addressed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco heliports
What's the rules on helicopters going from outside Schengen to San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco ? My guess is that for San Marino and Vatican State, they have to land in a international airport (that is not in San Marino and Vatican State) and do passports checks there. Because air planes, helicopters and boats are generally required to report to a border control if the arrive into the Schengen area, and I assume San Marino and Vatican State can't do this. For Monaco I assume the rules for the seaport are valid, that is helicopters can land in Monaco and be checked there. What are the rules ? --BIL (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt San Marino and the Vatican have that many options for international travellers to go directly to them. Monaco is treated just like any other city in Schengen, with normal border checks etc., although they're carried out by the French authorities rather than the Monegasque ones. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
National Identity Cards - how necessary within Schengen area?
It's always better to travel with ID but I'd like to see a list in this article with the Schengen area member countries that actually rquire foreigners from within S.A. to bring their IDs with them. i'd also like to know what are the consequences of not having ID card while random control. Can a persn be sent back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.96.155 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There are no border controls so a person could not be refused at the border and "sent back" for not having any identification with them. Member States (for example Belgium) sometimes have national laws which require everyone to carry identification with them at all times; however, this is a domestic requirement that applies to everyone, not just foreign nationals. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
yes, there are no controls on the borders but they can still happen anywhere on the EU territory. I read that in Slovakia Poles had to pay fine for not taking their IDs with them even though the two countries had already been in Schengen area and Slovakia doesn't require to carry ID all the time like Belgium. The other source also says taking ID is compulsory. BTW what happens when a foreigner in Belgium is stopped by a police without ID? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.154.203 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In most countries, any foreigner needs a passport or national id card, even if not needed for residents. The police can fine them, and also possibly ask for the identity and check it with the police in the visitor's home country, which means being locked up in the police station for hours.--BIL (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Liechtenstein is a member, just as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, that doesn't mean it should have the same colour as Switzerland on the map (yet). The difference is implementation, not membership.
The map under "History" is wrong. Liechtenstein hasn't implemented Schengen yet officially, yet, it is marked with the purple colour assigned to Schengen members outside the EU. It will do so on December 19th. Why do people have the urge to change maps before accession? It already had the dubious but true tag of "outside, but set to join (non-EU)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
"outside (EU)" is meant to be short for in the EU but outside Schengen, but it's obviously fairly confusing. The older image label was "EU member states outside Schengen". I'll revert. — Blue-Haired Lawyer13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it was confusing, and now that Liechtenstein has joined, the number of label types could be decreased. Anyway, I increased the sizes of the explanatory labels at the bottom again, and did some other fiddling with the labels. Actually, I'll just copy my edit summary here: increased size of explanatory labels; changed text colour of "Set to implement later" label to black; improved positioning of some country labels; abbreviated "Switzerland" and "Liechtenstein" labels; added explanation of latter to explanatory labels. Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I honestly fail to see what was wrong with a line break in "Switz- erland", "Liech." as an abbreviation for Liechtenstein, or which an image legend with the same font size as the labels. What's so wrong with the now reverted version of the template that needs changing? — Blue-Haired Lawyer12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It'd be nice to have Switzerland and Liechtenstein consistent. "Switz." and "Liech." or "Switz-br-erland" and "Liech-br-enstein". I'd opt for the former. It's a clickable template, after all. CMD (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
What was wrong was that the name labels were huge in comparison to the area of country as represented on the map. Perhaps you would also like to change "Lux." to "Luxembourg" on the map? For my part, I fail to see what was wrong with making the text of the explanatory labels bigger for improved legibility. I also fail to see what was wrong with adjusting some of the label positions on the map, so as to unhide countries where possible, as in the cases of Slovenia and Cyprus. Instead of reverting all the edits someone else has made because you dislike one or two of the changes, it might be more productive to undo those specific changes you disagree with? You might at least have preserved my change of making the text colour of the "Set to implement later" label black, for (a) better legibility, and (b) to match the text colour of the labels on the map. Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see that you brought back a couple of the changes I did. I made the "Set to implement later" label's text black. Perhaps this is a compromise we can all live with? Teemu Leisti (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Candidate countries shown on both maps?
Originally titled "Future Members" and "Funny future members"
map of the EU article - no candidatesmap of the NATO article - no candidates
Referring to Romania and Bulgaria, we don't know what future brings, you mean candidate? according to the EU, there is no candidate status in Schengen membership. They just give decisions in EU meetings to let them in or not. As far as I remember, France blocked Romania entrance last year, so it's an error to conclude that they are really future members. Even if they become a member, why do we show them on the main map of Schengen Area? .. For instance, on the article of EU, they don't show candidate countries on the main map. Misplaced Pages only shows the members of NATO on NATO article, EU members on EU article. Another thing is, Cyprus doesn't even have any intention to join Schengen. Croatia does. But Croatia is grey and Cyprus is green. Can anyone explain this? I propose to change the main map to existant Schengen members only ----Camoka4 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, the entry into Schengen is part of their accession agreement to the European Union (the Schengen acquis). The moment this is factually realized is however not the moment of entry into the EU, but some later moment. They (Ro, Bg, Cy) do therefore have a status which is legally closer to the area than other countries and showing them on the map makes sense. I am open however to other indications instead of "candidate".... L.tak (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, they aren't just candidate countries, their EU accession treaties legally oblige them to join the Schengen Zone. Croatia's accession treaty hasn't been ratified yet, but once it has a legally binding agreement to join Schengen we can colour it green as well. I agree that it would be better to label these states as "Legally obliged to join" or something else better than "Future members". TDL (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ro, Bg and Cyprus should be kept out of the first map completely (like NATO, EU and ASEAN article examples), in the second map you can give details about them "legally obliged to join in the future" or something. The first map should be smooth and clean about the current members. UK was kicked out of the first map too.--Camoka4 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Camoka4's wrong when it comes to comparing the Schengen Area to the EU, NATO or ASEAN. Bulgaria and Romania are not candidate countries for Schengen. They have legally signed up to it, they're just awaiting technical approval and operate the Schengen visa list. This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
TDL, in any case, it doesn't make any sense to show them in the first map, since we have the second map to explain this all. It was the reason why UK and Ireland were removed from the first map. I'm excluding Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus from the first map until they effectively join Schengen Area. If they show candidate countries in the first map, why do we have the second map for? Camoka4 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that they can be dispensed off in view of the second image. Still prefer the one with the "prospective" members though in view of the legal requirement. I will not undue the change therefore, but please be a bit more patient when introducing changes; there was no clear consensus yet when you did! L.tak (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi L.tak, I think everyone here agrees that the main map should only include current full members. Thank you for helping to solve this issue. --Camoka4 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
now reverted in view of the clear lack of consensus and because the change as it was implemented (by changing the image) affected over 10 language versions...). L.tak (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Other languages have already been changed regarding the topic. Schengen Area main map will be implemented as NATO and EU. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Please don't make it sound like a fact, but obtain consensus. I operate according to the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (that is: you are bold, which is good, I revert, which is good as well, and then we discuss, which is great). While that is happening, please do not re-add your change, your changes but see if there is consensus. I think Blue Haired Lawyer was quite clear here that it wasn't there! !!!! (my link to WP:BRD) L.tak (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you know/understand English? THE FIRST MAP is Schengen members only (example I posted NATO map, EU map). THE SECOND MAP ALREADY includes the EU outside Schengen countries, Schengen countries outside EU, pending members, etc, the things you want. It has been doing fine over a few days, so it's nothing new anymore. Regarding other languages, (btw I see you are trying to change the subject) , they have already adjusted to this change. Please stop acting like a lunatic, and behave. Thank you. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Camoka4, please re-read the discussion above. There is no consensus to make the changes you are pushing for. I suggest reading WP:BRD for an explanation of how the editing process works here on Misplaced Pages. Until you get a consensus on the talk page to make the changes, L.tak is following the proper editing procedures in reverting your edits. Also, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are not helpful to the discussion. TDL (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi TDL, I tried to talk with L.tak to understand his concerns, but he seems to be non-responsive although I know he has read my messages. What should I do now?--Camoka4 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
You should self-revert to the consensus version before your changes were made and continue the discussion here. Barring that you are likely to be blocked for edit warring. TDL (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I would self-revert if L.tak would respond to my messages on his talk page. He reads but doesn't answer, (same for TDL) which means he doesn't have a good faith. Regarding your last comment, you are more focused about other user's ban (obviously very happy about it too) but can't bring any argument against the change, the question arises: What can you do when the other side keeps vandalizing and keeps silent on talk page. This has been the longest talk topic of this article ever, no argument has been brought about why we should not make the edits I proposed. I am interested to understand the concerns, I am here to listen. But there is no-one writing any argument, except the user TDL writes complaint letters and gets happy about possible banning mechanisms. There is definetely an attitude problem here.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"Which means he doesn't have good faith"? See WP:AAGF. Also, you've made the edit seven times today, and it's been reverted each time by multiple editors; L.tak isn't the only one that's disagreeing with the edit, which means that L.tak isn't the only one to discuss this with. L.tak's points above are sound, and although I'm sure you believe that you refuted these points, the consensus seems to be that this is not the case (a consensus which I agree with). Ask for your question about vandalizing: see WP:NOTVAND. I don't see a single instance of vandalism here, a disagreement over content is not vandalism. - SudoGhost23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, L.tak is the user that disagrees with the edit, because there was no problem for a few days first. The other users started to jump in when they saw the edit war. The problem is L.tak doesn't give any argument and he doesn't seem to respond my messages on his talk page, although he reads them. The thing is there is no argument against the change.How do you explain that? I Think there are more things going on behind the scenes. --Camoka4 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't give any argument? Read this discussion again then. Not acknowledging a comment doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very, very obvious that L.tak isn't the only user that disagrees with the edit. - SudoGhost23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is a qoute from Blue-Haired Lawyer ....This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK.— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:10, Sudo, do you know english? I know he disagrees the edit, I said I don't know where is he when I invited him to solve his concerns? he READS my comments but doesn't reply. Maybe I could find a solution with him if he had replied indeed. Did he hire you to debate on talk page? Where is he? --Camoka4 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Candidate or Future member or Legally bound to join
Blue haired lawyer I opened a new chapter for you regarding the name of Ro and Bg. I am also against calling Romania and Bulgaria as "future candidates". Everyone is kindly invited to share his/her opinion at the subject. --Camoka4 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I think candidate doesn't do, as it "failing/not joining" (a possibility for a candidate) is not allowed because of the Acquis requirements. What about: "Future enlargement"? Other ideas are welcome! L.tak (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.251.57 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus (cleaner first map)
Hello, I propose keeping Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus out of the first map, leaving current Schengen members only in the first map. Considering we have the second map for explanation already.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done
09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done – Plarem 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg)
Thank you for helping to solve this issue. --Camoka4 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
